1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Norway has a population of 5.0 million[1]  and an area of 323,787 km2 (mainland and islands).

Norway is divided into 11 River Basin Districts (RBDs), of which 5 are international RBDs  (IRBDs) because they share a small area with neighbouring countries (Sweden, Finland and Russia). Norway shares minor parts of 6 IRBDs with neighbouring Finland and Sweden. Finland and Norway share the three large River Basins Tana (Teno), Neiden (Näätämöjoki) and Pasvik (Paatsjoki) in the northernmost region. Norway has a small part of the Torne river on its territory.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) (Area including coastal waters) || Countries sharing RBD

NO1101 || Møre and Romsdal || 25441 || -

NO1102 || Trøndelag || 47229 || SE

NO1103 || Nordland || 68291 || SE

NO1104 || Troms || 36549 || FI, SE

NO1105 || Finnmark (including Norwegian parts of Tana, Neiden and Pasvik). || 64382 || FI, RU

NO5101 || Glomma || 47683 || SE

NO5102 || Vest-Viken (West Bay) || 39002 || -

NO5103 || Agder || 21048 || -

NO5104 || Rogaland || 12722 || -

NO5105 || Hordaland || 18440 || -

NO5106 || Sogn and Fjordane || 23771 || -

NOFIVHA5 || Kemijoki || 28 || FI

NOFIVHA6 NOSE1TO || Torne River/Tornionjoki || 181 203 || FI, SE

NOSE1 || Bothnian Bay || 975 || SE

NOSE2 || Bothnian Sea || 4688 || SE

NOSE5 || Skagerrak and Kattegat || 7436 || SE

Table 1.1: Overview of Norway’s River Basin Districts

Source: Draft River Basin Management Plans[2]

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

2

km² || %

Pasvik/Paatsjoki || NO1105 || FI, RU || 19 || 0.1

Naatamo || NO1105 || FI || 553 || 20.5

Teno/Tana || NO1105 || FI || 11314 || 31.0

Kemijoki || NOFIVHA5 || FI, RU || 27 || 0.1

Torneälven/Tornionjoki || NOFIVHA6 NOSE1TO || SE, FI || 284 || 1.0

Signaldalselva || NO1104 || SE || 1471 || 97.0

Malselvvassdraget/ Malangen || NO1104 || SE || 6774 || 97.0

Skjomavassdraget || NO1103 || SE || 1436 || 90.0

Luleälven || NO1103 / NOSE1 || SE || 758 || 3.0

Umeälven || NO1103 / NOSE1 || SE || 268 || 1.0

Piteälven || NO1103 / NOSE1 || SE || 113 || 1.0

Angermanälven || NO1102 / NOSE2 || SE || 1597 || 5.0

Indalsälven || NO1102 / NOSE2 || SE || 2153 || 8.0

Dalälven || NO1102 / NOSE2 || SE || 1465 || 5.0

Hellemovassdraget || NO1103 || SE || 1543 || 99.0

Kobbelva || NO1103 || SE || 956 || 99.0

Fagerbakkvassdraget || NO1103 || SE || 1002 || 98.0

Saltelva || NO1103 || SE || 1861 || 94.0

Ranavassdraget || NO1103 || SE || 4227 || 94.0

Rossaga || NO1103 || SE || 2559 || 93.0

Vefsna || NO1103 || SE || 4021 || 88.0

Verdalsvassdraget || NO1102 || SE || 1595 || 94.0

Stjordalsvassdraget || NO1102 || SE || 2231 || 98.0

Nidelva || NO1102 || SE || 3368 || 92.0

Glomma || NO5101 || SE || 42591 || 99.0

Klarälven/Trysil - Göta alv/Vänern Göta/ (including the Sub--basins Norsälven/Byälven/ Upperudälven) || NO5101 || SE || 8187 || 16.0

Haldenvassdraget/Enningsdal || NO5101 || SE || 1935 || 77.0

Strömsan (Sub--basin of Haldenvassdraget) || NO5101 || SE || 5 || 2.0

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Norway[3]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

Norway is connected to the European Union through the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). Norway transposed the Water Framework Directive (WFD) into national legislation (the Water Regulation) in January 2007, and performed a voluntary implementation of the WFD in selected sub-districts across the country from 2007 until 2009, thus gaining experience of river basin management planning and enabling Norway to take part in the sharing of experiences in the Common Implementation Strategy. Pilot River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) for the selected pilot sub-districts were adopted by the regional County Councils in 2009, and approved by the national Government in June 2010.

The WFD was formally taken into the EEA-agreement in 2009. EFTA-counties reporting obligations are to the EFTA Surveillance Authority(ESA).According to decision no 125/2007 of the EEA Joint Committee, the EEA/EFTA countries have extended deadlines for the implementation of the articles of the WFD. As a consequence, Norway intends to prepare and report ‘official’ RBMPs covering the entire country in 2015, synchronised with the time schedule of the second cycle of implementation in the European Union (EU).

Pilot RBMPs were reported to the EFTA surveillance authority 3rd September 2010: Møre and Romsdal, Trøndelag, Nordland, Troms, Finnmark, Glomma, Vest-Viken (West Bay), Sør-Vest (South-West) and Vestlandet (West Coast). Sør-Vest has since then been divided up into Agder and Rogaland. Vestlandet has been divided up into Hordaland and Sogn and Fjordane. Information has been reported by sub-district within the Pilot RBMPs and it should be noted that the sub-districts (and therefore the Pilot RBMPs) do not cover the whole of the geographic area of each RBD.

The Pilot RBMPs have been adopted by regional county councils and approved by the government, the latter through a Royal decree. The  adopted Pilot RBMP and the Royal decree together make up the approved Pilot RBMP that forms the basis for the relevant planning and implementation activities by national, regional/county and local/municipal authorities. The responsibility for implementing the necessary legislation and measures lies with the authorities concerned, in line with their existing legal and administrative responsibilities, and final/detailed decisions on measures are mandated by the sectorial legislation.

The major strengths of the Norwegian Pilot RBMPs found in the assessment were:

· The national technical guidance documents on ‘Classification of ecological status’ and ‘Characterisation of the RBD’ are particularly useful and comprehensive. From these it is clear that there has been active participation of Norwegian experts in the CIS process on these topics. This should ensure that these aspects when fully implemented will be technically best practice and will produce comparable results with EU Member States.

· The Pilot RBMPs are well written and illustrated with the content closely following the required elements as given in Annex VII of the WFD.

· Work on national adaptation to climate change is in progress.

It should be noted that Norway’s Pilot RBMPs are well written and structured. Norway is clearly following the approach of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) and processes are in place that should ensure that comprehensive RBMPs are reported in the future.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

According to the EEA agreement, Norway will fully implement the Directive with a different timetable. Norway intends to prepare and report ‘official’ RBMPs covering the entire country in 2015, synchronised with the time schedule of the second cycle of implementation in the European Union (EU). Norway has however chosen to develop 9 Pilot RBMPs in parts of each River Basin District in the first cycle. The timetable was as follows:

· 2007: Formation of cross sector RBD Water Boards and Consultation on Work Programme.

· 2008: Consultation of Significant Water Management Issues.

· 2009: Consultation on Draft River Basin Management Plan (end of June 2009), and adoption of Pilot RBMPs by County Councils (September/October 2009).

· 11 June 2010: Approval of Pilot RBMPs by national Government by Royal Decree.

3.2 National administrative arrangements

A national approach is followed for the implementation of the WFD. The Environment Agency (Miljøverndepartementet) is the responsible authority. The coordinating responsibility is delegated to the Agency/Directorate for Nature Management (Direktoratet for naturforvaltning). The work on national level is carried out on two levels:

1. The Committee of Ministries (8 ministries) covers the overall issues that include integration issues concerning several departments;

2. The Committee of Agencies (Directorates) (12 agencies) develop guidelines and coordinate the work on agency-level;

3. The National reference group is connected to the Agency group to secure information and participation of branch organisations, NGOs and the civil society at large.

3.3 RBD competent authorities

A number of relevant sector authorities have been involved at different levels: Fisheries, Coastal management, Food and Agriculture, Nature management, Pollution and Climate, Health, Energy and Hydropower,  Transport, Reindeer management, Sami council, Cultural heritage Mapping Authority, Geological Survey, Mining, County and Municipal councils. Public participation has taken place by NGOs for farmers, forestry, industry, hydropower, fishery, tourism, environment, Sami people and the Norwegian Geological Survey. However, the participation differs between RDBs. The RBD Competent Authority is managed by the VRM (vannregionmyndighet), which has the overall responsibility and is led by the County Council.

The VRM should 1) co-ordinate the RBMP planning process, 2) set up and run the RBD Water Board (VRU - vannregionutvalg) including regional authorities and municipalities, as well as a Reference Group for public participation at RBD level, 3) follow up authorities with responsibilities, 4) divide the RBM in sub-districts, 5) have an up-to-date overview of the status of the water bodies, 6) develop environmental objectives for the water bodies, 7) develop the Programme of Measures (PoM), 8) develop a (Pilot) RBMP, 9) facilitate participation of all stakeholders, 10) be in charge of the consultation and 11) co-ordinate work with neighbouring countries.

The regions are further divided into sub-districts (vannområder) with local Water Boards  (VOU - vannområdeutvalg). The VOU should carry out a significant part of the practical work on a local level through characterisation, developing environmental targets and measures, evaluating cost benefits, developing and carrying out monitoring, and developing the local plan as part of the regional plan. All interested parties are invited to take part in the local Water Board to take advantage of local knowledge, increase the motivation to carry out the work, identify undesired effects and to develop trust, ownership and support.

The detail on the sub-district plans appears to be comprehensive in terms of those addressing sectors and those addressing water management issues, although the Pilot RBMPs would benefit from clarity in terms of describing the authorities involved and the scope of their responsibilities (technical, administrative and geographical).

Information should be included on Strategic Environmental Assessment. This is missing from the Pilot RBMPs but is an important tool for 'advising' the PoM.

There would be advantages if the RBMPs included details of the consultation process and, in particular, the impacts of consultation on the measures or other elements of the plan. Some of the Pilot RBMPs include part of this information but further information could be included in annexes to the Pilot RBMPs.

Comment: Tana, Neiden and Pasvik RB are shared with Finland, but have not been managed as IRBD in the first cycle.

Figure 3.3.1: Map of Norwegian RBDs

Source: Map provided by the Norwegian Authorities

3.4 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

The RBMPs submitted are draft Pilot RBMPs that have been adopted by the appropriate County Councils, and then approved by Royal Decree by the Norwegian Government.

3.5 International co-operation and co-ordination

Five of the eleven RBDs are to a small extent shared with Sweden, Finland or Russia (see Section 1). In addition to the eleven mainly Norwegian RBDs, there are six RBDs that are classified as international RBDs but no pilot international RBMP (IRBMP) has been submitted by Norway. Contacts have been established with neighbouring countries, and some co-ordination has been in place for the Pilot RBMPs, but it is unclear how much co-operation is taking place. The 3 large River Basins Tana, Neiden and Pasvik that are shared with Finland should be of special concern due to their significant size. Efforts should be put into ensuring the correct and mutual management of IRBDs for future RBMPs.

3.6 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

The methodology used for the consultation process was generally consistent across all RBDs in Norway, and follows the requirements of the Norwegian Planning and Building Act as well as the WFD. The consultation process on the draft Pilot RBMP was carried out through a number of different tools, including meetings, written consultation and web based comments. Information on the consultation process could be obtained through the internet, direct mail to local authorities and other stakeholders and advertised in the press. The stakeholders involved in the consultation included a wide range of sectors, such as agriculture, energy, fisheries, industry and NGOs. Involvement took place through both regular and ad-hoc meetings. It is not clear whether there is continuous involvement of these stakeholders or the general public. The comments provided led to adjustments of the Pilot RBMPs, but did not change the selection of measures used. The information provided varies in completeness between Pilot RBMPs.

3.7 Integration with other sectors

The Pilot RBMP contains links to other sectors such as agriculture, the chemical industry and rural and urban planning but the links could be made clearer.

To ensure sufficient sector integration, a Committee of Ministries has been established, chaired by the Ministry of Environment. The Committee of Ministries settles political issues concerning cross sector integration in water management. It embraces a total of eight ministries: Environment; Petroleum and Energy; Fisheries and Coastal Affairs; Trade and Industry; Health and Care; Transport and Communication; Agriculture and Food; Local Government and Regional Development. To assist the ministries at national level, a Committee of Agencies (Directorates) has been established, chaired by the Directorate for Nature Management. This Committee of Directorates has been delegated the task of preparing national guidance for the River Basin Districts and  ensuring administrative co-operation across sectors. It also organises the annual National Water Environment Conference and the national web-site Vannportalen. The Committee includes 12 central government agencies. The Committee of Directorates also has a National Reference Group allowing for the participation of national industry associations, NGOs and civil society representatives.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

Each of the eleven RBDs in Norway has rivers, lakes and coastal waters but no transitional waters have been defined. No reasons are given in the Pilot RBMPs or supplementary guidance for not delineating transitional water bodies. This should be justified and explained in future RBMPs.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

A report referred to in the characterisation guidelines states that “This report presents the revised typology for Norwegian lakes and rivers, after further statistical analysis of the type-specific flora and fauna in water bodies assumed to be in reference conditions”. This suggests that the typology for rivers and lakes has been tested against biological data. No other relevant information was found in the Pilot RBMPs. The classification guidance indicates that “type parameters and categories for each parameter are selected partly on the basis of Annex II of the Directive and partly from the multivariate analysis of biological data on the different natural environmental gradients”. On this basis it is assumed that coastal waters are also tested against biological data.  Reference conditions were developed based on a spatially based method using existing data, and are described for all water types and quality elements apart from benthic invertebrates in rivers, and fish in rivers and lakes. 

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

NO || 27 || 21 || - || 23

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types

Source: Draft RBMPs

For rivers and lakes, 27 and 21 types were defined[4] respectively, based on information such as geology and size. For Coastal waters, 23 types were defined[5] based on factors including salinity, mixing characteristics and ecological region. The reference conditions have been developed through a Nordic effort that has been adapted further for Norwegian conditions.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

Small water bodies (smaller than the size criteria in Annex II) have been included in the Pilot RBMPs. A minimum size threshold has been set for each category of surface water: a catchment area of 10 km2 for rivers (WFD criterion) and a surface area of 0.5 km2 for lakes (WFD criterion) and coastal waters.

RBD || Surface Area of Catchment (km2) || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional Water Bodies || Coastal Water Bodies || Groundwater Bodies

Number || Total Length (km) || Number || Total Area  (km2) || Number || Total Area  (km2) || Number || Total Area (km2) || Number || Total Area (km2)

NO1101 || 25,441 || 1120 || 23,598 || 394 || 396 || N/A || N/A || 235 || 6989 || 116 || 295

NO1102 || 47,229 || 2203 || 64,215 || 742 || 1340 || N/A || N/A || 351 || 16,241 || 182 || 705

NO1103 || 68,291 || 1422 || 58,542 || 661 || 1519 || N/A || N/A || 532 || 31,691 || 157 || 266

NO1104 || 36,549 || 763 || 34,020 || 269 || 525 || N/A || N/A || 160 || 11,565 || 67 || 328

NO1105 || 64,382 || 1312 || 56,773 || 789 || 1127 || N/A || N/A || 204 || 15,518 || 136 || 754

NO5101 || 47,683 || 1490 || 55,563 || 518 || 1614 || N/A || N/A || 38 || 1708 || 241 || 1526

NO5102 || 39,002 || 2287 || 54,230 || 747 || 1976 || N/A || N/A || 76 || 852 || 155 || 372

NO5103 || 21,048 || 1380 || 32,218 || 521 || 1101 || N/A || N/A || 160 || 1619 || 42 || 99

NO5104 || 12,722 || 670 || 59,631 || 324 || 413 || N/A || N/A || 124 || 3001 || 40 || 128

NO5105 || 18,440 || 1048 || 24,306 || 536 || 434 || N/A || N/A || 142 || 4226 || 42 || 77

NO5106 || 23,771 || 1359 || 25,537 || 461 || 669 || N/A || N/A || 129 || 4977 || 59 || 139

Total || 404,558 || 15,054 || 488,633 || 5962 || 11,114 || N/A || N/A || 2151 || 98,387 || 1237 || 4689

NOFIHA5 || 28 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0.8 || N/A || N/A || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NOFIHA6 || 181 || 4 || 1.1 || 1 || 0.9 || N/A || N/A || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NOSE1 || 975 || 87 || 1125 || 66 || 255 || N/A || N/A || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0.2

NOSE1TO || 203 || 21 || 164 || 5 || 3.6 || N/A || N/A || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NOSE2 || 4688 || 247 || 8200 || 55 || 127 || N/A || N/A || 0 || 0 || 13 || 54

NOSE5 || 7436 || 317 || 8119 || 107 || 464 || N/A || N/A || 0 || 0 || 24 || 166

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: Draft RBMPs

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

All Norwegian Pilot RBMPs follow the same outline and national approach, see Guidelines for characterisation of water bodies[6]. This national guidance document outlines the method for analysing the pressures on water bodies. This analysis, with any information on the state of water bodies, is used in the risk assessment described in the national guidance. An overview of the main pressure types and activities potentially affecting water bodies is also provided in the national guidance document. No criteria are given that are used to identify significant pressures. However, criteria are provided for the identification of water bodies at risk of not achieving WFD objectives by 2015/2021. Many of these are qualitative, some are more quantitative, and others are based on degraded quality of the water body based on existing national classification systems.

The most significant pressures identified are summarised in each Pilot RBMP and include e.g. sewage treatment, landfills, agriculture, forestry, fish farms, hydropower, mines and atmospheric deposition of pollutants from other countries. Biological impact factors such as Gyrodactylus salaris infections, escaped farmed fish and alien species are also mentioned as important pressures in some Pilot RBMPs but the Royal Decree clearly states that biological impact factors should not be included for coastal waters in the Pilot RBMPs or PoM. The reason for this decision is unclear. Future RBMPs must encompass all significant pressures, including biological impact factors in coastal waters.

Point source and diffuse source pressures   are assessed by a combination of spatially based methods and expert judgement, but no thresholds are given. Only water abstraction for public water supply is considered.

In terms of hydromorphological pressures, reference is made to the (numeric) criteria used for the identification of heavily modified water bodies. The revised national Guidelines on characterization[7] have a section on the impacts and effects on the aquatic environment and the steps of the impact analysis are listed. The first step is to identify potential impacts on ecological and chemical status in the water body. Each factor potentially affecting the water body is ranked as unknown, insignificant, small, medium, large or very large. The impact can be assessed on the basis of monitoring, research, predicted effect, professional judgment or on other grounds. Guiding criteria is tabulated for the assessment of risk in surface waters for use when there is a lack of biological data from the effected water bodies.

The sectors listed as contributing significantly to chemical pollution include: industrial emissions (directs and indirect discharges), households (including through sewage treatment plants), atmospheric deposition (long range transported pollutants), transport network, contaminated land and mines.

4.5 Protected areas

All RBDs have protected areas (e.g. for drinking water, national parks, recreation, fish and habitats) but these have only been specified for the sub-region described in the Pilot RBMPs. The level of details provided varies between Pilot RBMPs.

5. Monitoring 5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

The monitoring guidance recommends which quality elements (QEs) should be monitored for operational purposes in relation to pressures in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. The monitoring guidance indicates that if surveillance monitoring were to be undertaken and reported in the Pilot RBMP all required QEs would have been monitored. But there is no information as to whether surveillance and operational monitoring programmes have yet been implemented systematically across Norway.

There is very little information on monitoring in the Pilot RBMPs but regional and national monitoring seems to be in place for some parameters. There is no information as to whether surveillance and operational monitoring programmes have yet been implemented systematically across Norway. In the areas within RBDs that have been monitored (as test cases) it appears that only operational monitoring of surface waters has been undertaken. This may be because surveillance monitoring is undertaken by national authorities. However, the operational monitoring that has been undertaken appears to be in relation to the identified significant pressures and includes pollutants in sediment, biota and water.

There was only very little biological monitoring data, and it was not clear how BQEs had been selected. It is not clear if all relevant quality elements have been monitored.

No information was found on grouping of water bodies for monitoring.

More detailed information on monitoring programmes should be provided in future RBMPs and it should be made clear what is monitored for surveillance, operational, and investigative purposes, and by whom.

It should be made clear whether all relevant quality elements are being monitored, if reference conditions have been established for all surface water types, and to what degree the assessment of ecological status is based on actual monitoring data.

The various sources of information indicate that delays in the implementation of monitoring plans have resulted in the first generation of management plans and action programmes being based on very little monitoring data, especially biological data. This implies that the status of  and risks to water bodies may not have been fully established in relation to the significant pressures, and that not all relevant pressures have been identified. In turn this may mean that measures may not have been correctly and efficiently targeted.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

The location of the few groundwater monitoring sites is indicated in the RBMPs but it is not specified whether they are used for surveillance or operational monitoring. It is generally stated that pressures putting GWBs at risk should be included in chemical operational monitoring.

It is not clear how parameters in the operational monitoring programme are chosen to detect the existing pressures.

Norway's groundwater monitoring programme is not implemented in a way to detect significant and sustained upward trends in pollutants in terms of chemical status.

There is very little information on groundwater quantitative monitoring. Water level is mentioned as a monitored parameter.

In the frame of a Nordic cooperation inter-calibration of groundwater monitoring systems and methods for the chemical monitoring of baseline conditions was carried out. There is a map included in the RBMP indicating the monitoring stations established for setting the reference conditions in transboundary groundwater bodies.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

There are no specific monitoring programmes for surface water drinking water protected areas other than what is usually monitored for drinking water quality. The number of monitoring sites located in protected areas is not reported.

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

RBD || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

NO1101 || 57 || 1108 || 450 || 88 || 28 || 18

NO1102 || 327 || 1724 || 784 || 251 || 110 || 99

NO1103 || 44 || 688 || 261 || 171 || 45 || 1405

NO1104 || 90 || 212 || 81 || 44 || 14 || 751

NO1105 || 30 || 543 || 94 || 25 || 1 || 1621

NO5101 || 211 || 847 || 492 || 177 || 55 || 264

NO5102 || 402 || 1339 || 937 || 205 || 48 || 179

NO5103 || 58 || 454 || 966 || 419 || 75 || 89

NO5104 || 49 || 368 || 402 || 170 || 46 || 83

NO5105 || 32 || 656 || 565 || 315 || 25 || 133

NO5106 || 32 || 760 || 993 || 107 || 4 || 53

Total || 1459 || 9180 || 6000 || 2094 || 464 || 4854

Table 6.1:  Ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in 2012

Source: Draft RBMPs

RBD || Good || Failure to achieve good || Unknown

NO1101 || 11 || 25 || 1713

NO1102 || 25 || 16 || 3265

NO1103 || 4 || 6 || 2605

NO1104 || 8 || 9 || 1181

NO1105 || 65 || 16 || 2224

NO5101 || 38 || 11 || 1997

NO5102 || 57 || 18 || 3035

NO5103 || 70 || 35 || 1956

NO5104 || 14 || 18 || 1086

NO5105 || 22 || 5 || 1699

NO5106 || 71 || 5 || 1873

Total || 409 || 149 || 23495

Table 6.2:  Chemical status of surface water bodies in 2012

Source: Draft RBMPs

RBD || Good quantitative || Poor quantitative || Unknown quantitative || Good chemical || Poor chemical || Unknown chemical

NO1101 || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 116

NO1102 || 61 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 182

NO1103 || 69 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 157

NO1104 || 0 || 0 || 67 || 0 || 0 || 67

NO1105 || 0 || 0 || 136 || 0 || 0 || 136

NO5101 || 32 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 240

NO5102 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 155

NO5103 || 26 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 42

NO5104 || 0 || 0 || 40 || 0 || 0 || 40

NO5105 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 42

NO5106 || 42 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 59

Total || 264 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1274

Table 6.3:  Quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies in 2012

Source: Draft RBMPs

Total number of water bodies || Good or better in 2021 || Possibly at risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || At risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || Unknown

24053 || 12867 || 2608 || 8293 || 285

Table 6.4: Surface water bodies: overview of expected status in 2021

Source: Draft RBMPs

Total number of water bodies || Good or better in 2021 || Possibly at risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || At risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || Unknown

1275 || 760 || 357 || 39 || 119

Table 6.5: Groundwater bodies: overview of expected status in 2021

Source: Draft RBMPs

Some of the total values do not match the sum of the individual RBDs. The reason for this is unknown but all of the data in Section 6 has been extracted from vann-nett.no in July 2012 for the individual RBDs and for the whole of Norway.

Figure 6.1: Status of surface waters in 2012

Source: Draft RBMPs

Figure 6.2: Status of surface waters in 2021

Note that “status” of less than good status water bodies has been expressed in terms of risk of not achieving environmental objectives rather than in terms of expected moderate, poor or bad status. The comparison of less than good status in 2012 and 2021 should be treated with caution.

Source: Draft RBMPs

Figure 6.3: Status of groundwaters in 2021

Source: Draft RBMPs

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters 7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

The assessment of ecological status generally follows a national approach. The assessment methods for classification of ecological status are only partly developed for rivers, lakes and coastal waters for the biological quality elements and only partly developed for the supporting physico-chemical quality elements in rivers and lakes. Assessment methods for coastal waters are reported to require updating to meet WFD requirements. There are methods for supporting hydromorphological quality elements in rivers and coastal waters but none for lakes. At present, there are no complete classification systems for all national water body types in rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Therefore the ecological assessment methods and classification need to be further developed to fully meet the requirements of the WFD.

EU Member States are required to develop national environmental quality standards (EQSs) for significant non-priority specific pollutants. Norway has an ‘old’ assessment system with EQS values for some national specific pollutants but it was not possible to determine whether this is WFD-compliant. More information on how national EQSs have been derived and applied should be reported in future RBMPs.

No information was found as to whether, or how, water bodies have been grouped for the purposes of monitoring and classification of status. The methodology used to deal with uncertainty in classification results is also unclear. More details should be reported on these important aspects in future RBMPs.

The class boundaries for good ecological status (high/good and good/moderate) for the biological quality elements (or their sub-components) are consistent with intercalibrated boundaries given in the Intercalibration Decision. This reflects the active participation of Norway in the relevant CIS Working Groups.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

NO || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

How the methods have been applied is unclear from the RBMPs. It is not clear if all relevant quality elements have been used for the ecological status assessment of surveillance monitoring sites, and if the most sensitive biological quality elements have been selected for ecological status assessment for operational monitoring sites.

Status results have been reported as High, Good, Moderate, Poor or Bad but no indications are given of what has caused a less than Good status. There are no indications that river basin specific pollutants are responsible for a less than Good status.

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

All Norwegian Pilot RBMPs have water bodies that could be identified as Heavily Modified or Artificial but some have only been assigned as candidates and are awaiting final decision.

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

The number of designated or candidate HMWBs has been reported in some Pilot RBMPs but are missing in others. The data available on the national WFD website (vann-nett.no) suggests that information is generally lacking.

The Pilot RBMP states that HMWBs can be designated where the water use is listed as navigation, storage for drinking water supply, storage for power generation, flood protection or impounded by railway. The physical modifications leading to designation may include locks, weirs, dams, reservoirs, channelization, dredging, bank reinforcement, land reclamation, abstraction or intensive land use.

A whole section is available in the national document on "Method for characterisation of water bodies in Norway", but unclear if this is the same method as the Commission’s HMWB Guidance N° 4. There is a 4 step process as detailed in the national Guidelines for characterisation. The steps are: Step 1 - A preliminary identification of a HMWB is made based on the criteria set out in the national guidance document and is reported as part of the characterisation. Step 2-  The ecological status of the water bodies identified in step 1 is assessed. Water bodies that have an ecological status far from good might be set as candidates for HMWB. This will also form the basis for the analysis of measures. Step 3-  The final designation of HMWB is made on further evaluation of the value the modification has to the society and any mitigation measures available. This evaluation should be carried out together with the Pilot RBMP. The designation of HMWB and associated environmental targets should work as guidelines for the authorities. Step 4 - Evaluation by authorities. Increased knowledge and information during the period will clarify if the water body is a HMWB, what the environmental targets should be (to achieve Good Ecological Potential or GEP) and establish suitable measures. Changes will be included in the revised RBMP. Uncertainty in relation to the designation of HWMBs is not discussed in the Pilot RBMP.

The Pilot RBMP does not include details on the test used to identify ‘significant adverse effect on use’ or the criteria used to define significance. There are also no details on the analysis of alternative options for WFD article 4(3)b.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential

No information was found on the two key designation tests for HMWB (‘significant adverse effects of restoration measures for Good Ecological Status’ and ‘better environmental options’). Future RBMPs should provide information on the approach used to designate HMWBs on the basis of these tests which are explicit Articles of the WFD.

No information was reported or found in supporting documents on the definition of GEP. Future RBMPs should explain the methodology used to define GEP for those water bodies identified as heavily modified (and artificial).

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has asked Norway to clarify how the pre-existing legal framework will be used or adapted to secure compliance with the environmental ambitions and periodical review foreseen by the WFD for existing hydropower, as regards revision clauses and revision of terms, revision of licensing terms, as well as certain provisions under existing legal instruments.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

This has not been reported.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

There is no clear evidence whether the EQSs from the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC) are practically applied in Norway.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

An overview of information on chemical status and data on priority substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status was not available.

9.3 Other issues

No information was found on the use of mixing zones.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

The assessment of groundwater status is generally lacking, only 1 out of 1275 groundwater bodies (GWBs) has been assigned a chemical status and 264 have been assigned a quantitative status. Groundwater is not used in a large extent in Norway.

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status 

There are 4 criteria for quantitative status detailed in the national Guidelines on classification. Good quantitative status is achieved if: 1) the abstraction is not decreasing the water level permanently, 2) the abstraction will not affect the water balance of surface waters associated to groundwater in a negative way, 3) abstraction will not result in saltwater intrusion, and 4) abstraction will not affect groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems in a negative way. It is not clear if this has been implemented in the Pilot RBMPs. The definition of 'available groundwater resource' and the assessment of the balance between abstraction and recharge were not stated. No other information was provided.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

The number of groundwater bodies at risk is reported in the Pilot RBMPs but there was no information reported on the pollutants and indicators of pollution which contribute to this classification (as required in the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC) Annex II Part C).

The criteria used in the assessment of chemical status is not clearly explained in the RBMPs.

Needs of surface waters associated to groundwater and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were not assessed.

The threshold values are based on drinking water standards. Natural background levels of pollution were provided.

There was no information on TV exceedances and on any methodology established concerning acceptable exceedances in the RBMPs.

There was no information provided on transboundary coordination of the threshold values established.

Trend assessments and reversals were not carried out, methodologies were not established.

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

Some Pilot RBMPs have included the areas that would need exemptions, others have not. The water bodies have been divided into "at risk" or "not at risk" of failing good ecological status/potential for rivers, lakes, coastal waters and good water status for groundwater. The status is divided into 5 classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad) but the assessment has divided the water bodies into "at risk", "possibly at risk" or "not at risk" of failing GES/GEP by 2021. Data from vann-nett.no, July 2012.

Total number of water bodies || Good or better in 2021 || Possibly at risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || At risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || Unknown

4053 || 12867 || 2608 || 8293 || 285

Table 11.1: Status of surface waters in 2021

Source: www.Vann-nett.no

Total number of water bodies || Good or better in 2021 || Possibly at risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || At risk of not achieving good or better in 2021 || Unknown

1275 || 760 || 357 || 39 || 119

Table 11.2: Status of surface waters in 2021

Source: www.Vann-nett.no

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

The protected areas found in Norway include e.g. drinking water protected areas, recreation areas, national parks and habitats. No clearly defined additional objectives have been set for any of these.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4), 4(5), 4(6), 4(7) and Article 6 Groundwater Directive

No exemptions are applied under any of these Articles or Directive.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of WFD Article 4. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012 (this date is different for Norway). The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[8] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD. The Commission may together with the EFTA Surveillance Authority consider also assessing Norway accordingly.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

The international co-ordination aspects regarding the development of the Programme of Measures should be included in future RBMPs. If no measures are needed then this should also be reported.

The costs for implementing the Programme of Measures should be included and, if possible, allocated between basic and supplementary measures (a good indication of the costs for the implementation of other directives and the WFD), sectors, water categories etc. The financial commitment or lack of commitment should be made explicit in future RBMPs. The Royal Decree states that the approval of (Pilot) RBMPs cannot set guidelines for the Government and Parliament's priorities in future state budgets.

In addition, the link between status assessment, objective setting and the need for improvement (i.e. ‘amount’ and type of measure) should be clarified.

A clear timetable for the implementation of the measures should be included as well as a clear legal statement on how measures are implemented and whether they are voluntary or mandatory.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

A number of general measures are listed e.g. general reduction in the use of N and P fertilisers, using optimum amount of fertiliser, use of better fertiliser spreading techniques, limitation and optimisation of manure use, optimisation of time and method for spreading manure, limitation in the use of  bone meal, working the soil during spring only or sowing during autumn to reduce run-off, sowing of grass to prevent erosion, introduction of buffer zones, reducing inflow to reduce erosion, improved drainage, construction of dams/wet lands to enhance sedimentation, improved watering, and expansion of manure storage. Non-technical measures include guidance to tailor environmental plans for individual farmers and improving the storage and spreading of manure.

Farmers’ groups were included in the general consultation process, but the Pilot RBMPs do not mention any further consultation with farmers on these measures.

Information should be provided in future RBMPs on how measures in relation to agricultural pressures are implemented, by when and who is paying for them. Similarly for other pressure related measures, in the case of international RBDs, information on the transboundary co-operation for the establishment of measures should be stated in future RBMPs.

Measures || NO1101 || NO1102 || NO1103 || NO1104 || NO1105 || NO5101 || NO5102 || NO5103 || NO5104 || NO5105 || NO5106

Technical Measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || || || || || || ü || || || || ||

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || || || || || || || || || || ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || || || || || || || || || ||

Measures against soil erosion || || ü || || || || || || || || ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || || || || || || || || || || ||

Technical measures for water saving || || || || || || || || || || ||

Economic Instruments

Compensation for land cover || || || || || || || || || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || || || || || || || || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || || || || || || || || || ||

Nutrient trading || || || || || || || || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || || || || || || || || || ||

Non-technical Measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || || || || || || || || || || ||

Institutional changes || || || || || || || || || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || || || || || || || || || || ||

Farm advice and training || || || || || || ü || || || || ||

Raising awareness of farmers || || || || || || || || || || ||

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || || || || || || || || || || ||

Certification schemes || || || || || || || || || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || || || || || || || || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || || || || || || ü || || || || ||

Land use planning || || || || || || || || || || ||

Technical standards || || ü || ü || || || ü || || || || ü || ü

Specific projects related to agriculture || || || || || || || || || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

Norway is heavily dependent on hydropower for the generation of electricity and the nationwide hydropower plan is currently being reviewed. No major gaps were identified in the Pilot RBMP on hydromorphological measures. However, it would be useful to provide information on the linkages between all planned hydromorphological measures and their expected effects on quality elements, particularly on biological quality elements (if information is available), and on the hydromorphological parameters.

Measures || NO1101 || NO1102 || NO1103 || NO1104 || NO1105 || NO5101 || NO5102 || NO5103 || NO5104 || NO5105 || NO5106

Fish Ladders || || || ü || || || ü || || || || ||

Bypass Channels || || || || || || ü || || || || ||

Habitat Restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || || || ü || || ü || ü || ü || || || ü || ü

Sediment/debris management || || || || || || || || || || ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || || || || || || ü || || || || ||

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || || || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Lowering of river banks || || || || || || || || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || || || ü || || || ü || || || || ||

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || || || || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || || || || || || || || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || || || || || || || || || || ||

Construction of retention basins || || || || || || || || ü || ü || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || || || || || || || || || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || || || || || || || || || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened watercourses || || || || || ü || ü || || || || ü || ü

Other || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

Groundwater is not used to a large extent in Norway and there is currently a lack of information on groundwater status.

Groundwater quantitative status is not considered an issue therefore no measures have been established.

Measures have been established to prevent and limit groundwater pollution, like assessing underground oil storage, installing oil removal systems, measures in adjacent water bodies, control of contaminated land, handling of hazardous waste.

In case of international RBDs information on the transboundary co-operation for the establishment of measures was not provided in the RBMPs.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

It should be made clear in future RBMPs if there are specific priority substances or RBD-specific non-priority pollutants (including physico-chemical determinands) causing failure to achieve good chemical status and good ecological status, respectively. These should be clearly named with information provided on the number of water bodies affected.

The measures being implemented should be provided with details of whether they are targeted to specific substances in order to reduce and/or phase out their emissions, use or production.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

The Royal Decree acknowledges that the economic analysis is weak and states that this is partly due to the lack of national guidelines and tools. The Government will develop national tools. The reporting of the economic requirements of the WFD in future RBMPs could be significantly improved in a number of ways.

A full economic analysis should be conducted according to Article 5 and Annex III of the WFD (CIS Guidance Document 1 (WATECO)) provides more information on how to undertake the economic analysis. Full consideration should also be given to the requirements of Article 9 of the WFD.

Water uses and water services should be clearly and practically defined according to Articles 2 (38) and 2 (39) of the WFD, making it clear whether additional activities beyond water supply and wastewater collection and treatment qualify as water services.

Cost recovery rates should be calculated for all water services identified. Financial as well as environmental and resource costs should be included in this calculation. The financial costs considered should be clearly stated. The issues of cross-subsidies and subsidies need to be taken into account.

The extent to which different water users contribute to covering the costs of a specific water service should be described.

The future RBMPs should explain or analyse how far and how the overall objectives of Article 9 are reached (‘adequate contributions of different water users to recovery of costs of water services’; water pricing policies that provide ‘adequate incentives’ for efficient water use; taking into account the ‘polluter-pays principle’ in the recovery of costs of water services). If the objectives are not reached, then the activities or measures that need to be taken in order to reach these objectives should be defined.

The flexibility of using Article 9.4 should be established and/or whether ‘the social and/or environmental and/or economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic and/or climatic conditions of the region or regions affected’ (Article 9 (1)) have been taken into account.

In the case of international RBDs, and with regard to the above issues, information should be provided in future RBMPs on co-operation with neighbouring countries in order to reach a coherent implementation of Article 9.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

Very little (if any) information is provided in the Pilot RBMPs on the use of additional measures if necessary in Protected Areas (Annex VII (7.1)), particularly in terms of Drinking Water Protected Areas. It should be possible to identify whether measures taken for the general improvement of water bodies are sufficient for obtaining the more stringent objectives in Protected Areas, or whether additional measures are needed. This should be addressed in future RBMPs with links made to the water bodies needing improvement. It is likely that local councils already have plans and measures in place but these should be clearly referred to.

13. water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management and Climate change adaptation 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

In the case of Norway, it seems that water scarcity and droughts are not relevant at the present time or, perhaps, in the future for some RBDs. Nonetheless, the future RBMPs should be transparent and include reliable data on water quantity, including availability, usage and consumption.

In the southern parts of Sweden and Finland, summer droughts are reported as an increasingly relevant issue in order to satisfy water demands, and a similar situation might be the case in southern areas of Norway. If this is the case, an analysis of water quantity should be carried out and reported in future RBMPs, considering current data and forecasts (such as, climate change effects on rainfall). This aspect might be more or less relevant, depending on geographical location, water availability and storage capacity (natural and artificial).

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods are mentioned in a number of places in the Pilot RBMPs in connection to climate change and changing weather patterns with wetter conditions and more intense rainfall. Flooding is also listed as a pressure related to hydromorphological measures.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

Climate change is briefly included in the Pilot RBMPs and the on-going work on adaptation to climate change in national level is referred to in some Pilot RBMPs.

The RBMP lists the parameters that could possibly be affected by climate change. The likely effects of climate change in the next 5-12 years are considered minor.

Climate check of the PoMs was not carried out. No specific measures to tackle the impact of climate change were included in the RBMPs.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin  and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

As such it is recommended that :

· There is very little information on monitoring in the Pilot RBMPs. In the areas within RBDs that have been monitored (as test cases) it appears that only operational monitoring of surface waters has been undertaken. Steps should be taken to ensure that both surveillance and operational monitoring of all required quality elements, as well as establishment of all necessary reference conditions are in place for the 2015 RBMPs.

· At present, there are no complete classification systems for all national water body types in rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Therefore the ecological assessment methods and classification need to be further developed to fully meet the requirements of the WFD by 2015. More details on grouping of water bodies for monitoring and classification, as well as the methodology applied to deal with uncertainty in the classification should be reported in future RBMPs.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, the derivation of the national EQS, the location of exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.

· There is no clear evidence regarding whether the EQSs from the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC) have been applied in Norway. An overview of information on chemical status and data on priority substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status was not available in the Pilot RBMPs. Norway should ensure that the future RBMPs contain the required information on chemical status of water bodies, as well as information on the use of mixing zones. In addition to applying the biota EQS in the EQSD for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadienc, Norway should ensure that its monitoring in biota and sediment covers the priority substances for which trend monitoring is required according to EQSD Article 3(3).

· Appropriate groundwater monitoring should be established in accordance with WFD requirements to assess groundwater status and to detect pollution trends. WFD compliant methods to assess groundwater quantitative and chemical status and pollution trends should be established. Established measures should be based on those assessments.

· Norway is a major hydropower producer, but no clear information is provided in the Pilot RBMPs on the water bodies which are classified as Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB). For the future RBMPs, it will be necessary to include a comprehensive explanation of the approach used for HMWB designation, as well as the methodology used for definition of GEP.

· Even though several new modifications are planned in Norwegian Water Bodies, the Pilot RBMPs do not apply the use of the WFD Article 4.7. For future RBMPs the use of Article 4.7 in case of new modifications or activities must be demonstrated in compliance with the WFD requirements.  

· Biological impact factors such as Gyrodactylus salaris infections, escaped farmed fish and alien species are mentioned as important pressures in some Pilot RBMPs, but the Royal Decree clearly states that biological impact factors should not be included for coastal waters in the Pilot RBMPs or PoM. The reason for this decision is unclear. Future RBMPs must encompass all significant pressures, including biological impact factors in coastal waters.

· The costs for implementing the Programme of Measures should be included and, if possible, allocated between basic and supplementary measures (a good indication of the costs for the implementation of other directives and the WFD), sectors, water categories etc. The financial commitment or lack of commitment should be made explicit in future RBMPs.

· Norway shares several River Basins with neighbouring Finland and Sweden. Some co-ordination has been in place for the Pilot RBMPs, but full compliance with the WFD requirements concerning IRBDs was not achieved. The 3 large River Basins Tana, Neiden and Pasvik that are shared with Finland should be of special concern due to their significant size. Efforts should be put into ensuring the correct and mutual management of IRBDs for future RBMPs. 

· Norway should demonstrate how climate change projections have informed assessments of WFD pressures and impacts; how monitoring programmes are configured to detect climate change impacts; and how selected measures are robust to cope with projected climate conditions.

Other issues for improvement in future RBMPs:

· The economic analysis in the Pilot RBMPs is weak, partly due to the lack of national guidelines and tools. The reporting of the economic requirements of the WFD in future RBMPs could be significantly improved in a number of ways, including a full economic analysis according to Article 5 and Annex III, as well as of the WFD (CIS giving full consideration to the requirements of Article 9 of the WFD.

· Each of the eleven RBDs in Norway has rivers, lakes and coastal waters but no transitional waters have been defined. No reasons are given in the Pilot RBMPs or supplementary guidance for not delineating transitional water bodies. This should be justified and explained in future RBMPs.

· Information should be included on Strategic Environmental Assessment. This is missing from the Pilot RBMPs but is an important tool for 'advising' the PoMs.

· There would be advantages if the RBMPs included details of the consultation process and, in particular, the impacts of consultation on the measures or other elements of the plan. Some of the Pilot RBMPs include part of this information but further information could be included in annexes to the Pilot RBMPs.

[1] Statistics Norway, 2012

[2]     Draft RBMPs available from http://www.vannportalen.no/ and http://vann-nett.nve.no/

[3]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[4] Revised typology for Norwegian rivers and lakes (in Norwegian). Report LNR 4888-2004. http://www.klif.no/arbeidsomr/vann/vanndirektiv/publikasjoner/typologi_innsjoer_elver.pdf

[5]     Typology of Norwegian marine water bodies. System to describe natural ecological status. Proposed reference network (in Norwegian). Report LNR 4731-2003. http://www.klif.no/arbeidsomr/vann/vanndirektiv/publikasjoner/marintypologiveileder.pdf

[6]     Method for characterisation of water bodies in Norway (in Norwegian). Version 1.0 (13.08.2007) http://www.vannportalen.no/Karakteriseringsveileder_juni07_2_U1d02.pdf.file

[7]     Characterisation and analysis. Method for characterisation and risk analysis of water bodies according to WFD §15 (in Norwegian). Guidance 01:2011a. http://www.vannportalen.no/Veileder_01_2011a_Karakterisering_og_risikovurdering_9_mai_2011_Y6z4O.pdf.file

[8]     These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

In Latvia there are 2,067,887 inhabitants,[1] (2.22 million, Eurostat 2011) and its territory is 64,589 km2. Latvia is one of the least populous and least densely populated countries of the European Union. The major rivers are Daugava, Lielupe, Gauja, Venta, and Salaca. Latvia's coastline extends for 531 kilometres.

According to the Law on Water Management the territory of Latvia is divided in Daugava, Gauja, Lielupe and Venta river basin districts. All four RBDs of Latvia are transboundary RBDs.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || Countries sharing RBD

LVDUBA || Daugava || 27026 || BY, LT, RU

LVGUBA || Gauja || 13051 || EE

LVLUBA || Lielupe || 8849 || LT

LBVUBA || Venta || 15625 || LT

Table 1.1: Overview of Latvia’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[2]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/lv/eu/wfdart13

All Latvia’s RBDs are international, some shared with third countries. A very small part of the Narva (including Lake Peipsi) which is predominantly in Estonia, is also on Latvian territory as part of the Daugava RBD.

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countires sharing RBD || Co-ordination category || Co-ordination category

2 || 3

km² || % || km² || %

Daugava || LVDUBA || BY, LT, RU || || || 27077 || 32.7

Gauja/Koiva || LVGUBA || EE || 13051 || 90.7 || ||

Lielupe || LVLUBA || LT || || || 8849 || 49.7

Narva (including Lake Peipsi/ Chudkoe, Lake Pihkva/ Pskovskoye) || LVDUBA || EE, RU || 3100 || 5.5 || ||

Venta || LVDUBA || LT || || || 6507 || 55.7

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Austria[3]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

The final version of the River basin district management plans was approved by the Order of the Minister of Environment on 6 May 2010. The RBMPs were reported to the Commission on 18 May 2010.

The RBMPs and programmes of activities included therein are aimed at ensuring Latvian surface waters and groundwater reach environmental quality objectives. The principal objectives of the RBMPs are to prevent deterioration in the condition of the waters and to improve the surface waters and groundwater in order to reach a good water quality by 2015.

2.1 Main strengths of the RBMPs

The river basin and groundwater management approach has been introduced to surface and groundwater management in Latvia. The basin approach in the management of water resources has been approved by the Cabinet of Ministers and it is binding to everyone who is using those resources.

In each RBMP, the main objectives are clearly defined together with the measures proposed for achieving good quality in the water bodies.

The established consultative RBD boards are an effective panel for the discussion of the RBMP issues.

2.2 Main weakness of the RBMPs

All four RBDs are international RBDs, but transboundary issues have not been coordinated, especially with non-Member countries. International RBMPs have not been developed.

The classification of the ecological status, pressure impact analysis and setting of the ecological objectives is provisional for all water bodies. It was not based on all quality elements required by the WFD but on all information available at the time of the development of RBMPs. No river basin specific pollutants have been identified.        There are significant shortcomings in  the monitoring network, and  monitoring data is not available for the assessment of all water bodies.  There are also shortcomings on the classification os chemical status,.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

The RBMPs were reported to the Commission on 18/05/2010. The information on the reports delivered by Latvia to WISE is presented below.  The consultation as required by Article 14 took place with the following timetable for publication of documents:

· Timetable, Work programme: 03/11/2006.

· Statement on consultation measures to be taken : 22/12/2008.

· Full document "Significant water management issues": 03/11/2006.

· Draft River Basin Management Plans: 22/12/2008.

· Publication of RBMP: 22/12/2009.

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

The competences are divided on a basis of the legal acts that determine each institution's responsibility in the public administration system. The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (MEPRD) is responsible for the transposition of the WFD into national legislation and ensuring the implementation of WFD. The Latvian Environment Geology and Meteorology Centre (LEGMC) is responsible for the implementation of the specific tasks set out in the Water Management Act and other legal acts.

LEGMC is responsible for the development of the river basin management plans, coordinating the implementation of the PoM, and ensuring the work of the RBD advisory councils.

The co-ordination between the LEGMC and MEPRD is agreed annually where the responsibilities of the LEGMC are listed for the given year. In addition, to ensure the compliance with the WFD, representatives of the two institutions have special meetings on the additional tasks.

Figure 3.2.1: WFD implementation structure in Latvia

Source: K. Veidemane, Baltic Environmental Forum

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

There are four separate RBMPs – each for one RBD. The RBMP development followed a national approach and include a water quality assessment, assessment of pressures and impacts and trend analysis, and economic analysis of water users. Each plan identifies the environmental quality objectives and program of measures to reach the goals for the period up to 2027. RMBPs consist of 8 chapters, which contain information required by the LV legal acts and the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC:

1) a characterisation of a river basin district;

2) information regarding the most important anthropogenic loads and impact of human activity on the status of surface water and groundwater;

3) information regarding protected areas;

4) information regarding the monitoring network and results of the implemented monitoring programmes;

5) a summary of the economic analysis;

6) the quality objectives determined for water bodies and protected areas;

7) information regarding the planned measures in order to prevent or reduce emission of pollutants, as well as to achieve the environmental quality objectives (Programme of measures);

8) information regarding other programmes related to the management of the river basin district;

9) a survey regarding public information and consultations performed when developing and updating the plan.

The RBMPs were designed considering the various interests, knowledge and needs of the readers. Each chapter begins with a brief summary of the topic emphasizing the actual problems. In order to summarize the information a number of graphs and tables are included in each plan. Maps and supporting textual information is included in annexes. Some of the supporting textual annexes are the same for all RBMPs, but overall all annexes are RBD specific. Each plan is supplemented with 15 maps and 23 – 25 textual annexes.

For the first planning period (2009 – 2015) joint international plans were not produced for Daugava, Gauja, Lielupe and Venta RBD.

The River basin district management plans were approved by the Order of the Minister of Environment on 6 May 2010.  RBMPs and PoMs are planning documents which are approved by resolutions. They are legally binding, but cannot contradict existing laws. As RBMPs are approved by the Minister of Environment, they are binding to all institutions subordinated to the Ministry of Environment and have to be taken into account when adopting internal legal acts. However, the plans are not binding to individuals. In other words, it is not possible to refer only to the RBMPs in order to adopt administrative acts (decisions issued by state institutions regarding individuals). Any reference to the RBMPs in such decisions would only be informative, not legal. However, the RBMP is binding on the administration in performing their tasks and functions.  There is only an indirect link between RBMP and individual decisions, and this indirect link is not specified in legislation.. The State Environmental Service shall supervise the implementation of the programme of measures and review the conditions of the issued permits, taking into account RBMPs and PoMs. This is a general provision providing for permits to be reviewed on the basis of programme of measures and if the SES considers it necessary. As the PoM according to the national legislation is included in the RBMP, this part of RBMP becomes binding on permitting decisions.[4]

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

Strategic Environmental Assessments have been undertaken on the Programme of Measures for all RBMPs. The SEA is a separate document for each RBD and is available on a LEGMC web site. The SEA reports are in Latvian. The SEAs took place during March - June 2009, after finalisation of the draft RBMPs on December 2008. The SEAs were performed simultaneously with the public consultation procedure.

The results of the SEAs are summarised in the report: "Report on the influence of the SEAs to the RBMPs". Some examples of the changes to the PoM as a result of the SEAs are: the geographical scale of the measure for the agriculture sector, implementation of buffer zones, has been narrowed. The water bodies were specified for which this measure has to be implemented, previously it had been more general. In another measure from the agriculture sector, the measure regarding environmentally safe manure collection and storage was assessed as carrying significant costs. In the program of measures therefore it has been specified that this measure has to be implemented within the limits of available finances. Sources of financing of this measure have been specified. A number of measures have been specified and supplemented with more detailed descriptions,  for example the implementation of buffer zones in forestry.

The public and interested parties were informed about the consultations on the draft RBMPs by following means: through media, via the internet, via active invitations to known stakeholders/organisations, through local authorities,  interviews of the representatives from different stakeholder groups, consultative board of the RBD, meetings with stakeholder groups and discussion forums.

The consultations were carried out using meetings, written submissions and web based consultation.  Following the consultations changes were made to measures already proposed and new measures were added. Commitments to further research were also made.

The drafts of RBMPs were available during the 6 months for feedback.

3.5 International co-operation and co-ordination

All four RBDs are international RBDs and transboundary issues have not been coordinated, especially with non-Member countries. This issue concerns particularly Daugava RBD which is a transboundary RBD with Lithuania, Russia and Belarus.

It was planned to conclude the trilateral agreement between the governments of Latvia, Belarus and the Russian Federation concerning co-operation in the Daugava/ Zapadnaja Dvina river basin in 2003. The Latvian government approved a draft agreement but it was not signed in 2003 as Russia and Belarus postponed the final decision several times due to various reasons. After joining the EU on the 1st of May 2004 water quality became a topic of shared responsibility between the Member States and the EU. Therefore any international agreement on water management between an EU Member State and a non-Member State requires the EU as a Contracting Party. Co-operation agreements were on the list of topics to be discussed during high-level meetings of the European Union and Russia; however, this has not led to renewal of the negotiations concerning river basin management agreement. Latvia has no framework agreement with Belarus and Russia on co-operation in river basin management and therefore it is not possible to plan joint activities or develop management plans with non-member countries. Also exchange of data and information is very limited. The next steps should be submission of the draft agreement and explanatory nota via diplomatic means to the relevant public authorities in Russia and Belarus.

3.6 Integration with other sectors

For the involvement of the different stakeholder groups there were organised discussion forums in each RBD. The main stakeholder groups involved were: farmers, foresters, local municipalities, Regional development agency, Ministry of Environment, NGOs and community representatives. The most active groups were representatives of municipalities and community representatives (local inhabitants, students, tourism sector representatives and local entrepreneurs).

The RBMPs are linked with the other sectoral plans, of which the most important are: Environmental Policy Strategy 2009–2015, National Flood Risk Management Strategy 2008-2015, National Development Plan 2007-2013, Regional development plans (depending on a RBD), HELCOM, and EU directives.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBDs

Rivers and lakes have been designated in all RBDs. Transitional waters have only been designated in the Dauguava RBD. Coastal waters were only designated in the Gauja and Venta RBDs. The one designated transitional water body belongs jointly to Daugava, Gauja and Lielupe RBD, but is here listed with the Daugava RBD.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

The typology of surface water bodies is based on system B. The typology of rivers and lakes is based on abiotic data. For river water bodies typology is based on the following parameters - size of a catchment area and an average slope. The factor of average slope has traditionally been used in Latvia to separate potamal (or slow flowing) rivers and rhitral (or fast flowing) rivers. For lake water bodies – size, depth, geology and concentration of organic matter were used to define the typology. Most Latvian lakes are small – more than 10 000 lakes have surface area below 1 ha and few lakes exceed 10 km2. Shallow lakes with a mean depth between 1 and 6 m are the most common type (~ 70 % of all Latvian lakes). The following depth typology (based on the mean depth) is used in Latvia: 1. Very shallow lakes (depth <2 m); 2. Shallow lakes (depth 2 – 9 m); 3. Deep lakes (depth >9 m). Transitional and coastal water types adopted in Latvia are consistent with the CHARM project outcomes[5] and coordinated with other countries of the Baltic Sea Ecoregion. Salinity, depth/mixing and water residence time of enclosed areas (residence time) were used as factors in classification of transitional and coastal water types.

Based on the information presented in the RBMPs and WISE, it appears that the surface water typology has not tested against biological data for any of the relevant water category (R, L and T waters). Latvian authorities have clarified that all information about the characterisation was set out in the Article 5 report submitted in 2005.

Specific reference conditions have been established for all types according to the Article 5 report[6]. The data was however, according to the Latvian reports, not submitted to WISE, since the quality class boundaries were not developed for the different quality elements by the time Article 5 reports were submitted, and the RBMPs did not include an update taking into account intercalibration process since 2005. Reference conditions have been established with a combination of spatially based method and expert judgement.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

LVDUBA || 4 || 8 || 1 || 0

LVGUBA || 5 || 7 || 0 || 1

LVLUBA || 4 || 5 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 4 || 6 || 0 || 4

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

The methodological approach for delineation of surface water bodies follows a national approach for all RBD. The minimal requirements for delineation of a separate water body for a river –is a catchment area more than 100 km2 (which is larger than the WFD limit) and for a lake, a surface area 0.5 km2 or more.

A river with a smaller catchment area, or a lake with a less surface area can be delineated as a separate water body if it is necessary for the achievement of environmental objectives or if this is a water body in the protected area in order to ensure the protection of this territory.

There is only one transitional water body delineated in Latvia. This is a low salinity zone in the southern part of the Gulf of Riga, near the estuaries of the Daugava, Gauja and Lielupe rivers.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

LVDUBA || 65 || 43 || 181 || 3 || 1 || 934 || 0 || || 6 || 5782

LVGUBA || 46 || 36 || 35 || 2 || 0 || || 1 || 176 || 5 || 5406

LVLUBA || 32 || 45 || 13 || 4 || 0 || || 0 || || 3 || 6854

LVVUBA || 61 || 31 || 30 || 6 || 0 || || 5 || 221 || 8 || 4356

Total || 204 || 38 || 259 || 3 || 1 || 934 || 6 || 214 || 16* || 5337

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions *  Some groundwater bodies belong to more than one RBD.

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LVDUBA || 210 || 85.02 || 6 || 2.43 || 13 || 5.26 || 0 || 0 || 23 || 9.31 || 5 || 2.02 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 15 || 6.07

LVGUBA || 58 || 70.73 || 3 || 3.66 || 7 || 8.54 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 10.98 || 3 || 3.66 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 12 || 14.63

LVLUBA || 18 || 40 || 4 || 8.89 || 7 || 15.56 || 0 || 0 || 14 || 31.11 || 4 || 8.89 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 22 || 48.89

LVVUBA || 64 || 66.67 || 6 || 6.25 || 4 || 4.17 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 9.38 || 6 || 6.25 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 25 || 26.04

Total || 350 || 74.47 || 19 || 4.04 || 31 || 6.6 || 0 || 0 || 55 || 11.7 || 18 || 3.83 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 74 || 15.74

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

The methodological approach for identification of significant pressures and impacts overall follows a national approach in all RBMP.

For the assessment of a "significant" pressure to the WB from diffuse sources, summary loads of three types of pressures are evaluated: total load from agriculture, forestry and population without a centralised waste water treatment. The diffuse pollution is assessed as significant pressure to the WB taking into account following thresholds: for P > 0.180 kg/ha and for N > 10.0 kg/ha. These thresholds are compared with the total loads of P or N by agriculture, forestry and urban runoff (population without a centralised waste water treatment) to the water body and then divided with the total area of the water body.

For the assessment of a "significant" pressure to the WB from a point source only one point source pressure type - "UWWT in general" has been evaluated. There are different limits for point source pollution for river WB and lake WB. For river WB: Ptot >2 t per annum, Ntot >10 t per annum and total amount of waste water >1 million m3/year ; for lake WB: Ptot >1 ton per annum, Ntot >5 ton per annum and total amount of waste water >500 000 m3/year.

If all three values (Ptot, Ntot and volume) have been exceeded then the point source pollution has been assessed as significant pressure to the WB.

From an assessment of the pressures from water abstractions, no water body has been  there has been identified as having a significant pressure from water abstraction. For the assessment of significant pressure from water abstraction in the RBMP the data from the statistical report "2-Water" are used. The assessment concerns all types of water users who are the subjects of the water use permits i.e. average daily use of surface or groundwater is more than 10 m3. The criterion to assess the abstraction as a significant was the proportion between the total amount of the abstracted water (all types of users) and available surface and groundwater resources (total in the RBD area). If this ratio is more than 0.4, the pressure is significant.

For the assessment of the significant pressures in water bodies with hydrological and/or morphological changes the information from various sources is used - the Marine Environment Administration, LEGMC, A/S Latvenergo, the Rural Support Service and the State Construction Inspection together with expert judgement for some of the pressures. Water flow and morphological alteration is evaluated for 4 groups of hydro-morphological alterations: hydroelectric power stations, ports, water flow regulations and polders (land reclamation). If the load of one of these groups in the water body is significant the pressure from water flow regulations of morphological alterations is assessed as significant.

The effects of flooding in the flood affected areas are also considered as a pressure to the water bodies and RBD. As there is no methodology for the assessment of this pressure within the framework of the RBMP, the information provided in the "National program for the flood risk and management 2008-2015" (accepted in 2007) is transferred to the RBMP. Transboundary pollution is also mentioned as one of the other types of pressure to be considered for evaluation of the significant pressures, but there are no values set. The transboundary pressure is evaluated based on whether a water body is a transboundary water body or not together with the total load of N and P coming from the neighbouring country. There are no water bodies identified which are considered as significantly affected from the transboundary pollution pressure. In the RBMP chapter 2.6 "Other pressures" climate change is mentioned as a possible pressure to the water body. As there is no methodology developed within the framework of RBMP, the state research program "Impact of climate changes to the water quality of Latvia" (KALME project) information is transferred to the RBMP. There are no water bodies identified to be considered as significantly affected from climate change.

4.5 Protected areas

Latvia applies stringent waste water treatment in the whole of its territory and therefore, in accordance with article 5.8 of the Urban Waste Water Directive (1991/271/EEC), it is exempted from designation of specific vulnerable zones.  There are no shellfish protected areas in Latvia.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates[7] || Shellfish || UWWT

LVDUBA || 2 || 84 || || || 82 || 112 || || || 12 || ||

LVGUBA || || 43 || || || 49 || 74 || || || 9 || ||

LVLUBA || || 40 || || || 17 || 47 || || || 32 || ||

LVVUBA || || 55 || || || 48 || 75 || || || 3 || ||

Total || 2 || 222 || || || 196 || 308 || || || 56 || ||

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[8]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The assessment for the current RBMP is based on the Monitoring program 2006-2008. In 2010 a new Monitoring program 2009-2014 was approved by the Minister of Environment.

The monitoring program 2006-2008 was a standard national monitoring program for both operational and surveillance monitoring with sub programmes for rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters. There is no clear separation of surveillance and operational programmes. Many stations are identified as belonging neither to surveillance nor to operational (i.e. reporting of networks for other purposes). In the monitoring program only one reference monitoring site is reported. The need for formal investigative monitoring is foreseen, but there is no any additional information provided.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

LVDUBA || 11 || 58 || 19 || 156 || 10 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 22 || 0 || 19

LVGUBA || 10 || 36 || 3 || 31 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 1 || 23 || 0 || 9

LVLUBA || 8 || 31 || 3 || 9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 13 || 0 || 8

LVVUBA || 9 || 57 || 7 || 27 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 3 || 21 || 0 || 20

Total by type of site || 38 || 182 || 32 || 223 || 10 || 2 || 14 || 4 || 79 || 0 || 56

Total number of monitoring sites[9] || 220 || 255 || 12 || 20 || 88

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

Not all of the relevant quality elements required for the surveillance monitoring included in the design of the monitoring programme are monitored:

Water category || Quality element NOT monitored || Comment

Rivers || phytobenthos, fish, connection to groundwater bodies, other species, other national pollutants ||

Lakes || watzer flow,, , connection to groundwaters bodies,, other species, priority substances,, non- priority specific pollutants, other pollutants ||

Transitional || other aquatic flora,,fFish, structure of the tidal zone, , tidal regime, salinity,  other national pollutants || In transitional water QE1-5 from “other species” is monitored zooplankton

Coastal || Microalgae, angiosperms,, direction of dominat currents, wave exposure, other national pollutants. ||

Table 5.1.1: List of quality elements not monitored by water category.

Source: RBMPs

According to the national authorities the main reason why not all the quality elements were included in the surveillance monitoring program in the first river basin management planning period, was a lack of the relevant national assessment methods and a lack of data to establish quality class boundaries. This is not in line with WFD requirements.

The monitoring program developed for 2006 – 2008 did not clearly differentiate between operational and surveillance monitoring. Only a few biological quality elements (benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton) were regularly monitored and had long-term data chains. Only those elements that have been used and tested in a long term, justifying their adequacy and reflection of the impacts on water quality in Latvia have been used. For the others, assessment methods and/or classification systems had to be developed, 

Grouping of water bodies has not been applied.

The State Monitoring Programme for the period of 2006 – 2008 provided for monitoring of 4 priority substances (metals) and several other chemical pollutants – mainly metals and oil hydrocarbons. The selection of hazardous substances and priority substances monitored was planned in those water bodies only:

1)      where significant amounts of such substances were discharged according to the permits issued by the regional environmental authorities;

2)      which are strategically significant for Latvia, for instance, trans-boundary water bodies.

In addition to that, selected water bodies were monitored in 2006 and 2007, to identify prospective concentrations of several organic pollutants, for instance, polyaromatic hydrocarbons PAH, monoaromatic hydrocarbons BTEX, and several organochlorine substances (solvents, pesticides etc.). Monitoring data of chemical pollutants collected in 2003-2005 were also used for the assessment of the chemical status.

Several large-scale screening projects have been implemented since 2009 in order to assess water pollution and to obtain sufficient information for the development of a monitoring programme adapted and optimal for the Latvian conditions. During these projects the presence and concentrations of more than 200 substances/groups of substances in Latvian waters (including sediments, wastewaters, sewage sludge and fish) have been examined. These studies significantly extended knowledge about surface water chemical quality in Latvia. The results of these studies also provide assurance that there are no reasons for concerns about surface water chemical quality.

There is no special trans-boundary monitoring programme. However, water quality monitoring is carried out in the water bodies located on the Latvian – Lithuanian border. The data obtained are exchanged with the Lithuanian Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with the co-operation agreement. The monitoring data exchange covers Lielupe and Venta river basin districts. A joint trans-boundary monitoring program is not of a high priority for the Gauja/Koiva river basin district as trans-boundary pollution is not regarded as a significant pressure neither on the Latvian nor on the Estonian side. However, there is an on-going project “Towards joint management of the trans-boundary Gauja/Koiva river basin district”. The data collected during the project and recommendations developed by its experts will be analysed and decisions about trans-boundary monitoring might be taken, if necessary.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

There was no separate operational monitoring for groundwater in Latvia within the monitoring programme for the period of 2006 – 2008. However, operational monitoring in the parts of groundwater bodies considered as being at risk in the first river basin management plans was included in the monitoring programme for 2009 – 2014.

A quantitative groundwater monitoring programme has been established.

There has been no groundwater chemical status monitoring to detect significant and sustained upward trends in pollutants. 

In the vicinity of Riga and Liepaja upward trends of chlorides, sodium, potassium and/or other ions indicative of saline intrusion or infiltration have been detected in the past. These processes started in the 1970s due to intensive water abstraction; today they are decreasing. Another area is identified where pollution of shallow groundwater is caused by numerous point-sources; the monitoring network allows following up these processes as well.

Latvia plans to improve groundwater monitoring in the future.

Transboundary groundwater monitoring program does not exist at the moment in Latvia but negotiation are planned with Lithuania.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

There are only 2 surface water bodies in Latvia used for production of drinking water, both of them are located within Daugava river basin district. Monitoring of these 2 sites has been referred in the monitoring programme for 2006 – 2008. As Latvia is rich in groundwater resources, there are no plans to use any other surface water body for drinking water production.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Fish || Habitats/Bird sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT* ||

LVDUBA || 2 || 0 || 1 || 52 || 118 || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 0 || 0 || 13 || 44 || 57 || || 0 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 0 || 0 || 11 || 25 || 64 || 11 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 0 || 0 || 10 || 13 || 22 || 37 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 20 || 0 || 35 || 134 || 261 || 55 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring sites in protected areas

Note : Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level. *The whole territory is designated as sensitive, so no specific monitoring stations reported. Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

51% of the Latvian surface water bodies and almost all groundwater bodies are classified as having good or high status. Despite the shortcomings of the monitoring programme and surface waters classification system the assessment correctly reflects the real situation, because:

· It is in accord with the assessment of biological quality of small rivers, which was carried out several times: in 1993 – 1997 in 1086 monitoring stations on 527 small rivers and in 1998 – 2000 in 3920 monitoring stations all over the country. In both cases the assessment was based on the evaluation of biotic communities of the benthic invertebrates. In 1993 – 1998, 85% of the assessed rivers were classified as clean or slightly polluted. In 1998 – 2000, 88% of the assessed rivers were classified as clean or slightly polluted. Therefore the large majority of small rivers were assessed as having slight anthropogenic impact according to biological quality elements. The largest share of polluted rivers was found in the Lielupe river basin; this conclusion is in line with the findings of river basin management plans. Even if this assessment did not include all the quality elements required by the Water Framework Directive, its scale and long term makes its conclusions reliable.

· In 2001 and 2002 a synoptic monitoring of lakes was carried out, where both chemical and biological quality criteria (phytoplankton, zooplankton and macrophytes) were analysed. This monitoring included 57 lakes in 2011 and 56 lakes in 2002. According to the results of these studies, 23,8 % of the surveyed lakes were assessed as eutrophic, 13,8% as very eutrophic and 6,2 % as hypereutrophic. These results do not contradict with the assessment given in the river basin management plans.

· Several screening activities carried out in 2009 – 2011 show that pollution with hazardous (priority) substances is present in some places, but is not a widespread problem.

The pressures on waters in Latvia are lower than the EU average. Low population density (34,2 persons/km2), large share of forests (~ 45% of the state territory), rather small share of agricultural land (38%, while the EU average is 44%) and unmodified floodplains together ensure moderate impact on the environment. Taking into account both the historical data and mediocrity of the pressures, the current assessment is made with a precaution and that the real water status could be better than assessed.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

LVDUBA || 232 || 5 || 2.2 || 114 || 49.1 || 65 || 28.0 || 20 || 8.6 || 28 || 12.1 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 80 || 5 || 6.3 || 38 || 47.5 || 26 || 32.5 || 9 || 11.3 || 2 || 2.5 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 38 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 15.8 || 13 || 34.2 || 3 || 7.9 || 16 || 42.1 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 89 || 3 || 3.4 || 45 || 50.6 || 25 || 28.1 || 7 || 7.9 || 9 || 10.1 || 0 || 0

Total || 439 || 13 || 3.0 || 203 || 46.2 || 129 || 29.4 || 39 || 8.9 || 55 || 12.5 || 0 || 0

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

LVDUBA || 15 || 1 || 6.7 || 7 || 46.7 || 4 || 26.7 || 2 || 13.3 || 1 || 6.7 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 2 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 28.6 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 71.4 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 7 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 71.4 || 1 || 14.3 || 1 || 14.3 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0

Total || 31 || 1 || 3.2 || 13 || 41.9 || 7 || 22.6 || 4 || 12.9 || 6 || 19.4 || 0 || 0

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LVDUBA || 232 || 4 || 1.7 || 0 || 0 || 228 || 98.3

LVGUBA || 80 || 4 || 5.0 || 0 || 0 || 76 || 95.0

LVLUBA || 38 || 6 || 15.8 || 0 || 0 || 32 || 84.2

LVVUBA || 89 || 11 || 12.4 || 0 || 0 || 78 || 87.6

Total || 439 || 25 || 5.7 || 0 || 0 || 414 || 94.3

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LVDUBA || 15 || 1 || 6.7 || 0 || 0 || 14 || 93.3

LVGUBA || 2 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0

LVLUBA || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 100

LVVUBA || 7 || 2 || 28.6 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 71.4

Total || 31 || 4 || 12.9 || 0 || 0 || 27 || 87.1

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LVDUBA || 6 || 6 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 5 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 3 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 8 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 22 || 22 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies.

Note: There are 16 GWB, overlapping RBD boundaries

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LVDUBA || 6 || 6 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 5 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 3 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 8 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 22 || 22 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

Note: There are 16 GWB, overlapping RBD boundaries

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LVDUBA || 247 || 2 || 0.8 || 4 || 1.6 || 0.8 || 245 || 99 || 247 || || 247 || || 247 || 100 || 11 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 82 || 2 || 2.4 || 4 || 4.9 || 2.4 || 79 || 94 || || || || 100 || || || 12 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 45 || 1 || 2.2 || 2 || 4.4 || 2.2 || 44 || 96 || || || || 100 || || || 38 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 96 || 5 || 5.2 || 8 || 8.3 || 3.1 || 93 || 97 || 69 || || 96 || 100 || 69 || || 9 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 470 || 10 || 2.1 || 18 || 3.8 || 1.7 || || || || || || || || || 13 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[10]

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LVDUBA || 232 || 119 || 51.3 || 209 || 90.1 || || 231 || 99 || 232 || 100 || 9.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 80 || 43 || 53.8 || 71 || 88.8 || || 77 || 94 || || 100 || 11.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 38 || 6 || 15.8 || 27 || 71.1 || || || 100 || || 100 || 28.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 89 || 48 || 53.9 || 80 || 89.9 || || 86 || 97 || 89 || 100 || 10.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 439 || 216 || 49.2 || 387 || 88.1 || || || || || || 11.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[11]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LVDUBA || 232 || 4 || 1.7 || 4 || 1.7 || 0 || 247 || || 247 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 80 || 4 || 5.0 || 4 || 5.0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 38 || 6 || 15.8 || 6 || 15.8 || 0 || 46 || || 46 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 89 || 11 || 12.4 || 11 || 12.4 || 0 || 69 || || 69 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 439 || 25 || 5.7 || 25 || 5.7 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[12]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LVDUBA || 6 || 6 || 100 || 6 || 100 || 0 || 6 || 100 || 6 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 5 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 3 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 8 || 8 || 100 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 8 || 100 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 22 || 22 || 100 || 22 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[13]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LVDUBA || 6 || 6 || 100 || 6 || 100 || 0 || 6 || 100 || 6 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 5 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 3 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 8 || 8 || 100 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 8 || 100 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 22 || 22 || 100 || 22 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[14]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LVDUBA || 15 || 8 || 53.3 || 12 || 80.0 || 26.7 || 14 || 93 || 15 || 100 || 20.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 2 || 1 || 50.0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 7 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 14.3 || 14.3 || 5 || 71 || 7 || 100 || 85.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 7 || 5 || 71.4 || 7 || 100 || 28.6 || 7 || 100 || 7 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 31 || 14 || 45.2 || 21 || 67.7 || 22.5 || || || || || 32.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[15]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LVDUBA || 15 || 1 || 6.7 || 1 || 6.7 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVGUBA || 2 || 1 || 50.0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVLUBA || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LVVUBA || 7 || 2 || 28.6 || 2 || 28.6 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 31 || 4 || 12.9 || 4 || 12.9 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[16]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3. A 1cm diameter pie chart represents 150 natural surface waterbodies.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

 

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

The methodological approach for the assessment of ecological status of surface waters follows a national approach.

In the conclusions of 2009 WFD implementation report it is stated the there is no information provided neither on development of biological assessment methods nor on confidence levels and precision.

According to the RBMPs of 2010 the applied assessment methodology is described in the RBMP annex 1.5, however, none of the assessment methods are fully developed.

The ecological status assessment for the RBMP of 2010 was called “preliminary” to indicate that it was not based on the all quality elements required by the WFD though it was based on all information available at the time of the development of river basin management plans and serves as a basis for their implementation. Complete ecological status assessment is envisaged for the following planning cycles.

Despite the fact that the methods for BQE are not fully developed, the classification of a water body is performed on a basis of the available information applying the one-out-all-out principle. During the elaboration of the first river basin management plans it was not possible to establish class boundaries for all required biological quality elements. In the absence of full spectrum of the quality elements, the class of a water body was determined by the condition of the quality element in the worst status. This classification scheme was applied both to biological and chemical quality elements for which class boundaries were established. Quality classification will be improved for the updated river basin management plans.

The class boundaries for good ecological status reported in WISE summary were consistent with the intercalibrated class boundaries given in the Intercalibration Official Decision for lake waters, but not consistent for river and coastal waters. The class boundaries for phytoplankton chlorophyll a for two additional lake types are only partly consistent with the intercalibrated class boundaries.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

Assessment methods for the classification of the river WB following physico-chemical parameters were assessed: O2, BOD5, NH4, Ntot, Ptot; for lake WB classification: Ntot, Ptot, transparency. The assessment of hydro-morphological quality elements have not been applied for the classification at this stage, because the hydro-morphological quality elements were not used in the monitoring before adoption of WFD requirements. During the development of the first river basin management plans it was not possible to use hydro-morphological quality elements in quality classification, as the assessment methods and, to large extent, data were missing.

None of the assessment methods are fully developed. The assessment method for classification of ecological status is developed only for following BQE - saprobity index in rivers, Chlorophyll a and phytoplankton in lakes and Chlorophyll a in transitional waters.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

LVDUBA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || -

LVGUBA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

LVLUBA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

LVVUBA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

Assessment methods for the classification of the river WB following physico-chemical parameters were assessed: O2, BOD5, NH4, Ntot, Ptot; for lake WB classification: Ntot, Ptot, transparency. The assessment of hydro-morphological quality elements have not been applied for the classification at this stage, because the hydro-morphological quality elements were not used in the monitoring before adoption of WFD requirements. During the development of the first river basin management plans it was not possible to use hydro-morphological quality elements in quality classification, as the assessment methods and, to large extent, data were missing.

Before the adoption of the Water Framework Directive, water quality assessment in Latvia was based on the physico-chemical quality elements; only few biological quality elements were used. During the development of the first river basin management plans the other assessment methods were in the process of development. It was not possible to speed up this process as it was dependent not only on human and other resources, but also on the data, which were not available in most cases. The responsible authority is working on the elimination of the existing deficiencies by means of the intercalibration results and activities of several national projects.

Despite the fact that the methods for BQE are not fully developed, the classification of a water body is performed on a basis of the available information applying the one-out-all-out principle.

No specific information can be found to assess whether the biological classification system is related with all major pressures, the supporting methodology is not available.

River basin specific pollutants were not identified for the first RMPs, and were hence not used for the assessment of ecological status.

The intercalibrated class boundaries are applied to national types that are comparable to the common intercalibration types i.e. for lake water bodies.

The assessment of confidence and precision is based on the reliability of the parameter values (high/medium/low).

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

For the actual assessments of ecological status reported in the RBMP the number of quality elements included in the monitoring program was very limited and they were mainly physico-chemical parameters. The new assessment will be based on the elaborated and improved classification system which is currently under development.

The current ecological status assessment is preliminary, since the quality of the assessment methods will be further improved. If there was more than one monitoring station in the territory of the water body,  the data of these monitoring stations were compared were, during the assessment. Data were excluded where they corresponded to one of the following principles: more recent data were available; the monitoring point is located in the upper (upstream) part of the WB; the monitoring point is located directly downstream the city.

Because the limited availability of assessment methods for BQEs, probably not the most sensitive BQEs have been chosen.

When assessing the ecological quality of the water bodies the level of reliability has been determined for the assessment (high, medium, low). 1) reliability is assessed as low, if the final assessment key parameter value differs from the other parameters by more than one quality class; 2) reliability is assessed as a medium, if the final assessment key parameter value differs from the other parameters by one quality class; 3) reliability is assessed as high, if the final assessment is determined by two or more parameters.

The percentage of water bodies in good status is quite high, especially considering the shortcomings of monitoring.

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

According to the Article 5 analysis report, Latvia have provisionally identified less than 2% of their water bodies as heavily modified or artificial water bodies. In the RBMPs of 2010 out of 470 surface water bodies reported, 34 water bodies are designated as HMWBs (i.e. 7%).

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial water bodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

The RBMPs according to the Art. 4.3(a) specify the following water uses for which water bodies are designated as HMWB:

· Navigation, including port facilities;

· Storage for power generation;

· Water regulation;

· Land Drainage.

The RBMPs describe following the types of physical modifications which are considered in designation for HMWB: locks, channelisation/ straightening/ bed stabilisation, dredging, bank reinforcement/embankment, land drainage.

The methodology of designation of the HMWB has been reported and CIS Guidance Document No. 4 has been followed. In addition the Cabinet of Ministers regulations No. 858 “Regulations on typology of surface water bodies, classification, quality elements and procedures for identification of anthropogenic loads” have been followed.

HMWBs were designated taking into account the step-by-step process described in the CIS Guidance Document No. 4 “Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies.” The designation was carried out by experts that used all available data and information about the water bodies, mainly about the present morphological changes and, as far as possible, on their impacts on water flow, migration of species, sediment transport etc.

The WB has been designated as HMWB if there were identified following modifications: port constructions, HEPP (hydroelectric power plant) dams and constructions or land reclamation.

Following criteria are used to define “substantial changes in character” due to physical modifications:

· % of water body affected;

· Length (km) of water body affected;

· The age of modification - since when the modification has taken place.

The RBMPs discuss the issue of uncertainty in relation to the designation of HMWB. The designation of HMWB is based mainly on the expert judgement and on extrapolation of available information. Further monitoring of designated HMWBs has to be done and the designation criteria revised. Accordingly the ecological potential has to be defined for each HMWB type.

A background document has been reported: Report on designation of the HMWB.[17]

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

HMWBs have been designated but GEP has not been defined. GEP is fully aligned with the natural water ecological classification system - ecological status classification is used as an interim solution. Values of the parameters are identical. Due to lack of monitoring data of biological quality elements and lack of relevant scientific studies, it was not possible to define ecological potential during the development of the first river basin management plans.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

Due to lack of monitoring data of biological quality elements and lack of relevant scientific studies, it was impossible to define ecological potential during the development of the first river basin management plans. At the moment heavily modified water bodies are required to achieve a good ecological status – more stringent requirements applicable to the natural water bodies.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

EQSs laid down in Part A of Annex I of the Directive 2008/105/EC for the assessment of the chemical status of bodies of surface water have been applied partially.

The general information on the Chemical status of surface waters in the RBD is described in the RBMP chapter 1.5.4 and in the annex 1.6. The detailed information on the EQSs for the assessment of chemical status of surface waters is in the supporting documentation of the RBMP - Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 118 adopted on March 12, 2002 "Regulations regarding the Quality of Surface Waters and Ground waters" with amendments until 08.10.2005 (there is a clear reference in the RBMPs that this was the version of the CM Regulations applied for the purpose of this plan).

The deadline for transposition of the Directive 2008/105/EC into national legislation was 13 July 2010. River basin management plans were developed in 2008 – 2009, according to the WFD timescale. Due to this time difference EQS from the Directive 2008/105/EC for the chemical status assessment and river basin characteristics were not applied. In 2008 – 2009 national environmental quality standards, different from those of the EQS Directive, were in force.

National standards as set in the CM regulations 118 (with amendments until 08.10.2005.) were applied for the assessment of the chemical status. The substances for which national standards have been set were separated - annex 1 particularly dangerous substances, and annex 2 dangerous substances. Both annexes have been taken into consideration for the assessment of the chemical status. There are a number of substances in Part A of Annex I of the Directive 2008/105/EC which are not used for the assessment of chemical status.

EQSs for biota for mercury and its compounds, and/or for hexachlorobenzene, and/or for hexachlorobutadiene according to Article 3(2a) of the EQSD were not set and there are no EQSs derived for sediment and/or biota for some of the 33 plus 8 substances.

Cabinet Regulation No. 118 adopted on March 12, 2002 "Regulations regarding the Quality of Surface Waters and Ground waters" was later amended. In the current version of the Cabinet Regulation No. 118 with the amendments, since 01.01.2010 the approach of the assessment of the chemical status has been revised and now it follows the requirements of the WFD and Directive 2008/105/EC.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

Monitoring of priority substances, according to the national legislation, for the first RBMPs was carried out in the

· Daugava RBD in four WB;

· Gauja RBD in four WB;

· Lielupe RBD in six WB;

· Venta RBD in eight WB.

The chemical status for all water bodies in all RBDs was assessed as good.

9.3 Other issues

Mixing zones in current version of RBMPs are defined in general, but they are not designated and there are no specific measures foreseen in the RBMP. The mixing zone is described in the CM regulations No. 34 (version with amendments 14.08.2010). According to the CM regulations mixing zones have to be defined when a water use permit is issued.

According to the CM regulations No. 34 the mixing zone adjacent to points of discharge is determined taking into account following:

1)      considering the pollution reduction program prepared by the operator and the capacity of the enforcement of the best available techniques; the characteristics of the priority substances emitted or physical-chemical characteristics and the hydrological conditions in the water body;

2)      pollutant concentrations in the discharge permit conditions and pollutant emissions in a given water body, the mixing zone would not be disproportionate in comparison to the above the overall impact on the quality of the water body;

3)      concentration of the polluting substances at the point of discharge and requirements of the pollution permit in order to ensure the comparability with the impact to the overall quality of the water body.

Considering the requirements defined in the CM regulations No.34 chapter 20'3 the Regional Environmental board may revise the water use permits and define additional measures in order to reduce the mixing zone if the proper water quality is not achieved.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

The RBMP provides the following information on the number of GWBs at risk and the respective pollutants:

· Daugava RBD: there is a risk that the concentrations of chloride, heavy metals, nitrogen and PAHs could be increased due to the intrusion of sea water and possible intrusion of polluted surface water. Another risk is the filtration of pollution from a number of surface point source pollution sites. In some places the polluted GW area has been as assessed as up to 200 ha. The infiltration of the pollution is related to historical pollution.

· Gauja RBD and Lielupe RBD - there are no groundwater bodies that are at risk of not meeting good chemical status.

· Venta RBD - part of one groundwater body is at risk due to saline water intrusions.

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

Groundwater quantitative status is not considered a significant issue in Latvia.

In the RBMP the general information of how the assessment of groundwater quantitative status was carried out is provided, no values are presented.

When assessing the groundwater quantitative status the criteria of WFD and GWD has been used: available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long term annual average rate of abstraction, needs of surface water connected to groundwaters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems, alterations to the flow direction, saltwater intrusion. It is not clear how the assessment was done in practice though.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

In Daugava RBD there are 17 monitoring points and in 3 of these points pollution has been registered. In all cases Nitrate pollution has been registered.

The following criteria have been applied to assess the good groundwater chemical status 1) chemical composition of the water should be the same as the natural water chemical composition which is characteristic to the particular water body and no QS or TVs should be exceeded; 2) in one or more monitoring points the concentration of the polluting substances annual average concentration exceeds the QS or TVs, but in the assessment process it is stated that polluting substances do not cause a significant risk to the environment and pollution has not compromised the use of the water body for human needs; 3) there are no saltwater or other  intrusions to the water body or other unfavourable changes.

All substances of Annex II Part B of the GWD have been taken into account in the establishment of the threshold values. The threshold values are established considering the principles reported in the Cabinet Regulation No. 42 “Requirements regarding the groundwater assessment and quality criteria”. The following elements are included in these principles: protection of aquatic ecosystems (surface waters), protection of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (e.g. wetlands), actual and potential legitimate uses and functions of groundwater (e.g. drinking water, irrigation, industrial use etc.), saline or other intrusions. Natural background levels of substances have also been considered within the establishment of threshold values, but it is not clear, how. TVs seem to be coordinated with neighbouring Member States but not with neighbouring third countries.

There is no methodology on how to estimate TV exceedances, expert judgement is used. The number of GWBs with TV exceedances cannot be assessed as they are not reported per GWB.

Trend assessments and trend reversal assessments have not been performed during the first planning cycle, methodologies were not established.

10.3 Protected areas

Latvia did not provide data on the status of groundwater drinking water protected areas to WISE.

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

There are Drinking Water Protected Areas (WFD Article 7); Bathing water areas (Directive 76/160/EEC) and Natura 2000 sites designated under Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats) and Directive 79/409/EEC (Birds) in Latvia, but no additional objectives have been established for any of these protected areas. In the process of setting the environmental objectives the presence of all these types of protected areas has been considered and results of the assessment for all water bodies are presented in the summary tables of the environmental objectives.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

There is an overall assessment of the main impacts and the main drivers causing exemptions (the application of exemptions Article 4.4 (later deadline) and 4.5 (lower objective)). The assessment of the main impacts and main drivers causing the exemptions is not equal for all water bodies. For some water bodies the information presented is more detailed and water body specific, but for some water bodies there is more general assessment. Here are some of the examples mentioned as an impacts and drivers causing the exemptions: historical pollution, hydro morphological modifications, and pollution from the WWTP (lack of financial resources in private sector to improve the water treatment installations). For a number of water bodies the justification is uncertainty - lack of information (data) to justify the reason of the pollution that cause the bad water quality. Exemptions due to natural conditions have not been defined; there is a general statement that natural conditions could be used as a reason for exemptions. At this stage they have not been applied.

RBD || Global[18]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

LVDUBA || 24 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || -

LVGUBA || 10 || 0 || 11 || 0 || 0 || -

LVLUBA || 13 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || -

LVVUBA || 9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

Total || 56 || 0 || 14 || 0 || 0 || -

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

Not relevant, Article 4(6) is not applied.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

There are no exemptions for new modifications applied for Plans and/or Projects at this stage, so article 4(7) has not been used.

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

No information has been reported if exemptions related to prevention or limiting input of pollutants into groundwater have been applied.

Article 4(4) exemptions have been applied for 3 GWBs where the chemical status is not good. No exemptions have been applied for quantitative status.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 of the WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[19] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

The status assessments have been used for the planning of the PoM. The measures are not coordinated with neighbouring countries at the moment. The main reason for non-co-ordination is the different timing for the development of the programs of measures for international RBDs with Lithuania (Venta, Lielupe and Daugava RBDs). In Lithuania draft programs of measures are available whilst in Latvia, public consultation about the plans and programs has already been concluded and management plans have been prepared for their adoption.

The reason for non-co-ordination of Gauja RBD is the fact that both surface waters and groundwater are in good status on the Estonian part of Gauja/Koiva river basin district and therefore specific measures are not envisaged in this territory. Further consultations and co-ordination may take place during the next planning period.

In the PoM for each measure defined, the level of covered geographic area is specified. The level of detail of geographical area is measure specific. The measures have been established at national, RBD, local (regional administrative unit) and WB level. For each defined measure the institution(s) responsible for implementation is/are specified.

The cost break down of the PoM per sector, by pressure and by water category is not presented. There are only total costs calculated for the implementation of the PoM[20]:

Daugava RBD: €1508,2 million. The implementation of Drinking Water Directive and Waste Water Treatment Directive will cost €1475,7 million. The implementation of the supplementary and additional measures will cost €20,7 million for Daugava RBD and €0,28 million at National level (for example development of technical standards for forest drainage in an environmentally friendly manner, development of the strategy and guidelines for river remediation etc.).

Gauja RBD: €270,3 million. The implementation of Drinking Water Directive and Waste Water Treatment Directive will cost €263,6 million . The implementation of the supplementary and additional measures will cost €6,7 million  for Gauja RBD and €0,28 million at National level (for example development of technical standards for forest drainage in an environmentally friendly manner, development of the strategy and guidelines for river remediation etc.).

Lielupe RBD: €499 million. The implementation of Drinking Water Directive and Waste Water Treatment Directive will cost €436,7 million. The implementation of the supplementary and additional measures will cost €42 million for Lielupe RBD and €0,28 million at National level (for example development of technical standards for forest drainage in an environmentally friendly manner, development of the strategy and guidelines for river remediation etc.).

Venta RBD: €389,9 million. The implementation of Drinking Water Directive and Waste Water Treatment Directive will cost €385,6 million. The implementation of the supplementary and additional measures will cost €4,3 million  for Venta RBD and €0,28 million at National level (for example development of technical standards for forest drainage in an environmentally friendly manner, development of the strategy and guidelines for river remediation etc.).

The supplementary and additional measures in the program of measures are grouped in two parts those to be implemented at national level(Annex7.2) and Supplementary and additional  RBD Specific measures (Annex 7.3).

The entire PoM for all RBDs will become operational from 2012 or earlier.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Hydromorphological modifications due to drainage of agricultural lands (melioration) and diffuse pollution are mentioned as a significant pressures related to agriculture. The water use for agriculture is not indicated as a significant pressure. Diffuse pollution from agriculture sources is assessed as a significant pressure on surface water.

Measures related to agriculture have been discussed and agreed in the public consultation where all stakeholder groups were involved; there were no specific farmers’ consultative boards or working groups established.

The following measures have been selected to address the pressures:

Measures || LVDUBA || LVGUBA || LVLUBA || LBVUVA

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application[21] || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application[22] || ü || ü || ü || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || || || ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices [23] || ü || ü || ü || ü

Measures against soil erosion || || || ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management)[24] || ü || ü || ü || ü

Technical measures for water saving [25] || ü || ü || ü || ü

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || ü || ü || ü || ü

Nutrient trading || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation[26] || ü || ü || ü || ü

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü || ü || ü || ü

Institutional changes || || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || || || ||

Farm advice and training || || || ||

Raising awareness of farmers || ü || ü || ü || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || ü || ü || ü || ü

Certification schemes || || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || || || ||

Land use planning || ü || ü || ü || ü

Technical standards || ü || ü || ü || ü

Specific projects related to agriculture[27] || || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || || || ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

The scope of the application of the measures is either geographic area specific (ha, river basin, water body, length) or sector (or part of sector) specific (e.g. crop farming, livestock farming).

For all measures the possible funding source/s for implementation of the measure is indicated, however the information is very general. In the PoM the following funding sources are indicated for the implementation of the measures related to agriculture: the Rural Development Programme, National Fish Fund, the Regional Development Fund, National budget and private budget.

The due date for the implementation of the measures is specified. Most of the basic measures have to be implemented by 2012, and overall all measures that are expected to be implemented by 2015.

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

The expected improvements due to the hydromorphological measures are described in the RBMP, but no numbers are specified. Most of the measures are non-technical measures and therefore the expected results are also more general.

Hydromorphological measures are planned in HMWB. The measures included in the PoM, which are planned to be implemented in the HMWB, are however not always related with the reduction of the hydromorphological pressure.

There are specific measures planned to achieve an ecologically based flow regime. There are scientifically based recommendations for small hydro power plants developed by the Latvian Fish Resources Agency: the minimal ecological flow in the rivers below the HPP dam (in the impacted area) has to be kept at least 50% above the average summer minimal water level.

Cabinet Regulation No. 736 “Regulations Regarding a Permit for the Use of Water Resources” includes regulations for planned activities which are related with the hydromorphological modifications, requiring an ecologically based flow regime to be considered.

Measures || LVDUBA || LVGUBA || LVLUBA || LBVUVA

Fish ladders || ü || ü || ü || ü

Bypass channels || ü || ü || ü || ü

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || || || ||

Sediment/debris management || ü || ü || ü || ü

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || || || ||

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || || || ||

Lowering of river banks || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || || || ||

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || || || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || || || ||

Construction of retention basins || || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || || || ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

In addition to the above, the development of strategy or guidelines aiming to reduce the pressures of the hydromorphological modification (assessment of the possible measures to be implemented) and the technical assessment of the impact of the HPP dams are also considered.

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

Groundwater over-exploitation is not an issue therefore there are no measures foreseen to tackle this issue. The Cabinet Regulation No. 736 “Regulations Regarding a Permit for the Use of Water Resources” stipulates the conditions for the use of water resources including the use of groundwater.

In national legislation there are restrictions in order to reduce the pollution caused by agriculture, such as restrictions for manure spreading, use of biocides and pesticides, use of waste water sludge and storage of manure.

There are no supplementary measures foreseen to be specifically implemented in groundwater bodies at risk or of poor status to achieve the objectives under Article 4 of the WFD. The implementation of only the basic measures is planned. It is reported in RBMPs that this will be sufficient.

The measures related to international river basin districts and transboundary groundwater bodies are not coordinated at the moment due to different timing of the development of the programs of measures. In Lithuania draft programmes of measures have become available whilst in Latvia public consultation about the plans and programmes have already been concluded and management plans have been prepared for their adoption. Further consultations and co-ordination were planned in 2010.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

There is an inventory of sources of pollution and it covers the following categories of pollutants:

· Priority substances and certain other pollutants;

· Non priority specific pollutants or main pollutants identified by each Member State at the river basin level;

· Deoxygenating substances;

· Nutrients.

In the RBMP, information is reported on all possible point and diffuse anthropogenic sources of pollution coming from industrial, urban and agricultural activities. There are no detailed inventories of the categories of the pollutants by sources of pollution. Industries and intensively cultivated agricultural lands are identified as the most possible source of chemical pollution.

During the drafting of the first RBMP the monitoring data up to 2008 were used, and according to these data the chemical quality of all water bodies was assessed as good. There are no chemical pollutants indicated as causing a failure to achieve good ecological status/potential for surface waters. In the RBMP indirect discharges of industrial emissions through the urban sewerage system are indicated as possible significant sources of chemical pollution, but as chemical quality was assessed as good there are no further analyses of specific sectors reported in the RBMP.

There are no specific group of measures defined in the PoM to solve particularly the chemical pollution. The basic measures - implementation of the national legal acts will assure the reduction of possible pollution of surface waters by priority substances and reduce the pollution from other substances that would otherwise cause problems with the achievement of the objectives set by the RBMP.

There are no substance specific measures foreseen in the PoM.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

According to the information reported in RBMPs the main approach was to follow the WFD definition of "water services". However it is not clear if water services cover self-abstraction by households, industry and agriculture.

The water uses have been identified with reference to the impact on water status and following the WFD requirements. The impact on water status and pressure on resources from industry, households and agriculture has been identified. An  impact analysis for forestry and port activities has also been identified.

In the RBMP detailed analysis is provided of the cost recovery calculation for households, industry and agriculture, and general information is reported for forestry and port activities. The following financial costs have been included in the calculation of recovery levels: capital costs, operating costs, maintenance costs, administrative costs, costs of capital and nature resource tax. Financial cost data were collected and reported at river basin level.

Subsidies are considered within cost recovery calculation.

Environmental and resource costs are internalised through the nature resource tax, but they have not been calculated. Only a qualitative description of those costs is available.

Adequate contribution from the 3 main sectors (households, industry and agriculture) is in principle assured, but it is considered that despite the implementation of good agricultural practice for the agriculture sector, the current economic instruments are not adequate to cover the environmental costs; the same is true for the forestry sector. The ports are covering only the damage to the fish resources. The other negative hydro morphological impacts caused by the port activities are not recovered and included in the environmental cost recovery system. It is reported that there is a supplementary measure that envisages evaluation of the efficiency of the natural resources tax and development of recommendations for its optimisation.

In the PoM the funding of the measures is based on a polluter pays principle, i.e. the responsibility (financing) for the realisation of the measures is binding for those who are responsible for causing the pressure to the environment. The following instruments are identified: cost for water actually used, based on water metering of households; nature resource tax (NRT) - cost for water actually used and water pollution. It has to be remembered that the current NRT rate might not be stimulating rational water use, (the rate is too low).

Despite the information on water metering, very little information can be found on any incentive function of water pricing in different sectors.

The provisions of Article 9(4) on flexibility have not been used.

No information is reported on international co-operation.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

The water bodies and protected areas needing additional measures are not clearly identified and there is no specification on the type of measures necessary.

No additional measures have been included in the PoM to reach the more stringent objectives of the Birds Directive, Habitats Directive, Shellfish Directive, Fresh Water Fish Directive or Bathing Water Directive. The good quality will be reached by implementation of the basic measures. There are no additional measures included in the RBMP in order to safeguard areas for drinking water.

13. water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management and Climate change adaptation 13.1 Water Scarcity and droughts

Water scarcity and droughts are considered as not relevant for RBMP in Latvia. However measures related to water efficiency and water saving are included in the plans. Sources of funds to implement measures are specified and water demand trend scenarios are provided, itemised by water use.

13.2 Flood risk management

The RBMPs are linked with the other sectoral plans, including the National Flood Risk Management Strategy 2008-2015.  The effects of flooding in the flood affected areas are also considered as a pressure to the water bodies and RBD. The methodology for the assessment of this pressure transferred from the "National program for the flood risk and management 2008-2015" (accepted in 2007).

Neither article 4(6) on temporary deteriorations of status due to fir instance floods), not article 4(7)(on new modifications leading to deterioration of the status ) have been applied in this RBMP.

13.3 Climate change adaptation

The issues in relation to adaptation to climate change are mentioned in a general way, they have not been analysed and described in detail.

According to the information in the RBMPs due to the lack of scientifically proved information about the possible climate change impact to the water ecosystems, hydrological regime etc. until 2015, climate change has not been considered in the PoM. As climate change has not been considered as a significant issue there are no specific measures defined.

There is a National Climate Change Strategy developed but there are no references found to it in the RBMP.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and, as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· Latvia needs to update the characterisation process from 2005 and report it to the Commission in the RBMPs and the WISE reporting on characterisation, including taking into account developments on intercalibration.

· The process of designating HMWBs and classifying status are currently largely based on expert judgement, and more monitoring is needed for a thorough assessment. The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· The size limit for lakes needs to be brought in line with the WFD requirements.

· The significant shortcomings in the monitoring system, (absence of many biological, hydromorphological, physico-chemical quality elements) need to be addressed. An adequate monitoring network is a necessary investment for efficient water management. 

· Once the monitoring network is in place and results are analysed this may allow a more robust assessment of the pressures that are having an impact on the water environment (currently few pressures are identified as significant).

· More efforts are needed to address chemical pollution, starting from identification of relevant river basin specific pollutants, to monitoring and application of results for    ecological status assessments.

· There is a large degree of unknown status, mostly for chemical status. Latvia needs to improve the knowledge base, to make sure measures are in place to achieve progressive improvement of water status during the second cycle. The assessment of chemical status should be based on all the substances listed in the EQSD, and on the EQS listed in that Directive, unless equivalently protective EQS are derived.

· Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived. Trend monitoring in sediment or biota for several substances as specified in Directive 2008/105/EC Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.

· A groundwater operational monitoring based on WFD requirements should be established. Groundwater trend assessments and reversals should be carried out in the second RBMP cycle.

· Exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans. Insufficient monitoring contributes to shortcomings in the application of exemptions. The high numbers of exemptions applied in these first RBMPs are a cause for concern. Latvia should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainty.

· It is unclear whether there are new physical modifications planned in the RBDs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as required by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· It is vital that adequate pollution control measures are included in PoMs as these can be the most cost effective measures and can deliver a range of environmental and economic goals.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resource in all of Latvia. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that farmers know the rules and the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water. Latvia should ensure that self-abstraction by households, industry and agriculture is defined as water service and is taken into account in the calculation of cost recovery of water services. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

· Further effort is needed to ensure effective co-ordination with neighbouring countries on all relevant aspects of the WFD, both with other EU member states as well as with non-EU countries.

[1]     "On key provisional results of Population and Housing Census 2011". Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia. 18 January 2012.

[2]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[3]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[4]     Pressures and Measures Study, Task 1 Governance.

[5]     Characterization of the Baltic Sea Ecosystem: Dynamics and Function of Coastal Types, 2002-2006.

[6]     Cabinet of Ministers regulations No.858, 2004.10.19., "Regulations on typology of surface water bodies, classification, quality elements and procedures for identification of anthropogenic loads.

[7]     In the case of Nitrates protected areas, these figures reflect the number of surface waters bodies within a single vulnerable zone.

[8]     This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[9]     The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[10]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[11]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[12]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[13]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[14]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[15]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[16]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[17]http://www.meteo.lv/fs/CKFinderJava/userfiles/files/Vide/Udens/Ud_apsaimn/Papildus%20materiali/Projekts_SPUO%20Latvija_ELLE%202007%20.pdf

[18] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[19]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

[20]    The assessment is based on WISE, and Chapter 7  of the different RBMPs. Costs in the RBMP are presented in National currency LVL, here they are converted to Euro according to the fixed currency exchange rate 1Euro = 0,702804  LVL.

[21]    Development of fertilisation plans particularly in nitrate vulnerable zones; following the requirements regarding the application of fertilisers; restriction or prohibition of fertiliser application during certain periods of the year; prior authorisation or prior registration of fertiliser application; planting of winter crops.

[22]    Restriction of application in terms of quantity or location; use of alternatives to pesticides such as integrated pest management or measures to reduce point source pollution such as improved pesticide handling techniques; prohibition of use; prior authorisation or registration.

[23]    Development of the regulations for the construction of the agricultural melioration system where mitigation measures are defined as obligatory in order to reduce the agricultural run-off diffuse pollution.

[24]    The creation of buffer zones; creation of wetlands; management of crop rotation.

[25]    Planning of water use cycle at the farm level.

[26]    A measure to enforce the polluter-pays-principle and incentives for a sustainable water use.

[27] Enforcement of measures in NVZs, improved inspections at farm level to control farming practice; Enforcement of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin Districts

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Austria has a population of 8.3 million (Eurostat, 2007) and an area of 83870 km2.

Austria is situated in 3 transboundary/international river basin districts: Danube (AT1000), Rhine (AT2000) and Elbe (AT5000).

Austria is a land locked country and hence has no transitional or coastal waters.

Austria has 3 River Basin Districts, all international.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || % National territory within transboundary RB || Countries sharing RBD

AT1000 || Danube || 80565 || 96% || AL, BA, BG, CH, CZ, DE, HR, HU, IT, MD, ME, MK, PL, RO, RS, SI, SK, UA

AT2000 || Rhine || 2365 || 3% || BE, CH, DE, FR, IT, LI, LU, NL

AT5000 || Elbe || 921 || 1% || CZ, DE, PL

Table 1.1: Overview of Austria’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[1]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/at/eu/wfdart13

The three international river basins on the Austrian territory all have transboundary cooperation. The Rhine, Elbe and the Danube are all governed by international River Basin Commissions. Austria acts as a party in the Danube and has observer status in the Rhine and Elbe commissions. In addition bilateral agreements exist.

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

1

km² || %

Danube || AT1000 || AL, BA, BG, CH, CZ, DE, HR, HU, IT, MD, ME, MK, PL, RO, RS, SI, SK, UA || 80423 || 10.0

Rhine || AT2000 || BE, CH, DE, FR, IT, LI, LU, NL || 2370 || 1.0

Elbe || AT5000 || CZ, DE, PL || 921 || 0.6

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Austria[2]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

Austria adopted its River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) for the Danube, Rhine and Elbe main River Basin Districts in March 2010 and reported additional information on these to the Commission in January 2012.

Austria has followed a national and consistent approach for the preparation of the 3 RBMPs. It has followed a wide public consultation process prior to the approval of the plans. The structure of the plans shows the efforts done on following the approaches and methodologies agreed in the Common Implementation Strategy process. The plans show a clear understanding of important issues such as diffuse pollution, hydromorphological pressures (including impacts through hydropower production, flood protection, agriculture, etc.). A substantial effort has been made to ensure international coordination in all basins, and in particular it is important to highlight the efforts made in the Danube basin. 

The information provided covers all RBDs in Austria. The largest amount is provided for the Danube which is the largest RBD in the country, covering the majority of the Austrian territory. The main competent authority is the Federal State, which delegates certain implementation powers to the regional States (Länder). Competences are shared between national and regional authorities. The competent authority at Federal level is the Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management. However, the practical and operational implementation of the water law is under the competency of the Länder. Other national ministries and the nature protection authorities of the Länder have also collaborated.

2.1 Key strengthens and weaknesses

A National, consistent approach has been adopted and a substantial effort has been made to ensure international coordination. An important degree of international coordination has been followed, in particular in the case of the Danube that covers the majority of Austria's territory. This is particularly significant when compared to what has been done in the Rhine and the Elbe.

An important public participation strategy stating all efforts to integrate stakeholder's interest has also been put in place.

Efforts have been made to follow the approaches/methodologies agreed in the CIS-process (e.g. classification, reference conditions, monitoring, HMWB/AWB).

The RBMPs clearly show an understanding of the main issues (specifically, diffuse pollution and hydromorphological pressures and impacts through hydropower production, flood protection, agriculture etc.).

A lot of important steps necessary for an adequate WFD implementation and preparation of the RBMPs have been taken. Nevertheless, it would be desirable for more details on the detailed process and all measures in place to be included in order to provide a clear picture of the efforts made towards the implementation of the Directive.

A thorough systematic characterisation methodology has been established which includes biological testing to define typologies and ensures consideration of biological relevance.

Monitoring follows a national approach, objectives are mentioned and all relevant QEs are monitored by surveillance monitoring. For operational monitoring there is a clear pressure-BQE relationship and guidance on which QEs to choose. However, a better explanation of how monitoring results have been used when classifying WB status (including how WBs have been grouped) would help to give a proper indication of the level of effort in this area. Additional information sent by the Austrian authorities after the RBMPs were reported expands on this and clarifies that all water bodies at risk of failing the objectives are included in the operational monitoring programme. Those water bodies that are at risk of failing the objective and that were not assessed with data from sampling sites, or by using grouping procedures, were classified as moderate status with low confidence. They will be subject to the monitoring programmes in the future.

When considering hydromorphological pressures and the measures to apply, there has been a "Prioritisation" of water bodies (WB) for the first cycle. More details on the justification behind the application of exemptions (esp. time exemptions) would help to explain the reasoning behind and the rationale applied to affordability considerations.

Overall, the important requirements of the WFD are fulfilled and specific efforts have been made in exploring what could be done in specific areas. It is clear that for some of the tasks required, the work carried out is impressive (e.g. monitoring systems), but in some other areas there is explanation missing on measures. This may be particularly important in the case of hydromorphological pressures (hydropower) and diffuse pollution from agriculture. Additional information provided by the Austrian authorities indicates that the existing programme for rural development, for example, includes agri-environment measures. Many of these measures are intended to improve water quality, e.g. greening, organic farming, reduction of fertilisation.

The Programme of Measures focused mainly on basic measures already in place, providing a lot of information on existing laws, regulations, permitting systems etc. However, no real consideration was given to cost-effectiveness when discussing potential additional measures at the general/RB/national level. Austrian authorities pointed out after the RBMPs reporting, that assessment of cost effectiveness was done on national level, not on local WB level[3].

Some more details on additional measures would also help provide an explanation of how the work carried out will enable WFD objectives to be achieved. In particular in multi-pressure situations (which are frequently found in large rivers), first measures have been started (e.g. continuity), but additional morphological measures will be necessary in order for WFD objectives to be achieved. It is very difficult to quantify the need for further restoration measures and to forecast the effectiveness of these measures on the basis of the information provided. For reasons of cost-effectiveness a stepwise approach was followed. In this case, the provision of more detail would help in explaining how the benefits would be reached.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

Austria reported that there are provisions in place to ensure that basin authorities are consulted in the preparation of the land use plan of the municipalities, and revisions are to be carried out regularly. The same authorities are the competent authorities for the development of flood risk management plans and the RBMP. The RBMP was adopted in March 2010. Public consultation took place between April and October 2009. There is a clear timeline of implementation from 2012 onwards which is regionalised on the “Länder” level by ordinances.

3.2 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

The national RBMP covers all three basins in one document and methodologies and approaches have been applied at a national level. It covers all aspects required by the WFD and follows more or less the outline structure set out in the Annex of the Directive.

The RBMP is approved by a federal ordinance and as such, is binding on the whole federal territory. It must comply with the federal Constitution and the federal laws. Federal administrative decisions and RBMPs need to comply with Länder ordinances and Länder administrative decisions. The Ordinance approving the RBMP declares chapters 5 (environmental objectives) and 6 (water management system) to be binding to the extent stipulated in that ordinance. Chapter 6 on the water management system includes the Austrian programme of measures.

The legislation stipulates that decisions must be in compliance with the RBMP (including the environmental objectives). The competent authorities must revise or withdraw water-related permit decisions, if projects fail to comply with the public interest, including the environmental objectives. The competent authorities must analyse the permits and revise them, if the monitoring of the surface water status, groundwater status or protected areas indicates that the environmental objectives will not be reached as scheduled.

Generally the RBMP is not directly binding to private persons but it has a directly binding effect on the administration. Therefore, only the administrative decision which, for example, authorises actions of private persons, may be challenged before the courts if it is contrary to the RBMP.

3.3 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

In the RBMPs it is mentioned that extensive information and consultation of the interested public was carried out and that a response document was created. The results of the public consultation have been considered in the finalisation of the plan. In some cases the issues raised will be dealt with in the next RBMP 2015 (e.g. pressure/impact analysis for fish ponds, which basically are of minor importance in Austria). These issues are clearly mentioned in the RBMP.

3.4 International cooperation and coordination

All the Austrian river basins are international. International Commissions are established for the protection of each river, Danube, Elbe and Rhine (ICPDR, IKSE and IKSR). Austria has only a very small part of its territory in the Elbe Basin (1,1%), so it has only observer status in the International Commission. The same applies for the Rhine. There are a number of bilateral water cooperation agreements in place with the neighbouring countries.

However the roof reports set up and adopted by the International Commissions provide the framework for the national River Basin Management Plans. The priorities of the programme of measures are implemented in the programme of measures in the Austrian RBMP

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

As Austria is a land-locked country each of the Austrian RBMPs refers to just two water categories (rivers and lakes).

4.2 Typology of surface waters

Several water typologies have been developed for rivers and lakes and they have been validated with biological data: For rivers, the process of setting the typology took place in three steps, setting an abiotic typology according to system B (following the approach of the CIS guidance on reference conditions and ecological status class boundaries for inland surface waters) and some additional parameters. The process followed included three steps: i) to define the basic abiotic river types (17 region types and 9 special types), ii) to review the basic types from a biological perspective –benthic invertebrates, fish, algae/macrophytes- which let to 15 riverine bioregions, and finally iii) to differentiate longitudinal zones into subtypes within the bioregions and special types based on macrozoobenthos analysis which reported 50 stream types.

For lakes (>0.5 km2), typology is based on abiotic criteria and then review using biological data (basic trophic status, macrophytes, fish).

Reference conditions have been established for each of the SW types using spatially based methods. The by-law on "Quality objectives ecology-SWB" gives the reference conditions for the different types, but although there is a reference where the methodology is explained, this could have been better explained in the RBMPs itself[4]. According to the by-law the "reference value" is derived statistically from the range of measures values in the reference sites of a WB type.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

AT1000 || 150 || 43 || 0 || 0

AT2000 || 73 || 5 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 14 || 1 || 0 || 0

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

AT1000 || 7054 || 4 || 55 || 7 || 128 || 724

AT2000 || 194 || 4 || 5 || 107 || 7 || 333

AT5000 || 91 || 5 || 2 || 1 || 1 || 921

Total || 7339 || 4 || 62 || 15 || 136 || 705

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

The methodological approach for the delineation of SWB follows a national approach. Overall, Austria has reported 7339 river water bodies and 62 lake water bodies. Medium sized rivers (with a catchment area of 10-100 km2) have not been monitored in the 1st RBMP cycle (the measurement programme for the smaller water bodies is being carried out 2010-2012). Small rivers (with a catchment area of less than 10 km2) and small lakes (area of less than 50 Ha) have not been included in the 1st RBMP cycle. Grouping along a specific set of criteria has been carried out[5].

Austria seems to have applied a very systematic and thorough methodology to define their typology including biological testing to ensure the biological relevance of the different types - this has led to a substantial amount of types.

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

Significant pressures from point sources are defined in different ways:

· Urban Waste Water Treatment Plants were defined by numerical tools;

· IPPC installations were defined by expert judgement of the competent authorities; and

· Contaminated sites, installations with theoretical water hazard potential and large cooling water discharges were also recorded.

Significant pressures from diffuse sources are identified from agriculture and forestry land use (N/P emissions and pesticides), airports (with organic carbon compounds and nitrogen compounds used for de-icing as possible pollutants), mining sites (heavy metals (chromium, copper and zinc)) and contaminated sites (heavy metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons). The identification is based on expert judgement and, for agricultural pressures, numerical methods.

Hydropower is the main pressure relating to water abstraction. Water abstraction for irrigation is only of importance in South/East Austria. Commercial and industrial abstractions are substantially lower than the significance thresholds established and do not pose a risk for achieving good ecological potential.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

AT1000 || 2708 || 38.04 || 49 || 0.69 || 1151 || 16.19 || 27 || 0.38 || 3955 || 55.63 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 209 || 2.94 || 0 || 0

AT2000 || 70 || 35.18 || 9 || 4.52 || 28 || 14.07 || 12 || 6.03 || 111 || 55.78 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0.5 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 37 || 39.78 || 1 || 1.08 || 26 || 27.96 || 1 || 1.08 || 48 || 51.61 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2.15 || 0 || 0

Total || 2815 || 38.04 || 59 || 0.8 || 1205 || 16.28 || 40 || 0.54 || 4114 || 55.59 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 212 || 2.86 || 0 || 0

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

4.5 Protected areas

In Austria, over 700 protected areas have been designated. Most of these areas are for drinking water abstraction under Art 7 of the WFD and bathing protected areas. 362 protected areas are associated with GWBs.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

AT1000 || 210 || 251 || 50 || || 67 || 86 || || || || ||

AT2000 || 20 || 16 || 3 || || 4 || 6 || || || || ||

AT5000 || 1 || 1 || 1 || || || 1 || || || || ||

Total || 231 || 268 || 54 || || 71 || 93 || || || || ||

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[6]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The methodology applied for monitoring follows a national approach. Objectives are mentioned and all relevant QEs are monitored in surveillance monitoring. In the case of operational monitoring there is a clear pressure-BQE relationship and guidance on which QEs to choose.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3 1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

AT1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

AT2000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

AT5000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

Source: WISE

All priority substances and specific pollutants are monitored and there is a detailed approach for selecting monitoring sites. There are differences between the number of monitored and classified sites.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

AT1000 || 77 || 544 || 32 || 2 || 1923 || 234 || 3070

AT2000 || 13 || 38 || 1 || 0 || 72 || 0 || 306

AT5000 || 1 || 15 || 0 || 0 || 13 || 0 || 7

Total by type of site || 91 || 597 || 33 || 2 || 2008 || 234 || 3383

Total number of monitoring sites[7] || 634 || 33 || 5391

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

As already outlined in the Article 8 report for the WFD, a surveillance monitoring programme has been established with all relevant quality elements being monitored

The operational monitoring programme responds to the significant pressures. The RBMPs explain the criteria against which the biological quality elements are selected and linked with pressures. Nutrient enrichment in rivers and contamination by priority substances are monitored using benthic invertebrates, aquatic flora and fish. In lakes, phytoplankton, other aquatic flora and fish are reported to monitor the impact of altered habitats.

The priority substances and other relevant specific pollutants are being monitored. The design of the surveillance monitoring programmes is based on a variety of criteria such as the size of the catchment area, the consideration of areas with typically anthropogenic pressures, the presence/discharge of these substances at a certain location, important transboundary water bodies and reference sites in more or less undisturbed areas. The operational monitoring is selected for priority substances that are discharged into the river/lake according to the "status analysis" as well as those substances which pose a risk for the WB to fail the environmental objectives.

Rivers with catchments less than 100 km2 were not monitored in the 1st RBMP cycle until 2009. The Austrian authorities have provided information[8] which states that from 2010-2012 water bodies at risk with catchment area 10 - 100km² will be monitored. Those water bodies that have not been monitored are classified based on the results of the risk analysis.

Grouping of water bodies has been applied choosing "representative" water bodies for each pressure situation and then transferring the results of the status according to the monitoring to all water bodies of the same type. For water bodies with a catchment area larger than 100 km2, one third of the WB needs to have been monitored within that catchment.

Further details on how the monitoring coordinates with classification of water bodies would help to explain the selection of monitoring sites and their use for ecological status/potential classification of water bodies.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

In the Rhine and Elbe basin there is no risk of failing good status in groundwater, therefore no operational monitoring is applied. For the Danube RBMP both surveillance and operational monitoring programmes for groundwater are in place[9].

For the design of the chemical status monitoring the RBMP refers to a monitoring ordinance “Gewässerzustandsüberwachungsverordnung” which determines the number of groundwater monitoring sites in Austria (2016 sites) and defines the criteria for designation. These criteria are those of the EU Groundwater Directive. There is no specific link made to pressures, but instead links are made to the risk of failing the objective and to status information.

In the case of operational monitoring of groundwater bodies, at least 2 measurements per year are to be carried out at the monitoring points in Austria. However, groundwater bodies at risk or groundwater bodies which are not of good status are monitored 4 times a year.

In the case of the Danube RBD, special arrangements have been agreed for the surveillance and operational monitoring of transboundary GWBs within the framework of the ICPDR and with the other International Commissions (Rhine and Elbe Commissions).

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

The groundwater monitoring system also covers protected areas. In Austria drinking water protected areas are only relevant for groundwater abstraction points for drinking water supply, and are monitored according to the Drinking Water Directive. In addition to the national monitoring system, the drinking water suppliers conduct self-monitoring in protected areas.

Protected areas relating to fish are also covered by the national monitoring program.

Bathing waters are monitored by the individual “Länder” in accordance with the EU Bathing Waters Directive.

RBD || Surface waters || Groundwater drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates[10] || Shellfish || UWWT

AT1000 || 0 || 35 || 0 || 39 || 164 || 45 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 514

AT2000 || 0 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5

AT5000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 4 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8

Total || 0 || 40 || 0 || 40 || 178 || 47 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 527

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas[11].

Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

AT1000 || 6478 || 1301 || 20.1 || 1520 || 23.5 || 3184 || 49.2 || 382 || 5.9 || 76 || 1.2 || 15 || 0.2

AT2000 || 146 || 25 || 17.1 || 51 || 34.9 || 66 || 45.2 || 4 || 2.7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 91 || 6 || 6.6 || 29 || 31.9 || 49 || 53.8 || 3 || 3.3 || 2 || 2.2 || 2 || 2.2

Total || 6715 || 1332 || 19.8 || 1600 || 23.8 || 3299 || 49.1 || 389 || 5.8 || 78 || 1.2 || 17 || 0.3

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

AT1000 || 631 || 0 || 0 || 169 || 26.8 || 462 || 73.2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT2000 || 53 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 9.4 || 48 || 90.6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 686 || 0 || 0 || 176 || 25.7 || 510 || 74.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

AT1000 || 6478 || 6446 || 99.5 || 15 || 0.2 || 17 || 0.3

AT2000 || 146 || 146 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 91 || 86 || 94.5 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 5.5

Total || 6715 || 6678 || 99.4 || 15 || 0.2 || 22 || 0.3

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

AT1000 || 631 || 628 || 99.5 || 3 || 0.5 || 0 || 0

AT2000 || 53 || 53 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 686 || 683 || 99.6 || 3 || 0.4 || 0 || 0

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

AT1000 || 128 || 125 || 97.7 || 3 || 2.3 || 0 || 0

AT2000 || 7 || 7 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 136 || 133 || 97.8 || 3 || 2.2 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

AT1000 || 128 || 125 || 97.7 || 3 || 2.3 || 0 || 0

AT2000 || 7 || 7 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 136 || 133 || 97.8 || 3 || 2.2 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

AT1000 || 7109 || 2990 || 42.1 || 3239 || 45.6 || 3.5 || || || || || || || || || 54 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT2000 || 199 || 81 || 40.7 || 91 || 45.7 || 5 || || || || || || || || || 54 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 93 || 37 || 39.8 || 39 || 41.9 || 2.2 || || || || || || || || || 56 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 7401 || 3108 || 42 || 3369 || 45.5 || 3.5 || || || || || || || || || 54 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[12]

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021[13] || Good ecological status 2027[14] || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

AT1000 || 6478 || 2821 || 43.5 || 3006 || 46.4 || 2.9 || || || || || 53.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT2000 || 146 || 76 || 52.1 || 83 || 56.8 || 4.8 || || || || || 43.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 91 || 35 || 38.5 || 37 || 40.7 || 2.2 || || || || || 57.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 6715 || 2932 || 43.7 || 3369 || 46.6 || 209 || || 50 || || 100 || 53.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[15]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

AT1000 || 6478 || 6446 || 99.5 || 6457 || 99.7 || 0.2 || || || || || 0.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT2000 || 146 || 146 || 100 || 146 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 91 || 86 || 94.5 || 86 || 94.6 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 6715 || 6678 || 99.4 || 6689 || 99.6 || 0.2 || || || || || 0.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[16]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

AT1000 || 128 || 125 || 97.7 || 125 || 97.7 || 0 || || || || || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT2000 || 7 || 7 || 100 || 7 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 136 || 133 || 97.8 || 133 || 97.8 || 0 || || || || || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[17]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

AT1000 || 128 || 128 || 100 || 128 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT2000 || 7 || 7 || 100 || 7 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 136 || 136 || 100 || 136 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[18]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

AT1000 || 631 || 169 || 26.8 || 233 || 36.9 || 10.1 || || || || || 63.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT2000 || 53 || 5 || 9.4 || 8 || 15.1 || 5.7 || || || || || 84.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 686 || 176 || 25.7 || 243 || 35.4 || 9.7 || || || || || 64.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[19]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

AT1000 || 631 || 628 || 99.5 || 630 || 99.8 || 0.3 || || || || || 0.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT2000 || 53 || 53 || 100 || 53 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

AT5000 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 686 || 683 || 99.6 || 685 || 99.9 || 0.3 || || || || || 0.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[20]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

The assessment of the ecological status of surface waters follows a national approach.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

The assessment methods for the classification of ecological status are developed as follows:

For rivers methods for Phytobenthos, benthic fauna and fish are fully developed. However, for some river types, the applicability of these methods is restricted (e.g. glacial torrents (very specific biocoenosis with high natural variation – influence of glacier discharge is very changeable)). Methods for Phytoplankton and Macrophytes are partly developed. According to the information provided by the Austrian authorities, Phytoplankton is only relevant in river systems which have a living and reproducing plankton community. The Macrophytes method is developed but its applicability is limited in the Alpine area.

For lakes, methods for Phytobenthos and benthic fauna (macrobenthos) are partly developed. It has been assumed that the status is covered by other BQEs in a better way, that there is no eutrophication, high variability of reference conditions, a limited pressure gradient and that no historical data are available.

The biological classification system has been related to the main pressures (eutrophication - R, organic enrichment - R, hydromorphological alterations – L, fish- L ).

Assessment methods for the classification of ecological status have been developed for all physico-chemical quality elements and for hydromorphological quality elements. Regarding the overall classification of ecological status, more clarification on how physico-chemical and biological parameters and hydromorphological parameters are combined in the consideration of definition of class boundaries would be beneficial to ascertain a full understanding (how exceeding values are considered) of the process.

The “One-out-all-out” principle has been applied.

Additional information sent by Austrian authorities after the RBMPs were reported states that the methodology used for setting EQS follows WFD Annex V, 1.2.6.

With a few exemptions for very specific river types, classification systems have been established for all national water body types. Additional information sent by Austrian authorities clarifies that for these special and particular rare river types it was not possible to determine general values for reference conditions for all BQEs/parameters (mainly due to the high natural variability). The river stretches are treated on a case-by-case basis and expert judgement is required.

Class boundaries have been matched with results from the 1st Intercalibration (IC) decision (2008/915/EC), in particular for Macrozoobenthos and Phytobentos in rivers and Phytoplankton and Macrophytes in lakes. The remaining Quality elements will be intercalibrated and adapted to national methods when the new decision on IC is completed and approved. Types not corresponding to common types have been classified using the following approach[21]:

· In the development of the Austrian assessment systems, the same procedure for setting class boundaries and reference conditions was used for all types (same assessment concept). No changes or adaptations of the methods were necessary following the results of IC. It was assumed that this also applies to all other types not included in IC.

· To verify this assumption, an additional “national intercalibration” (for macroinvertebrates: class boundary comparison between national types) was carried out and confirmed the assumption.

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

Most sensitive biological quality elements are used in the assessments of ecological status for water bodies included in the operational monitoring programmes. There is a lack of information on the confidence of the methodologies in the plan. According to additional information provided by the Austrian authorities this information can be found in the national instruction manuals for sampling and assessment.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

AT1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

AT2000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

AT5000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Table 7.2.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)

AT1000 || || Ammonium || 13 WB

AT1000 || || Zinc || 6 WB

AT1000 || || Copper || 1 WB

AT1000 || || AOX || 1 WB

AT2000 || || Ammonium || 13 WB

AT2000 || || Zinc || 6 WB

AT2000 || || Copper || 1 WB

AT2000 || || AOX || 1 WB

AT5000 || || Ammonium || 13 WB

AT5000 || || Zinc || 6 WB

AT5000 || || Copper || 1 WB

AT5000 || || Ammonium || 13 WB

Table 7.2.2: River basin specific pollutants causing failure of status

Source: RBMPs

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The methodology used for defining HMWB and AWB follows a national approach. The designation of HMWB/AWB follows the requirements of WFD Article 4.3 in relation to storage for power generation and flood protection. It describes the physical modifications (dams, canalisations, bed stabilisation and embankment) considered for the designation. The complete process of designation is described in the RBMPs and has followed what is proposed in the CIS guidance. The most common criteria used to define substantial changes in character are the length of the affected WB, height of dams, intensity of fragmentation/number of disruption of lateral connectivity, change in outflow regime water abstractions in connection to filling a storage reservoir.

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

In Austria 7,7% of WB are designated as HMWB and 2% as AWB. The designation  follows the guidance developed under the CIS process. The RBMP includes a brief justification on the beneficial objectives served by the modifications of the HMWB compared to other means in the case of storage for power generation. Furthermore, it is stated that for navigation and other uses (aquaculture, etc.) an exact analysis of the potential effects of measures to reach GES is not available yet. Future methodological improvements are planned to improve the designation process which should provide more certainty on the methodology and criteria applied for designation.

Additional information provided by the Austrian authorities after reporting states that the HMWB designation in the 1st RBMP was only applied for water bodies where restoring GES would mean a significant adverse effect on hydropower generation (relevant for water bodies affected by impoundments/reservoirs with hydropeaking) or flood protection (including infrastructure). The analysis of potential impacts of restoration measures on navigation was not yet available - no water body was identified as HMWB in relation to navigation as the only beneficial objective (the only river water bodies where there is navigation are in the Danube which are at least identified as HMWB with regard to hydropower generation).

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

GEP has been defined using a national approach which is a combination of the CIS and Prague approach. The approach for defining GEP is water body specific, focussing on hydropower as the main water use. For assessing MEP the Prague approach was used and is based on the sensitivity of certain species and life stages of fish using ecological criteria and expert judgement. The difference between MEP and GEP is based on a semi-quantitative approach.

Further studies are planned to evaluate the ecological effects of hydromorphological restoration measures as well as the effects on aquaculture

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

Quality targets for the description of the good chemical status are defined for synthetic, non-synthetic pollutants and general physico-chemical pollutants used for the assessment of ecological status. 41 substances plus 29 synthetic and 6 non-synthetic substances define the chemical status. There is one single EQS value for each substance. The EQS values established are the same as the AA-EQS from the EQS Directive for inland surface waters in the case of aldrin, chlorfenvinphos, chlorpyrifos, para-para-DDT, DDT total, 1,2-dichlororethane, dichloromethane, dieldrin, diuron, endosulfan, hexachlorobutadiene, isoproturon, naphthalene, nonylphenol, octylphenol, simazine, tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, trichlorobenzenes and trichloroethylene. The AA-EQS values from the EQS Directive have not been applied for chloroalkanes, fluoranthene, nickel, PAH and tributyltin compounds.

National standards have been applied for the assessment of the chemical status. For some substances, the standards applied are more stringent than those in Part A of Annex I of Directive 2008/105/EC, which had to be transposed by MS by June 2010, after the adoption of RBMPs.

Measurements lower than the limit of detection are considered. There is no indication as to whether any substances have been monitored in biota or sediment. Mixing zones are defined as the local area after a discharge into a SWB, in which the discharge has mixed with the receiving water body (plume) but no specific methodology is reported.

The allowable pollutant loads have to be set in a way that the EQS are met within a certain distance from the discharge (mixing zones). The distance is 10 times the width of the WB with a minimum length of 1km.

9.2 Priority substances

The priority substances identified that cause the failure to achieve good chemical status are:

CAS Number || Name of substances || Number of water bodies failing good chemical status

7440-43-9 || Cadmium and its compounds || 6

7439-92-1 || Lead || 11

87-68-3 || Hexachlorobutadiene || 2

36643-28-4 || Tributyltin compounds || 3

Table 9.2.1: Substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status

Source: RBMPs

10. Assessment of groundwater status 10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

There are no groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status in Austria.

Regarding quantitative status, the conditions considered when assessing GW quantitative status are: 1) no exceedance of the long term annual average rate of abstraction, 2) failure to achieve the environmental objectives under Article 4 for associated SW bodies resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions, 3) significant damage to dependent terrestrial ecosystems resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration.

Available GW resources have been assessed as specified in Art. 2.27 of the WFD. The needs of terrestrial ecosystems have also been assessed. The balance between recharge and abstraction is considered as an annual average groundwater abstraction against available GW resource. This has been calculated for a subset of GW bodies.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

There are 136 ground water (GW) bodies, 133 of them in good status and 3 in poor chemical status because of diffuse pollution caused by nitrates.

Information is provided on the pollutants/indicators for which threshold values have been exceeded for chemical status and in which monitoring stations. Overall threshold values were exceeded 454 times for all GW-related quality standards. For groundwater monitoring points where threshold values were exceeded (e.g. local discharges of pollutants), additional investigations are carried if necessary to identify the causes (local investigations and controls) with simultaneous increased frequency of monitoring in order to be able to assess any risk to the groundwater body as a whole. This applies in particular for pesticides.No specific measures are mentioned in cases where some monitoring points exceed the TV.

The methodology for the chemical status assessment of a GW body and on threshold values exceedances have been established by law.

Consideration is given to the associated terrestrial ecosystems in order to prevent the failure of ecosystems objectives significantly.

Trend assessment of GW pollutants and trend reversal were performed.

Threshold values were established considering all parameters of Annex II GWD (Austrian “Qualitätszielverordnung Grundwasser Chemie”). Pollutants considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values are those relevant for drinking water use.

More information on transboundary coordination in the establishment of groundwater threshold values would be helpful.

10.3 Protected areas

Protected areas have been identified but there are no additional objectives established since the other directives are considered to be more stringent (e.g. Bathing Water, Habitats, etc.).

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

AT1000 || 210 || ||

AT2000 || 20 || ||

AT5000 || 2 || ||

Total || 232 || 0 || 0

Table 10.3.1: Status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions 11.1 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

There is an overall assessment of the main impacts and drivers causing exemptions with the main drivers being: point source, diffuse, abstraction, flow regulation, river management and other pressures.

The need for time exemptions under Article 4.4 results from the lack of "technical feasibility" (the removal of about 20.000 barriers in the timeframe required is not possible due to the need to obtain land or due to the administrative burden), insufficient knowledge in relation to measures and their impact (for the creation of a cost-effective program of measures), "natural conditions" (in the case of hexachlorobutadiene) and disproportionate costs (re-naturation costs are estimated to be too high to be covered by communities and local authorities until 2015). Therefore a phased approach to improve status is considered

The plan does not provide any detailed methodology for the calculation of disproportionate costs, but it is argued that the total costs for improving the hydro-morphology and removing about 20.000 barriers in rivers with a catchment area >100 km2 would cost in excess of €1billion. These costs need to be split over all three planning cycles. There are no details of innovative financial mechanisms that could be used. It is just stated that local authorities and the hydropower plant operators have to carry the costs.

In the reported RBMPs, exemptions under Article 4.5 are applied for 5 SWB (less stringent standards) due to a failure to meet the EQS for zinc. The reason given refers to historical mining activities, for which no technical solution is available.

For rivers failing to meet the GES/GEP due to hydromorphological pressures, exemptions are applied on the basis that high planning and administrative efforts are required, and also because of the uncertainties related to the response of the biological quality elements on hydromorphological measures.

The GWBs that are failing to achieve good chemical status is due to the nitrates concentration. The justification refers to natural conditions (due to the long recharge time).

RBD || Global[22]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

AT1000 || 3855 || 0 || 3626 || 0 || 3852 || -

AT2000 || 108 || 0 || 100 || 0 || 108 || -

AT5000 || 52 || 0 || 47 || 0 || 52 || -

Total || 4015 || 0 || 3773 || 0 || 4012 || -

Table 11.1.1: Numbers of Article 4.4 and 4.5 exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.1.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(6) and Article 4(7)

Article 4 (6) has not been applied.

Article 4(7) is applied for 2 WBs as 'new modifications' but it is not explicitly mentioned. These new modifications are hydropower projects. This exemption of the "no deterioration clause" was applied for "the sustainable development" of hydropower generation. The reasoning provided by the authorities is that these (hydropower) projects will create an important benefit for sustainable development and human health, which outweighs the benefits associated with reaching of the WFD-environmental objectives.

11.3 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

There is a specific inventory on measures to prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater or reasons indicated for exemptions. The inventory mostly refers to legal acts which have the aim to prevent or limit inputs (e.g. permissions, bans).

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[23] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

Programmes of Measures (PoM) have been coordinated as part of every international RBD. The measures are linked to the status assessment and the related pressure/drives. The PoM includes details at national, regional, RBD and water body unit

In the Danube, a joint transboundary programme of Measures has been developed for 'measures of basin-wide importance'. The PoM is coordinated with non-Member States. This is based on the national programmes of measures which shall be made operational in 2012 and describes the expected status by 2015. Priorities for the effective implementation of national measures on the basin wide scale are highlighted and are the basis of further international coordination. It is coordinated through the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube (ICPDR). This joint PoM is structured according to the significant management issues (SWI) (organic, nutrient and hazardous substances pollution, hydromorphological alterations and GW bodies). It follows the basin wide management objectives according to SWI in order to achieve environmental objectives by 2015. National measures have been incorporated into the international PoM. It is coordinated also with riverine non-Member states. The International PoM addresses river continuity, nutrient reduction and exceeding of environmental quality standards (EQS) due to transboundary chemical pollution.

The PoM includes details at national, regional, RBD and water body unit.

In the Rhine, The RBMP at the international level provides a summary of the PoM. These are based on the national PoM linking the national activities to the transboundary programmes. These cover: re-establishing biological continuity/increase of the habitat diversity, reduction of diffuse pollution and other typical pressures from industrial and communal point sources, bringing water uses (navigation, energy production, flood protection, etc.) in correspondence with reaching WFD objectives and a summary of the national measures take. The PoM is coordinated with non-Member states.

The International PoM addresses river continuity, nutrient reduction and exceeding of environmental quality standards (EQS) due to transboundary chemical pollution.

In the Elbe, The international Elbe RBMP presents limited coordination regarding the PoM. There are only general statements about national PoM that will improve transboundary cooperation. Special emphasis is provided to hydro-morphological pressures. The International PoM addresses river continuity, nutrient reduction and exceeding of environmental quality standards (EQS) due to transboundary chemical pollution. The PoM includes details at national, regional, RBD and water body unit.

For all the RBDs, there is national approach having a transboundary coordination.

PoM implementation involves national, regional and local authorities, enterprises and farmers. It includes agriculture, households, industry, navigation, energy and others. The competent authorities for being responsible for implementing measures are clearly identified.

There is no information provided on supplementary measures. Measures for morphological alterations are mentioned as voluntary (supported by a specific fund) and mandatory. Most measures for industry are mandatory. Measures for agriculture and energy are mandatory and voluntary and measures for navigation are mostly voluntary.

The detailed cost of measures is not provided, nor cost breakdown by sector. There is information of costs of measures by pressure (hydro-morphological alteration)

There are general indications on the financing without commitment in particular related to the Rural Development program, the specific fund for restoring hydro-morphology. There is little detailed information provided on the costs of measures and its assessment, but some information on how the costs are shared among the different governmental levels (federal, regional, community). Cost effectiveness is calculated for agriculture, urban pollution and energy although there is no overall cost-effectiveness calculation/estimation for the combination of measures at RB/national scale. There is no indication about the proportion of budget from different contributors.

For most pressures the relating measures are already in force. New morphological measures have to be operational in priority areas until 2015 in others until 2021 or 2027. New measures improving the chemical status, reducing nitrogen and/or organic pollution should also be in force by 2015.

It is indicated that for the period 2009-2015: Hydromorphology: 50-66% of costs have to be covered by hydropower sector and 33-50% must be covered by regional/local authorities. The estimated cost for morphological alteration measures to ensure fish passing in all rivers with a catchment area >100 km2 is between €300 and €500M. To remove all barriers cost are estimated to go up to €1000 M for morphological restoration. The overall costs till 2027 are considered to be €2600-3000 M.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Agriculture has been identified as an important driver leading to significant pressure in the RBD mainly through diffuse sources. There are also morphological modifications due to agriculture (bank enforcement, dams, weirs, drainage, etc.). Eutrophication is also an impact resulting from agriculture.

Though the public participation activity report did not provide specific information, it is assumed that there has been a very significant involvement of farmers in the preparation of the PoM.

The measures related to agriculture identified in the PoM are: reduction or modification of fertilizer application, reduction or modification of pesticide application, change to low input farming, hydromorphological measures (financed through Rural Development programmes and for some projects through LIFE+) and technical water saving measures as part of the permitting requirements. It is indicated that measures for diffuse pollution are already in place.

Measures || AT1000 || AT2000 || AT5000

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü || ü || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ü || ü || ü

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || ü || ü

Measures against soil erosion || || ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || || ||

Technical measures for water saving || ü || ü || ü

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || ||

Nutrient trading || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü || ü || ü

Institutional changes || ü || ü || ü

Codes of agricultural practice || || ||

Farm advice and training || ü || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü || ü || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || ü || ü || ü

Certification schemes || ü || ü || ü

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || ü || ü || ü

Land use planning || ü || ü || ü

Technical standards || || ||

Specific projects related to agriculture || ü || ü || ü

Environmental permitting and licensing || || ||

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || || ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

The non-technical measures identified are already in existence: implementation and enforcement of existing older EU legislation, controls, setting up or redefining codes of agricultural practice, advice and training, measures to increase knowledge for improved decision making, zoning, development of specific action plans/programmes, land use planning, technical standards.

The information on the scope of application of measures and partially on the implementation calendar is not found in the RBMP, but is outlined in the Rural Development program, the Nitrate Action Program or other national legislation which applied to the agricultural sector..

The Rural Development programmes are mentioned as a source of funding for the measures. Compensation payments regarding Art. 38 of Rural Development Regulation are not mentioned.

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

The hydro-morphological measures presented are linked to types of hydro-morphological pressures: hydropower, flood protection, housing developments, infrastructural activities, shipping and agriculture. The impacts of the physical modification are impoundment of a stretch or a river – cross profile construction and interruption of continuity, intakes, transfers and bypasses, hydro-peaking and residual flow. 

The specific hydro-morphological measures proposed to reach GES or GEP are: Fish ladders, bypass channels, habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas, reconnection of meander bends or side arms, restoration of bank structure, setting minimum ecological flow requirements, compensation reservoirs balancing effects of hydropeaking, restoration of degraded bed structure and re-meandering of formerly straightened water courses.

The importance of implementation of measures is different for water bodies. In priority water bodies measures are to be taken until 2015 in other until 2021 or 2027. Detailed maps with priority areas are provided

A specific combination of measures is set for the first RBMP with 2 focal actions: continuity and improvement of WB structure. There is an analysis of costs and necessary exemptions. It is presented a phased approach for reaching GES/GEP indicating intermediate status improvements, reasons for derogation (technical, costs and natural conditions). It is also presented a list of priority WB and planned hydromorphological measures until 2015, 2021 and 2027.

There is information on requirements regarding the flow regime (linked to sunk-peak effects and hydro-peaking), minimum ecological flows in order to reach ecological quality objectives. There are also specific measures proposed regarding the ecologically based flow regime. Measures are proposed by 2015, 2021 and 2027 per WB.

HMWB and natural water bodies are explicitly treated together. HMWB measures to restore continuity will be undertaken by 2015, morphological alterations as well as the decrease of negative effects of hydropeaking will usually be set in the second cycle. In general hydromorphological alterations are clearly linked to hydropower production, flood protection and reclamation of agricultural land.

Measures || AT1000 || AT2000 || AT5000

Fish ladders || ü || ü || ü

Bypass channels || ü || ü || ü

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || ü || ü

Sediment/debris management || || ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || || ||

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || ü || ü || ü

Lowering of river banks || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü || ü || ü

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ü || ü || ü

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || ü || ü || ü

Inundation of flood plains || || ||

Construction of retention basins || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || ü || ü || ü

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || ü || ü || ü

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

Over-exploitation is not an issue in Austria, all GWBs are in good quantitative status. There are however basic measures implemented to tackle groundwater over-exploitation in the context of water abstraction which relate to permitting regulations and mainly affect the agricultural sector.

Basic measures are implemented to prevent and limit chemical pollution. 3 supplementary measures are mentioned, all of them related to diffuse pollution mainly addressing the agricultural sector. These include education on fertiliser application, soil processes and information to farmers. There are also measures in place to prevent losses from technical installations. The focus remains on the already existing basic measures that are meant to lead to an improvement of the GW status in the future.

In cases where some monitoring points exceed the TV (454 times for 25 pollutants; e.g. local discharges of pollutants), additional investigations are carried if necessary to identify the causes (local investigations and controls) with simultaneous increased frequency of monitoring in order to be able to assess any risk to the groundwater body as a whole. This applies in particular for pesticides.

In sensitive areas, additional groundwater samples are taken to check for possible input of pollutants and also targeted soil analyses are carried out. So far as necessary, protected and closed areas with economic restrictions are ordered for the groundwater body or parts thereof.

There are no details provided on the effectiveness of the measures. There is no information on the timing of measures.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

Pollutants are mentioned in the context of point sources and diffuse pollution.

There are just a few water bodies which do not achieve good chemical status and measures are mentioned for all of them (basically improvement of wastewater treatment plants).

There is also an inventory of all existing measures (legally binding, funds) to reduce emissions from point sources (in regard to chemical status), and diffuse emissions.

The measures taken are regulations/laws/by-laws regulating permitting and emission standards for SW and GW.

The measures are targeted to reduce/phase-out the emissions, production and use of these substances although there is some information on the application and effectiveness of these measures.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

Water uses that have been identified for Article 9 purposes: abstraction as part of water supply, agriculture activity, 10 sub-sectors of industry, water supply and sewage disposal for households, waste water treatment, water supply, hydropower and cooling water use.

A narrow definition of water services is implemented. Water services that have been identified for Article 9 purposes are mainly the public water supply and the municipal sewage disposal; waste water treatment, water supply.

Navigation, storage, self-abstraction, impoundment and flood protection are among those water services which haven't been analysed in the 1st RBMPs.

Regulations and specific laws are used. The measures implemented are: an incentive function of water pricing of water use and the implementation of the polluter pays principle regarding the costs of water services. The use of water metering creates a direct relation between the used volume and the amount to be paid. Fees are published aiming at ensuring transparency. Incentives to wise use of water are in place for water uses and pricing regulations are in place mainly for water supply for households and agriculture and municipal waste water treatment.

The contribution from the different sectors to cost recovery for water supply and sewage disposal: households 70-75%, industry 20-25% and agriculture 2-5%. It is mentioned although not explained that the cost-recovery rate calculated is 99.7% per each sector as; agriculture, water supply and waste water treatment for industry and households.

Financial costs included in the calculation of recovery levels are capital costs, operating and maintenance costs. Environment and resource costs are mentioned, but these have not been calculated due to a lack of data and appropriate methodology. Nonetheless, environment and resource costs are considered to be internalised, so it is unclear to what degree this is the case if no quantification and division into financial, environment and resource costs have been made.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

It is considered that these measures are implemented through respecting the obligation of directives addressing the protected areas (Birds Directive, Habitats Directive, Shellfish Directive, Freshwater fish Directive Bathing water Directive).  It is mentioned that measures need to be coordinated but there is no further indications on how it is done. There is a specific section in the RBMP that addresses water abstraction zones. These measures are mainly referring to safeguard zones regulated in the federal Water Act.

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts and flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity and droughts were not clearly stated as relevant in Austria, although they were recognised to be an issue locally/seasonally. WS&D are dealt with in the context of climate change effects on water management.  It was mentioned that they will be taken into account in future planning cycles when an analysis of the effects and adaptation to climate change will also be considered.

Since climate change is considered the main driver in the future for WS&D, the current programme of measures does not specifically mention measures for dealing with WS&D situations. There are measures for hydropower production and its quantitative effects downstream, and measures related to reduction/management of groundwater abstraction.

At present, there are very minor local problems with groundwater recharge which might be relevant in the future with the impact of climate change. This issue will also be considered in future planning cycles.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

There is an important programme of measures on flood risk management which is coordinated with the transboundary actions in place for the Danube and the Rhine.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

The RBMP contains a chapter on climate change summarizing the current knowledge on the issue. A reference is made in the RBMPs to the national Climate Strategy.

A climate check of the PoMs was not carried out. The effects that are described are too uncertain at the current time to extensively affect the selection of the PoM, but may have more of an impact for future RBMP when more information is available. Furthermore, the climate change chapter of the RBMP mentions 'potential' measures that could be taken in the future (mid-long term) for some of the increased pressures expected through climate change (e.g. in order to deal with reduced water availability, water saving measures etc.).

14. recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, the following recommendations can be made:

· Further details on how the monitoring relates to the classification of water bodies would better support the selection of monitoring sites and their use for ecological status/potential classification.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status.  It is important that to take an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.  

· Although most BQEs are used for the classification of ecological status it should be clearer why some BQEs have not been considered for certain water body types.

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· The assessment of chemical status should be based on all the substances listed in the EQSD, and on the EQS listed in that Directive, unless equivalently protective EQS are derived.

· Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived. Trend monitoring in sediment or biota for several substances as specified in Directive 2008/105/EC Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.

· A significant number of exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans, especially in relation to disproportionate costs.

· A significant number of exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans. The high number of exemptions applied in these first RBMPs is a cause of concern. Austria should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainties.

· Only little improvement of the water status is expected by 2015 and the further objectives are not always clear. Objectives should be clearly indicated in order to be able to reach good status of waters in a reasonable timeframe.

· Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so that the approach to achieve the objectives is clear. All the relevant information on basic and supplementary measures should be included in the summary of the PoM to ensure transparency of the planned actions for the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in the WFD.

· For agriculture: i) there is a need to define more clearly how measures are linked to status assessment, ii) experience shows that a high level of co-operation with the farming community at the different stages of the preparation of the PoM is important as it ensures technical feasibility, acceptance and the expected success, iii) a strategy mainly built on voluntary measures will have difficulties to deliver. The correct balance between voluntary actions and a strong baseline of mandatory measures needs to be established. A clear commitment at political level is indispensable, iv) the baseline for water protection needs to be very clear so that, on the one hand any farmer know the rules, and on the other hand, the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· Water pricing should provide an incentive to water efficiency.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when either of these services are so called "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function on water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

[1]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[2]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[3]     As example provided by the Austrian authorities, it was decided to start with measures in larger rivers with middle-distance migration fish

[4] In the plan there is a reference linked to an explanatory document on detailed methodology:  http://wisa.lebensministerium.at/article/articleview/81529/1/29401/

[5] Additional information indicated that the grouping procedure is restricted to:

1. longitudinal grouping (e.g.: In a series of consecutive water bodies with risk due to pollution the most downstream water body was monitored)

2. Grouping by using the correlation between abiotic factors and status – obvious or based on scientific studies:

a) e.g. obvious: river bed completely dry due to water abstractions results in bad ecological status

b) e.g. scientific studies: impoundments longer than 1000 meters for rivers with catchment area < 10.000 km² results in bad status because the accumulation of fine sediment modifies the habitat for invertebrates significantly, resulting in bad status.

[6]     This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[7]     The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[8]     Information received after the RBMPs have been reported.

[9]     It is not clearly mentioned if a quantitative monitoring programme is in place.

[10]    Number can be explained since the whole territory is designated as NVZ.

[11]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[12]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[13] Information reported at Member State level and refers to natural river water bodies only.

[14] Information reported at Member State level and refers to natural river water bodies only.

[15]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[16]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[17]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[18]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[19]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[20]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[21]    Additional information sent by Austrian authorities after the RBMPs have been reported.

[22] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status

[23]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

1. general information 

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin Districts

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Estonia has a population of   1 340 194 [1] , and an area of 454,227 km2 [2]

Two out of three river basin districts are international sharing water courses with Russia to the east and Latvia to the south.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || Coastal water area (km2) || Countries sharing RBD

EE1 || West-Estonian || 23478 || 12949 || -

EE2 || East-Estonian || 19047 || 1552 || LV, RU

EE3 || Koiva || 1335 || 0 || LV

Table 1.1: Overview of Estonia’s River Basin Districts.

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[3]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ee/eu/wfdart13

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category || Total 1-4

2

km² || % || km² || %

Gauja/Koiva || EE3 || LV, RU || 1335 || 9.3 || 1335 || 9.3

Narva (including Lake Peipsi/Chudkoe, Lake Pihkva/Pskovskoye) || EE2 || LV || 17000 || 30.2 || 17000 || 30.2

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Estonia[4].

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

RBMPs for East-Estonia, West-Estonia and Koiva river basins were adopted by the Government on 1 April 2010. Updated information was reported in November 2012 and April 2011.

2.1 Main strengths

The main strengths of the assessment across all RBDs are good information on pressures, good visualisation of geographic information on maps, and detailed annexes at water body level.

The generally similar methodological approach followed in the RBDs and the identical structure of the three RBMPs facilitate reading and comparison, but in several chapters the information on overall conditions in Estonia is mixed with or not clearly distinguishable from the information on particular RBDs.

2.2 The major gaps identified across all RBDs

Not all biological quality elements (BQEs) have been used for assessment.

Although there has been some international co-ordination with Russia in the East Estonia RBD, there is no reference to Latvia who also shares the basin. There are no international RBMPs for the international RBD on EE territory.

Information on public involvement, methodologies used, and assessment of protected areas was scarce or almost missing.

The monitoring network is relatively weak, with a low density of monitoring stations. The monitoring programme has not provided sufficient data for status assessment of water bodies. For example, it is admitted that for several water bodies the reasons for lacking good status are not fully known. Prolonged deadlines for achieving good status have been applied in order to carry out further studies. There is information provided for  groundwater and surface water sample analyses showing that limit values for pollutants have been exceeded. It is not properly explained why these water bodies are considered to be good status. Current statements are not convincing.

The assessment of chemical status is weak. The monitoring of polluting chemicals is unsatisfactory.

The Programme of Measures includes few measures beyond basic measures, including permits and controls (11.3.) Based on the RBMP, it is almost impossible to distinguish between supplementary and additional measures. References to the needs of specific plans have neither addressees nor deadlines. It is not clear from the RBMP, who should comply those plans and by what time.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

The Estonian RBMP’s and the accompanying documents were submitted on 13 and 16 April 2010. Consultations[5] required by Article 14 of the WFD were organised as follows.

The preparation of RBMPs in Estonia was carried out in two phases. During 2000-2008, plans were prepared and approved for 9 river basin sub-districts and the final RBMPs produced for 3 river basin districts are largely based on and complemented by the sub-district plans. Therefore on several occasions reference is made to the sub-district plans.

RBD || Timetable || Work programme || Statement on consultation || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Final RBMP

Due dates || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009

All EE RBDs || 22/12/2006 to 08/03/2007 || 22/12/2006 to 08/03/2007 || || 04/09/2008 to 31/12/2008 || 01/09/2009 to 28/02/2010 || 13/04/2010 to 16/04/2010

Table 3.1.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: WISE

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

The Ministry of the Environment is the competent authority in all river basin districts on the Estonian territory. The competency is defined by national laws or regulations, mainly the Water Act[6], where relevant responsibilities are described. The competent authority acts as a co-ordinating body involving other relevant authorities in the process of preparation or implementation of the river basin management plans.

For co-ordination purposes, the Minister of Environment established in June 2011 a water management commission[7], which deals with preparation and implementation of the river basin management plans. This commission consists of appointed representatives of other authorities, research institutions and some stakeholders. The tasks and the list of members of the commission have been established by a ministerial regulation.

A centrally co-ordinated national approach has been followed in WFD implementation similarly in all 3 RBDs. The only differences result from the different status of the RBDs in terms of international sharing (EE2 and EE3 are international) and water categories covered (no coastal waters in EE3).

Figure 3.2.1: Map of Estonian RBDs[8]

Source: RBMPs

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

In general the RBMPs including the PoM are well structured and the plans for the 3 RBDs have a similar outline and contain all obligatory elements listed in the WFD annex VII, however, the level of detail varies in different parts and references to important background documents are often missing.

A large number of targeted special studies to support the different preparation phases of the RBMPs have been ordered by the Ministry of the Environment, however, as there is a single collective reference to all of them[9] given in the RBMPs, it is often difficult to find the relevant report if no additional information is provided.

During 2000-2008, plans were prepared and approved for 9 river basin sub-districts and the final RBMPs produced for three river basin districts are largely based on and complemented by the sub-district plans[10].West-Estonian RBD is divided into Harju, Läänesaarte, Matsalu and Pärnu sub-districts. East-Estonian RBD is divided into Viru, Peipsi, and Võrtsjärve sub-districts. Koiva RBD was formed on the basis of Mustjõe sub-district. Pandivere groundwater sub-district, which has boundaries that coincide with the Pandivere State Water Protection Area established on Pandivere Upland in 1988, covers parts of both East-Estonian and West-Estonian RBDs. These sub-plans are supporting documents – not legally binding, but based on detailed information at a smaller geographical scale. In the three official RBMPs of Estonia reference is often made to the sub-district plans.

The adopting authority for the Estonian RBMPs is the government. The adopting acts are Governmental orders for RBMPs and Sub-RBMPS (note: the law also provides for PoMs for each river basin district and an Action Plan for the Implementation of the Programme of Measures to be adopted (in practice there are no PoMs however). [11]

As regards the legal status of the RBMPs, and their hierarchy in relation to other plans, in practice RBMPs are approved as an order of government. Orders cannot contradict laws. The RBMPs could be considered general orders provided that they are sufficiently specific to have regulatory effect. In practice, environmental plans are often too vague to provide meaningful guidance and therefore should not be considered legal acts but rather as general strategies setting out an overall common vision. The law does not set out general regulation as regards the legal effects of environmental plans beyond the principle that in exercising discretion all relevant facts must be taken into account and all legitimate interests have to be considered.[12]

Individual decisions in principle need to be reviewed when environmental objectives are unlikely to be met. The RBMP has a legal effect in the sense that it complements the regulation in the Water Act and also due to the principle that all relevant facts and interests have to be taken into consideration in exercising discretion e.g. when granting a permit.  The effect depends on the legal nature of the RBMP, which in turn depends partly on the detail of regulation provided by the RMBP. On the basis of available information it seems, however, that the plans do not have any significant effect on individual decisions in practice. It seems that the management plans are conceived as some type of strategy documents (not legal acts), which cannot limit discretion. The Water Act provides that, if it appears that environmental objectives are unlikely to be achieved, then emission limit values and environmental quality limit values set out in the water permit should be reviewed.[13]

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

Consultation with the general public was held during at least three stages of the preparation process of the RBMPs, in which the public had the opportunity to make amending proposals or arguments against proposals. Consultations took place during 2002-2008 at the sub-district level, where relevant permanent working groups were in place to facilitate and support the preparation of the RBMPs. According to national regulations, it is obligatory to consult and get an official approval for the river basin management plans from municipalities (local communities), county governments and relevant ministries. For all the three plans such a procedure was completed.

In order to involve the interested parties into the process of establishing RBMPs, the Ministry of the Environment established a national level working group on water management[14] with the main aim to consult and support the establishment of the RBMPs. This group carried out its tasks from 2006 until the official approval of the RBMPs. The group represented the main state authorities, non-governmental organisations and scientific institutions.

The impact of views expressed during the consultations were considered and reflected in the water management plans approved for sub-districts. The public display of the draft RBMP, revised on the basis of comments and proposals received during the approval procedure lasted from 1/09/2009 until 28/02/2010. The draft RBMPs and associated documents were available at all county centres in an electronic format and on paper, as well as on the website of the Ministry of the Environment[15]. The draft of the RBMP was once more revised on the basis of relevant proposals received during the six-month period of public consultation, before the final version was submitted to the Government of the Republic for approval.

Stakeholders have the opportunity to be involved and participate in the work of working groups[16] established for every RBD. These working groups facilitate the preparation process of the river basin management plans and implementation of the river basin management plans at river basin level.

Some protocols of the consultations are publicly available on the internet, for instance, conclusions from the public consultation meeting on mining issues, however this was not reported in the RBMPs[17].

3.5 International co-operation and co-ordination

Two of Estonia's river basin districts, the East-Estonian and Koiva RBD, are international but in neither catchment have international plans been established.

The management plan for East-Estonian RBD covers the Estonian part of the trans-boundary Narva River and its basin shared with Russia and Latvia.  Estonian-Russian cooperation is based on an inter-governmental agreement between the Republic of Estonia and the Russian Federation on the protection and sustainable use of trans-boundary water bodies signed in 1997. Trans-boundary monitoring programmes have been co-ordinated and joint monitoring programmes have been approved by the Estonian-Russian joint commission, which was established based on this agreement. The Programme of Measures for the East-Estonian RBD has been established for the part of the shared river basin district lying in the Estonian territory. Both sides notify each other regularly on the planned and implemented measures, however, the implementation of such measures is decided and done independently from each other. Co-operation with Latvia in this catchment is however not referred to in the RBMP.

The management plan for Koiva RBD covers the Estonian part of the trans-boundary Koiva (Gauja) River and its basin. The Republic of Latvia has established a management plan also for the Gauja River basin located on its territory (LVGUBA). The first river basin management plans were produced separately and no international RBMP has been developed. Arguments given for that in the Gauja/Koiva WISE reporting include different timetable, no added value in light of scarce resources, small share of the catchment in Estonia and little human impact in that area. The Estonian-Latvian water cooperation is based on several agreements and there is a clear intention to establish a joint Gauja/Koiva RBMP by the end of 2015[18].

3.6 Integration with other sectors

The RBMP contains an assessment of economic importance of water use and projected demand for water in different economic sectors for whole Estonia and provides information on turnover and employment rate in sectors with significant level of water use.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

Each of the 3 RBDs in Estonia contains lakes and rivers. There are coastal waters in the national part of 2 RBDs (West-Estonian and East-Estonian RBD) but no transitional water bodies have been delineated and there are also no reasons given for not delineating transitional water bodies. The national part of the Koiva/Gauja RBD is land-locked. Therefore the delineation of coastal and transitional waters there is irrelevant.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

A surface water typology has been developed for rivers, lakes and coastal waters.

The initial proposal on typologies of water bodies was based on physico-chemical and hydro-morphological features. Although the RBMPs do not include information on validation of typologies with biological data, the Estonian authorities have clarified that the initial typologies have been validated and type-specific class boundaries set based on biological quality elements. The results of this work have been used in the inter-calibration process. The process itself has been very flexible as the final typology for water bodies was approved and published in a regulation of the Ministry of the Environment[19] in 2009. Reports on the elaboration and testing of typologies and references to relevant methods can be found from the list of studies and research reports[20] on the homepage of the Ministry of the Environment.

There is very limited information in the RBMPs about reference conditions; however type-specific reference conditions have been at least partly developed for all surface water types. Reference conditions for hydromorphological indicators have been defined by expert opinion for all water categories. Reference conditions for physico-chemical and biological QE in lakes and rivers have been established using a combination of spatially based methods, historic data and expert opinion. Values of quality elements at “high” status are considered as reference conditions although not explicitly expressed in the RBMP. In some water body types, type-specific reference conditions are still missing for some QEs.

All reference conditions for the coastal water bodies are derived from expert judgments or using historical data, if available. There are no reference sites available for certain types of coastal water bodies of the Baltic Sea.

Estonian rivers are divided into 7 surface water types based on catchment size and organic matter content. One of the types contains only one water body (type IV - River Narva). Eight lake types are based on surface area, alkalinity, water colour, and content of chlorides. Two of the large lake types are unique and contain only one water body (type VI – Lake Võrtsjärv and type VII – Lake Peipsi). Coastal waters are divided into 6 types based on salinity and hydromorphological features (depth and openness).

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

EE1 || 9 || 3 || 2 || 3

EE2 || 9 || 3 || 0 || 0

EE3 || 12 || 4 || 2 || 3

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

Background document or national/regional guidance document: The RBMP refers to a national guidance including the list of delineated water bodies, their typology and classification criteria, published as the Minister of the Environment Regulation no. 44[21].

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

The use and protection of small water bodies is regulated by the Water Act and other relevant legal provisions. Activities on protected areas with small water bodies are regulated by the protection rules of the respective protected area, with particular attention being paid to ensuring a favourable status for water-dependent protected species. The use of rivers, which are part of drainage systems, including artificial recipients maintained by the state, is governed by land amelioration regulations.

Small rivers with a catchment from 10 km2 to 25 km2, which tend to dry out in summer or dry season, are aggregated to bigger water bodies to which they flow. Rivers with a catchment area <25 km2 are considered as separate WBs only if they are running directly to the sea. As a result of grouping small rivers with bigger ones, the number of running water bodies decreased from 1099[22] in 2009 to 654 in the final RBMP.

The status of rivers with a catchment area under 10 km2, lakes with an area under 50 ha and any other surface water bodies not designated as surface water bodies is assessed, if necessary, on the basis of expert assessments.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

EE1 || 358 || 18 || 41 || 2 || 0 || || 14 || 925 || 10 || 6088

EE2 || 267 || 20 || 40 || 47 || 0 || || 2 || 776 || 14 || 4160

EE3 || 20 || 19 || 8 || 1 || 0 || || 0 || || 2 || 890

Total || 645 || 19 || 89 || 22 || 0 || 0 || 16 || 906 || 26 || 4651

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

The major water management problems in river basin districts were identified in a study[23] in 2007. A summary of this study is provided in a table in the RBMPs:

Water management issue (human impact) || Rivers || Lakes || Coastal waters || Pressure factor

EE1 || EE2 || EE3 || EE1 || EE2 || EE3 || EE1 || EE2

Point load || ++ || ++ || ++ || ++ || ++ || ++ || ++ || ++ || Effluent (waste water and rain water)

++ || ++ || ++ || ++ || ++ || ++ || + || + || Lifestock farming

+ || + || - || - || - || - || + || + || Fish farming

++ || +++ || - || - || - || - || + || ++ || Residual load from industrial areas, landfills, and oil-shale power industry

Diffuse load || ++ || ++ || ++ || +++ || +++ || +++ || +++ || +++ || Diffuse load from agriculture

+ || + || + || ++ || ++ || ++ || + || + || Population without sewerige system

+ || + || + || + || + || + || - || - ||  Forestry, clearcutting

- || - || - || + || + || + || ++ || ++ || Transport, incl. waterway transport (accidents, snow control, air emissions)

- || - || ++ || - || - || - || - || - ||  Dust from peat mines

+ || + || + || ++ || ++ || ++ || +++ || +++ || Internal load (previously settled nutrients in water bodies)

Physical changes || +++ || +++ || +++ || ++ || ++ || ++ || + || + || Land reclamation (drainage)

+++ || +++ || +++ || - || - || - || ++ || ++ || Impoundments

++ || ++ || ++ || + || + || + || + || + || Overabundance of beavers, caused by changes in land use and inability to control the animal numbers

- || - || - || + || + || - || ++ || + || Transport (incl. sand dredging sand mining, harbour construction, breakwaters and moles)

Water abstraction || ++ || - || - || ++ || - || - || - || - || Municipal water abstraction (Tallinn)

Invasion of alien species || + || - || - || - || + || - || ++ ||    - || Species in ballast water, signal crayfish in lakes etc.

Table 4.4.1: Significant water management issues and pressure factors in Estonian RBDs

Note: Rating based on a four-point scale (- insignificant, + minor significance, ++ significant, and +++ very significant). The grey-scale gradation is added for better visualisation.

Source: RBMPs/assessor

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

EE1 || 297 || 71.91 || 48 || 11.62 || 56 || 13.56 || 5 || 1.21 || 43 || 10.41 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 39 || 9.44

EE2 || 198 || 64.08 || 47 || 15.21 || 50 || 16.18 || 17 || 5.5 || 51 || 16.5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 43 || 13.92

EE3 || 22 || 78.57 || 1 || 3.57 || 2 || 7.14 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 14.29 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 14.29

Total || 517 || 68.93 || 96 || 12.8 || 108 || 14.4 || 22 || 2.93 || 98 || 13.07 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 1.07 || 0 || 0 || 86 || 11.47

Table 4.4.2: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures.

Source:WISE

It is not clear from the RBMPs how the significant pressures were identified and which thresholds were used. Only brief information is included in the RBMPs, but the Estonian authorities have clarified that the significance was in all cases based either on very clear and simple qualitative or quantitative selection criteria, or on expert judgement.

Diffuse pollution from agriculture and peat production was considered significant if (1) the share of crop cultivation area exceeded 25% of the basin of a surface water body or (2) the area of peat production fields exceeded 100 ha.

Occurrence of migration barriers on salmon rivers was considered a very significant factor of hydromorphological pressure. Migration barriers on other rivers, causing a poor status class of water bodies and modification of water level by more than 30 cm, were considered as significant factors, whereas migration barriers on other rivers not causing poor status and abstraction of more than 30 m3 surface water per day were considered as factors of minor significance.

· Background document or national/regional guidance document: References are given to the WFD Article 5 report[24] and the special study on pressures[25]. The diffuse pollution load has been assessed in several studies mentioned in the RBMP[26]:

According to the database of polluted areas[27], there are 34 polluted or potentially polluted areas of nationwide importance in West-Estonian RBD and 37 such areas in East-Estonian RBD. No such areas are registered for Koiva RBD. Among polluted areas in East-Estonian RBD the largest environmental hazards to surface and groundwater quality are linked with the semicoke landfills in Kohtla-Järvel (JRK-28) and Kiviõli (JRK-23), which are contaminated mainly with oil products, phenols, and  aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Significant negative environmental impact results from ash fields of Estonian oil-shale-fired power plants (JRK30 and JRK32) which contain large amounts of high-alkaline waters.

4.5 Protected areas

Estonia is applying more stringent waste-water treatment in the whole of its territory and therefore, in accordance with article 5.8 of the Urban wastewater Directive 1991/271/EEC, it is exempted from designation of specific sensitive areas.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

EE1 || 1 || 52 || 42 || || 48 || 319 || || || 1 || ||

EE2 || 1 || 37 || 27 || || 53 || 197 || || || 1 || ||

EE3 || || || 4 || || 10 || 26 || || || || ||

Total || 2 || 89 || 73 || || 111 || 542 || || || 2 || ||

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater

Note : This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives. Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

There have been small changes in the surveillance and operational monitoring networks since the 2009 implementation report. The total number of monitoring stations has slightly increased for lakes and rivers and decreased for groundwater. The biggest increase occurred for operational monitoring sites in rivers (from 17 to 83) whereas the number of surveillance monitoring sites decreased (from 226 to 189).

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

EE1 || 101 || 26 || 36 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 47 || 0 || 62 || 10 || 125

EE2 || 84 || 56 || 65 || 26 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 0 || 89 || 15 || 139

EE3 || 4 || 1 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 1

Total by type of site || 189 || 83 || 109 || 28 || 0 || 0 || 55 || 0 || 154 || 25 || 265

Total number of monitoring sites[28] || 236 || 109 || - || 55 || 353

Table 5.1: Number of monitoring sites by water category

Surv = Surveillance

Op = Operational

Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

For rivers all relevant quality elements (QEs) (biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological) are being monitored, but for lakes and coastal waters some QEs are missing (phytobenthos in some lake types; coastal waters - morphological conditions and for tidal regime direction of dominant currents). For lake type IV - low alkalinity dark water lakes (swamp lakes) – phytobenthos is considered irrelevant. In large lake (type VI – Lake Võrtsjärv and type VII – Lake Peipsi) with complex long-term monitoring, it is considered to include phytobenthos in monitoring programmes in 2012.

Operational monitoring programmes have been established for lakes and rivers, but not for coastal waters. In the smallest Koiva RBD, only one river and no lakes is included in operational networks. Operational monitoring is carried out at sites of moderate status and at sites of good status if there is a risk of deterioration of status (major sources of point and non-point pollution and hydromorphological modifications, headed by all impoundments on rivers). The network of operational monitoring covers also the physico-chemical monitoring of increased frequency (up to 12 times per year) at reference sites, sites for pollution load assessment and, if necessary, additional monitoring of protected areas. It is not clear from the plans how BQEs have been selected for monitoring to detect pressures, but Estonian authorities have clarified that the most sensitive QEs have been selected.  It seems that less than half of the water bodies subject to pressures are subject to operational monitoring (11% versus 26%). Generally the same biological quality elements (BQEs) are monitored as for the surveillance monitoring programme, so it is not clear how BQEs have been chosen directly to detect these pressures.

Priority substances and other relevant pollutants are monitored but only at a handful of stations, but there is a lack of regularity and therefore objectives for that have not been appropriately addressed in the monitoring programmes or RBMPs. The Estonian Ministry of the Environment has clarified that one of the main reasons for the lack of objectives on priority substances and other relevant pollutants is the lack of evidence of this type of pollution, as revealed by pilot studies, and thus a very weak justification to compile and carry out expensive and comprehensive chemical monitoring programmes. Mercury and other pollutants are monitored in Baltic herring, which is an open sea migratory fish, and these data cannot be used to describe the situation of coastal waters.

It was unclear from the reporting if grouping of water bodies for monitoring had been applied, however, Estonian authorities have clarified that no grouping was applied.  However, other documents do mention grouping.[29]

The Estonian Ministry of the Environment have informed the Commission that a joint trans-boundary monitoring programme was approved by the Estonian-Russian joint commission[30] for the period of 2011-2012 and considers river basin monitoring in the East-Estonian RBD. The trans-boundary monitoring programme is to be revised every two years.

Compared with the Annex 2 of 2009 Commission report on the implementation of WFD[31],  the number of operational monitoring sites for rivers has increased most significantly (from 17 to 83).

Background document or national/regional guidance document  : A new regulation of the Minister of the Environment from 15 April 2011 on requirements of water monitoring in river basin districts[32] specifies the contents of water monitoring programmes for lakes, rivers, coastal waters and groundwater as well as for chemical monitoring of territorial waters.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

A quantitative groundwater monitoring programme has been established in all RBDs. It covers 125 sites in West-Estonian RBD, 139 sites in East-Estonian RBD and 1 site in Koiva RBD.

Both surveillance and operational chemical monitoring programmes are in place in two RBDs while operational monitoring is not carried out in Koiva RBD. The RBMPs however include very little information about the methodologies and their applications. Estonian authorities have however provided further clarifications. Operational monitoring is based on the ministerial regulations on monitoring programmes, including the river basin monitoring programmes. Operational monitoring is carried out for all those groundwater bodies, which are identified as in poor status or being at risk of failing to meet their objectives. Currently, there are no groundwater bodies identified as being at risk in the 1st RBMPs.

The basis for the selection of parameters for operational monitoring is not explained in the RBMP. Monitoring is put into practice based on yearly programmes, which contain also methodologies for carrying out the monitoring[33].

The programmes in place for monitoring groundwater chemical status are reported to be designed to be able to detect significant and sustained upward trends, but it is not clear how. No operational monitoring is in place in Koiva RBD. 

There has been no coordinated groundwater monitoring on transboundary water bodies so far. The Estonian Ministry of the Environment to the Commission has clarified that the draft Estonian-Russian monitoring programme for transboundary groundwater for the years 2012-2013 has just recently been prepared and is expected to get an approval from the Estonian-Russian transboundary water commission. One of the main reasons why coordinated groundwater monitoring programmes with neighbouring countries have not been considered important and necessary is that the cross-border groundwater bodies have not been delineated. This is due to the marginal groundwater abstraction rates, but also because of the natural and undisturbed conditions of groundwater.

The quantitative monitoring programme has changed since 2009. The surveillance monitoring programmes in West Estonia and East Estonia RBDs have considerably (2-3-fold) decreased. Operational monitoring has been started at 10 sites in West Estonia RBD (previously 0) but decreased in East Estonia RBD from 44 to 15. There have been only minor changes in Koiva RBD.

A new regulation of the Minister of the Environment from 15 April 2011 on requirements of water monitoring in river basin districts[34] specifies the contents of all water monitoring programmes including those for groundwater.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

A specific monitoring programme is in place for the nitrate vulnerable zone (NVZ) in Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa region, which covers parts of West-Estonian RBD and East-Estonian RBD. Activities in the NVZ are regulated by the NVZ Action Programme[35]. More information on the programme and results can be viewed at the homepage of the Estonian Environmental Information Centre[36].

The number of monitoring stations have increased, since the 2007 report, when Estonia reported only 7 monitoring stations for drinking water abstraction areas.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

EE1 || 3 || 23 || 1 || 61 || 44 || 86 || 4 || 0 || 213 || 73

EE2 || 4 || 10 || 0 || 42 || 40 || 74 || 12 || 0 || 193 || 51

EE3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 4 || 11 || 0 || 0 || 13 || 3

Total || 7 || 33 || 1 || 109 || 88 || 171 || 16 || 0 || 419 || 127

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring sites in protected areas[37].

Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

EE1 || 292 || 5 || 1.7 || 203 || 69.5 || 72 || 24.7 || 12 || 4.1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE2 || 233 || 6 || 2.6 || 154 || 66.1 || 65 || 27.9 || 8 || 3.4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE3 || 27 || 1 || 3.7 || 21 || 77.8 || 5 || 18.5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 552 || 12 || 2.2 || 378 || 68.5 || 142 || 25.7 || 20 || 3.6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

EE1 || 121 || 0 || 0 || 95 || 78.5 || 23 || 19.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 2.5

EE2 || 76 || 0 || 0 || 49 || 64.5 || 19 || 25.0 || 8 || 10.5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE3 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 198 || 0 || 0 || 144 || 72.7 || 43 || 21.7 || 8 || 4.0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 1.5

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

EE1 || 292 || 290 || 99.3 || 2 || 0.7 || 0 || 0

EE2 || 233 || 233 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE3 || 27 || 27 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 552 || 550 || 99.6 || 2 || 0.4 || 0 || 0

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

EE1 || 121 || 121 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE2 || 76 || 74 || 97.4 || 2 || 2.6 || 0 || 0

EE3 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 198 || 196 || 99.0 || 2 || 1.0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

EE1 || 10 || 10 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE2 || 14 || 13 || 92.9 || 1 || 7.1 || 0 || 0

EE3 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 26 || 25 || 96.2 || 1 || 3.8 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

EE1 || 10 || 10 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE2 || 14 || 13 || 92.9 || 1 || 7.1 || 0 || 0

EE3 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 26 || 25 || 96.2 || 1 || 3.8 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

EE1 || 413 || 303 || 73.4 || 332 || 80.4 || 7.0 || 411 || || || || || || || || 19 || 0 || 0 || 1

EE2 || 309 || 209 || 67.6 || 233 || 75.4 || 7.8 || 307[38] || || || || || || || || 24 || 0 || 0 || 1

EE3 || 28 || 22 || 78.6 || 28 || 100.0 || 21.4 || 27[39] || || || || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 750 || 534 || 71.2 || 593 || 79.1 || 7.9 || || || || || || || || || 21 || 0 || 0 || 1

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[40]

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

EE1 || 292 || 208 || 71.2 || 232 || 79.5 || 8.2 || || || || || 20.5 || 0 || 0 || 1.0

EE2 || 233 || 160 || 68.7 || 181 || 77.7 || 9.0 || 307 || || || || 21.9 || 0 || 0 || 0.4

EE3 || 27 || 22 || 81.5 || 27 || 100 || 18.5 || 27 || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 552 || 390 || 70.7 || 440 || 79.7 || 9.0 || || || || || 20.1 || 0 || 0 || 0.7

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[41]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

EE1 || 292 || 290 || 99.3 || 290 || 99.3 || 0 || || || || || 0.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE2 || 233 || 233 || 100 || 233 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE3 || 27 || 27 || 100 || 27 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 552 || 550 || 99.6 || 550 || 99.6 || 0 || || || || || 0.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[42]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

EE1 || 10 || 10 || 100.0 || 10 || 100.0 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE2 || 14 || 13 || 92.9 || 13 || 92.9 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 7 || 0 || 0

EE3 || 2 || 2 || 100.0 || 2 || 100.0 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 26 || 25 || 92.9 || 25 || 92.9 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 4 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[43]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

EE1 || 10 || 10 || 100.0 || 10 || 100.0 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE2 || 14 || 13 || 92.9 || 13 || 92.9 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 7 || 0 || 0

EE3 || 2 || 2 || 100.0 || 2 || 100.0 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 26 || 25 || 92.9 || 25 || 92.9 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 4 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[44]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

EE1 || 121 || 95 || 78.5 || 100 || 82.6 || 4.1 || || || || || 16.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE2 || 76 || 49 || 64.5 || 52 || 68.4 || 3.9 || || || || || 30.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE3 || 1 || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 100.0 || 100.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 198 || 144 || 72.7 || 153 || 77.3 || 4.6 || || || || || 21.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[45]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status  2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

EE1 || 121 || 121 || 100 || 121 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE2 || 76 || 74 || 97.4 || 74 || 97.4 || 0 || || || || || 2.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE3 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 198 || 196 || 99.0 || 196 || 99.0 || 0 || || || || || 1.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[46]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3. A 1cm diameter pie chart represents 110 natural surface waterbodies.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

 

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

 

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4. A 1cm diameter pie chart represents 8 groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

The assessment of ecological status of surface waters follows a national approach. The methodology is mostly presented in the Ministry of the Environment Regulation No 44, 2009[47].

Assessment methods for the classification of ecological status are not fully developed for all biological quality elements. For example, class boundaries have not been set for phytoplankton and macrophytes in rivers and for phytobenthos and fish in lakes. For Estonian coastal waters methods for the BQE ‘macroalgae and angiosperms’ have been developed and are in use, but for some reason are marked in WISE as not fully developed. The RBMPs include little information about these assessment methods, but the Estonian authorities refer to information on the webpage of the Estonian Environmental Information Centre[48].

As there are mostly small rivers in Estonia, which do not develop a real potamoplankton, phytoplankton in Estonian rivers results basically from the drifting of planktonic organisms into the river from lakes and swamps. For this reason, phytoplankton has not been considered relevant for assessment of ecological status in rivers.

The Estonian authorities have clarified that due to big differences in fish communities in different lakes, developing a fish based assessment system for lakes has been complicated.

Information on pressure-response relationships cannot be found in the RBMP or in the national guidance document. Estonian authorities have clarified that one of the main obstacles so far has been the limited amount of data. This makes it difficult to assess if the biological assessment methods are able to detect major pressures.

Standards have been set for many, but not all, physico-chemical and hydromorphological QEs in support of the biological assessment. According to the national guidance, assessment methods have been developed for all required hydromorphological QEs for rivers, lakes and coastal waters and for the following physicochemical QEs:

1. For rivers: pH, content of dissolved oxygen, BOD5, NH4+, Ntotal and Ptotal.

2. For lakes: transparency, depth or boundary of metalimnion (in deep lakes), pH, Ntotal, Ptotal, sediment composition (in coastal lakes).

3. For coastal waters: water transparency, Ntotal, Ptotal.

Lists of priority substances and other pollutants[49] and their environmental quality standards[50] were adopted in July 2010 and in August 2011 after adoption of the RBMP. The earlier categorization of chemical pollutants and their standards referred to in the RBMP (Ch. 6.3) were invalidated.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

EE1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

EE2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

EE3 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

The one-out-all-out principle has been applied as the combination rule to derive the overall ecological status for rivers. For lakes the final assessment is made based on 2/3 QE compliance level (WISE3.1.1.1). The decision on which QE to include is done by expert opinion. For coastal waters the results of various QE are combined but neither the national guidance document[51] nor WISE gives sufficient information on the method how the final assessment is done.

According to the national guidance document, the uncertainty of the ecological status assessment for surface waters is estimated using a three-level scale:

1. The lowest uncertainty (level 1) – data exists for all QEs for the last 6 years and there are no contradictions betwee assessments made by single QEs;

2. Medium uncertainty (level 2) – data does not exist for all QEs for the last 6 years and there are contradictions between assessments made by single QEs or the assessment result is close to a class boundary;

3. High uncertainty (level 3) – data on QEs does not exist and the status class is estimated by expert opinion.

Ecological status assessment methods have been developed for all surface water body types in Estonia.

On the basis of information provided in the WISE it appears that intercalibration has been carried out and that the results of intercalibration have been taken into account while setting class boundaries. However boundaries reported in the WISE are not consistent with those in the Official Decision for phytobenthos in rivers and for phytoplankton (probably chlorophyll a) in lakes. For macroinvertebrates in rivers, the boundaries in WISE cannot be compared to the Official Decision, as Estonia did participate in the intercalibration only with one index ASPT[52], but actually a combination of 45 indexes was used in the 1st RBMP. For macrophytes in lakes the reference value is not reported, so boundaries cannot be compared with those in the Official Decision (EQRs only). For coastal waters phytoplankton the boundaries are consistent for two types, but still shown as not consistent in WISE.

Background document or national/regional guidance document: Minister of the Environment Regulation no. 44[53] “Guidance on establishment of surface water bodies and list of those water bodies for which the status has to be assessed, classification of status and values of the quality elements of that attribute those classes and guidance on establishment of the status classes“(in Estonian) represents the national guidance.

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

For all water categories in Estonia, it is noted that all relevant BQEs are used in surveillance monitoring, but not all supporting elements are used. According to data and monitoring reports[54], surveillance monitoring of some lake types (VII, VIII) includes additional BQEs, such as bacterio- and zooplankton, traditionally monitored in Estonia since the 1960s. No WFD compliant class boundaries have been set for those BQEs.

The RBMPs do not include information about river basin specific pollutants used for the classification of ecological status, and the Estonian authorities have clarified that all pollutants are considered under chemical status. This is not in line with the WFD. However, according to Annex 3 of the RBMPs (Significant pressures on non-compliant water bodies and the projected status in 2015), nutrient load from diffuse and point sources including internal load and the resulting eutrophication is by far the most dominant reason for exceedance of ecological status in 44% of cases in Estonian rivers, 86% of cases in lakes and 93% of cases in coastal water bodies. Other pressure factors, such as residual industrial pollution, mining activities or transportation, which could potentially bring about specific pollutants other than nutrients, were responsible for non-compliant ecological status in 12% of cases in rivers, 3% cases in lakes and 7% cases in coastal waters.

Most sensitive BQEs (phytobenthos and benthic macroinvertebrates in rivers, phytoplankton in lakes) and relevant physico-chemical QWs are used for classification in operational monitoring of lakes and rivers. Operational monitoring is not carried out in coastal waters.

Confidence of classification results is given at three confidence levels in a tabular and diagram format in WISE5.

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

The article 5 analysis indicated that in Estonia, around 25% of water bodies are to be identified as heavily modified and 7% as artificial[55].

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

In Estonia, there are 194 rivers (30% of total rivers), 3 lakes (3%) and 1 coastal water body (6%) which are designated as HMWBs or AWBs. This makes up 26% of all water bodies.

For the purposes of final establishment, all initially established heavily modified surface water bodies or artificial water bodies were divided into three groups depending on the cause of modification or artificial nature of the water body: impounding, land reclamation, or infrastructure. The water uses and types of physical modification used for designation of HMWBs are specified in RBMP, and seem in accordance with Art 4(3).

The methodology used for designation of HMWBs has completely followed the stepwise approach of the CIS Guidance nº4[56]. The final list of heavily modified surface water bodies and artificial water bodies comprises the water bodies that meet all the required criteria.

It was discovered in the course of consultations with the public that, in the case of small river bodies, the qualification of heavily modified and artificial water bodies needs to be more specific with regard to artificial recipients of drainage systems. Many artificial water bodies and dredged water bodies are designated in the Environmental Register as streams and rivers and, consequently, they were qualified as natural water bodies due to the lack of criteria and methods for consideration of geomorphological parameters. It is likely that the share of water bodies with a river basin under 100 km2 in the category of natural water bodies will decrease significantly in the course of future specification.

Some uncertainties in designation process are also stated in the RBMPs, given that there was a shortage of information for the assessment (in the first round of RBMP).

Background document or national/regional guidance document: As additional information for HMWBs and AWBs the following sources are indicated in the RBMP Ch. 2.3:

1. Study for final establishment of heavily modified surface water bodies and artificial water bodies[57].

2. List of artificial recipients maintained by the state[58].

3. Register of land reclamation systems[59].

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

HMWBs and AWBs have been designated but GEP has not been defined. The RBMP states that Estonia is still testing if good ecological status (GES) can be achieved in these water bodies and therefore HMWB designation would not be necessary.

National guidance: Study for final establishment of heavily modified surface water bodies and artificial water bodies (http://www.envir.ee/1083938).

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

The Estonian Ministry of the Environment has explained that the GEP has been defined only in general terms and for each of the heavily modified water body an assessment was carried out by an expert panel. This was considered as a testing phase and no final boundaries have been set yet.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

The RBMPs contain little or unclear information on the basis of the assessment of chemical status. In addition there seems to be very limited monitoring of priority substances and other chemical pollutants. Estonian authorities have clarified that priority substances and other relevant pollutants were monitored, based on research/screening carried out in 2001-2008, and substances to be monitored were established by the regulation of the Minister of the Environment from 11.03.2005 No. 17 “Limit values of hazardous substance in the surface and marine waters” There has been a lack of regularity and therefore objectives for that have not been appropriately addressed in the monitoring programmes or RBMPs. One of the main reasons for that has been the lack of information and therefore a very weak justification to compile and carry out expensive and comprehensive chemical monitoring programmes. Based on this it is not clear how, despite this, 99% of waterbodies are classified to be in good status, with few unknowns.

Standards for all priority substances listed in Annex 1 to the EQSD, including standards for mercury and compounds, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene in biota appear to have been established by the regulation of the Estonian Minister of Environment from August 2011[60], but these were not referred to in the earlier adopted RBMPs.

Monitoring of biota (including fish) is not enforced at this stage. However, Estonian authorities have clarified that mercury and other pollutants are monitored in Baltic herring, which is an open sea migratory fish, but these data cannot be used to describe the situation of coastal waters. So far, the principle that the concentration of substances should not increase, has been applied for fish. As the regulation of the Minister of the Environment setting down ecological quality standards was recently amended and biota standards were introduced for mercury, the classification of some water bodies is expected soon.

There is no information in the RBMPs on whether high natural background concentrations or bioavailability of metals, have been taken into account, although the above mentioned regulation allows for both.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

WISE 5.5b indicates that there are 3 aggregated industrial pollutants that are causing failure to achieve good status within 2 rivers in the West-Estonian RBD and 2 rivers in East-Estonian RBD. In the latter case it is specified that it was oil pollution that caused the failure of these two rivers to meet good chemical status. It is unclear to what extent pesticides, which are stated as a significant pressure, are exceeding the EQS.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

The assessment of groundwater status generally follows a national approach. Designation of bodies of groundwater was based on hydrogeological conditions, volume of water abstraction, and water economy considerations. Groundwater is the main source of drinking water in Estonia. Estonian authorities have clarified that the methodologies and principles to assess the status of groundwater bodies are currently reviewed and they expect to improve the situation so that local pressures could be more precisely described and their environmental effects measured.

The 26 Estonian groundwater bodies are generally in good quantitative and chemical status with the exception of the one – the Ordovician GWB of East-Viru oil-shale basin in East-Estonian RBD, which is in poor status. The poor quantitative status of this basin is caused by drainage water pumped out from oil shale underground and open cast mines for technological purposes and the poor chemical status is mostly related with the semicoke landfills contaminated mainly with oil products, phenols, and aromatic hydrocarbons. Similar contamination of groundwater has been observed also in places in the West-Estonian RBD where in places also road salting has caused groundwater pollution, however, due to smaller extent, the chemical status of the whole GWBs have not been deteriorated.

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

Surface waters associated to groundwater and GW dependent terrestrial ecosystems have not been considered in the assessment of quantitative status.

According to the RBMP, it is not necessary to consider wetlands in the assessment of quantitative status, as the groundwater reserves develop in higher interfluvial areas, not in bogs and wetlands.

The poor quantitative status of the Ordovician GWB of East-Viru oil-shale basin in East-Estonian RBD is caused by drainage water pumped out from oil shale underground and open cast mines for technological purposes.

According to the RBMP, in most areas the abstraction is less than the recharge, but there is no information which methods were used for this assessment. As most groundwater related problems are concentrated in the East-Viru county, a new joint venture called „The sustainable groundwater monitoring system of East-Viru County, Estonia“[61] was established to elaborate the principles of an optimum groundwater monitoring system of East-Viru County.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

The RBMP explains that change in groundwater chemical status might worsen the surface water quality upstream because during low flow periods surface waters are mostly fed by groundwater. According to a broad statement, the relationship between groundwater quality and terrestrial ecosystems has been taken into account when establishing the threshold values, in cases when there is a potential damage to the upstream water bodies, but there is no further information that assessments have been carried out.

Annex II GWD pollutants and pollutants causing risk of failure WFD objectives as well as environmental quality objectives were considered in the TV establishment. Threshold values have been established for chlorides in West-Estonian RBD and for chlorides, oil products and phenols in East-Estonian RBD considering natural background levels of these pollutants.   

Exceedances of threshold values (TVs) have been reported at several monitoring points because of Nitrates, oil products and PAHs, however those GWBs have not been classified as failing groundwater chemical status. Estonian authorities have clarified that this is because the whole GWB is not thought to be affected.

Trends of pollution in groundwater were assessed. Starting point for trend reversals was established in Estonian Water Act[62], adopted on 16.06.2010. Starting point for trend reversals is defined as 75% of the groundwater quality standard or threshold value, but an earlier or later starting point can be chosen to meet environmental objectives cost-effectively and does not lead to failure of environmental objectives. For some groundwater bodies in East-Estonian RBD, the starting point for chloride is 86%, for some it is still 75%. There was no methodology found for trend reversals.

Based on all groundwater analyses for East-Estonian RBD from periods 1988-2005 and 2006-2009, the content of benzene and oil products has decreased, that of monophenols does not have a trend, whereas the occurrence of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) is episodic not allowing to determine a trend.

Considering the limited local impact of the small water abstraction volume in Koiva RBD and the hydrogeological properties of groundwater layers groundwater bodies are not considered transboundary in the RBMP.

10.3 Protected areas

The information reported by Estonia is not clear and no information was reported on the status of groundwater bodies protected for drinking water abstraction.

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

RBD || Water category || Total number of WB || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

No. || % || No. || %

EE1 || Rivers || 358 || 57 || 16 || 0 || 0

Lakes || 41 || 12 || 29 || 0 || 0

Coastal || 14 || 10 || 71 || 0 || 0

Total SW || 413 || 79 || 19 || 0 || 0

GW || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

EE2 || Rivers || 267 || 55 || 21 || 0 || 0

Lakes || 40 || 19 || 48 || 0 || 0

Coastal || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0

Total SW || 309 || 76 || 25 || 0 || 0

GW || 14 || 1 || 7 || 0 || 0

EE3 || Rivers || 20 || 2 || 10 || 0 || 0

Lakes || 8 || 1 || 13 || 0 || 0

Total SW || 28 || 3 || 11 || 0 || 0

GW || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 11.3: Exemptions for Article 4(4) and 4(5

Source: WISE

Estonian-Russian co-operation is based on an agreement signed in 1997 which focuses on co-ordinated protection and use of trans-boundary water resources. There is no indication in the RBMP that there has been co-ordination of programmes of measures and the achievement of the EU environmental objectives. There is no indication that there has been co-ordination with Latvia on exemptions, although regular co-operation is in place.

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

It is not clear from the RBMPs if additional objectives for protected areas have been defined.  Estonian authorities have clarified that no specific assessment has been done for protected areas, mainly because, for some of the protected areas, environmental objectives have not been established and for some others, the objectives will change, or, for some, these are already stated in national laws, and these were not included in the RBMPs.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

There is an assessment of the impacts that are causing an exemption under Article 4(4) at the water body level. Examples from EE3 are technical feasibility (such as impoundments in combination with other factors) and natural conditions (such as long delays, flooding, and drying). Disproportionate costs are also a reason. There are no water bodies subject to exemptions according to article 4(5) in Estonia.

Some explanation on the methodology for how the costs were calculated is provided in Ch. 8.2.1 of the RBMP. For several actions the cost calculation method is not clear, but often it is admitted that the costs were established by expert opinion. The RBMP gives a reference to a separate study report[63] on estimation of environmental costs related to the main pressure factors affecting the aquatic environment, published by the Ministry of the Environment in 2008.

Basic measures are not explicitly excluded from the costs, as set out in Chapter 9.  For example, it is stated that ensuring compliant supply of drinking water to residents is an important element of the management plan. Estonian authorities have clarified that such a division was not done, since the majority of measures in the RBMPs are basic measures, however, disproportionate costs have only been used as a justification when it is known that basic measures would not be sufficient.

The plan states that there is chemical pollution in the sediments of lakes and rivers. Removal of sediments takes time and even then it would not be technically feasible to extract all the sediment; therefore some leaching of the substances will remain as a pressure.

It is reported that, especially for currently designated small river bodies, achievement of  good status would require major reorganisation of land use and agriculture, which would be highly unlikely due to socio-economic reasons. As regards coastal waters, the poor status of the Baltic Sea requires international action to improve the situation.

RBD || Global[64]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

EE1 || 55 || 0 || 41 || 0 || 33 || -

EE2 || 11 || 0 || 41 || 0 || 26 || -

EE3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

Total || 66 || 0 || 82 || 0 || 59 || -

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

Not applied.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

Article 4(7) has formally not been applied in Estonia.  However, Estonia reported 6 uses of article 4(7) to WISE (4 in West Estonia RBD, 2 in East Estonia RBD) due to "sustainable human development", but limited or no supporting information was provided in the RBMPs. Estonian authorities have since clarified that derogations according to Article 4.7 of the Water Framework Directive were given during the preparation of projects, which were expected to bring new and relevant modifications for these water bodies. At this stage this does not seem to be the case anymore and this information has to be reviewed.

11.5 Exemptions to the Groundwater Directive

There is no significant direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater in Estonia.

It is however also stated that it is not possible to reach good status by 2015 in the Ordovician GWB of Ida-Viru oil-shale basin because of socio-economic reasons (continuation of oil-shale mining for power production) for which period application has been made for exemption (see EE2 RBMP, p. 104).

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[65] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures (PoM) – general

It is not clear in the RBMP how the measures have been developed, and if they are linked to the status. The PoM is based on analyses and assessments done prior to river basin management plans, and the status of water bodies at that time was used in development of measures. All measures are linked to pressures. It refers to additional studies but no links are provided. Estonian authorities have also clarified that basic measures are not always linked to the pressures, resulting in some ambiguity.

Basin-wide problems were identified in transboundary co-ordination with Latvia, but no measures included. Estonia and Russia notify each other on the planned and implemented measures. However, the implementation of such measures is decided and done independently from each other.

Information on the geographical scope of the measures is provided at a national, sub-basin, municipality or water body level. The sub-basin plans compiled before the RBMPs have served as a basis for the RBMPs. It is stated in the RBMP that all water users and stakeholders are responsible for implementation of the measures by law.

The financial commitment for implementing the measures is not clear. It is stated that the RBMP is applicable for governmental financing and no data on private sector financing of the RBMP is provided. Estonian authorities have clarified that presently funding and agreements on future funding are available, which cover 48%-70% of the implementation costs in different RBDs, and that.new financial decisions are due for the period 2014 and onwards.

Finally it is not clear if the measures will be operational by 2012. The need to establish specific plans is mentioned in the RBMP, but no further information on responsibilities regarding these future requirements is provided.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Agriculture is assessed as a significant pressure on water quality (eutrophication), soil erosion and morphological changes due to drainage in all RBDs. Pesticide pollution is also mentioned as a significant pressure.

Meetings to discuss the draft RBMP were held in all RBDs in March 2009[66]. After public display, the draft RBMPs were discussed in all county centres. There were several meetings of various working groups for specific fields/stakeholders. A Water Forum to discuss water protection in agriculture[67] was organised in November 2009 jointly by Estonian Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Foundation. Funds have been allocated for organisation of training and information workshops for farmers.

A combination of technical and non-technical measures has been selected to address the pressures from agriculture. Economic instruments are not used.

Linked with implementation of the Nitrates Directive, a group of measures is addressing the nitrate vulnerable zones, which cover parts of West-Estonian RBD and East-Estonian RBD[68].

The measures are broad and their implementation is foreseen at different levels. The scope of application of the measures is detailed, geographical area, sector or part of sector, number of farms, etc.

Indicative costs of measures from 2009 on have been identified but the corresponding financial commitments are not clear (see above). Some technical farming measures will be covered by the Rural Development Programme 2007-2013.

The implementation dates are clear for the measures that are already implemented and whose funding is secured, e.g. those covered by the Rural Development Programme 2007-2013. It is stated that the PoM will be revised by 2012 on the basis of additional studies and experience obtained from implementation of current measures. Some measures have implementation dates of 2021.

Measures || EE1 || EE2 || EE3

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || || ||

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ü || ü || ü

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || || ||

Measures against soil erosion || ü || ü || ü

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü || ü || ü

Technical measures for water saving || || ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || ||

Nutrient trading || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü || ü || ü

Institutional changes || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || ü || ü || ü

Farm advice and training || ü || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü || ü || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || ü || ü || ü

Certification schemes || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || ü || ü || ü

Land use planning || ü || ü || ü

Technical standards || || ||

Specific projects related to agriculture || ü || ü || ü

Environmental permitting and licensing || ü || ü || ü

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

The RBMP contains only limited information on hydromorphological measures. Measures are included in the PoM, but some of them are set for subsequent planning periods. Much of the available information seems to be included in national guidelines, rather than in the RBMP. Estonian authorities have clarified that this is because hydromorphological measures had not been identified by the time of the adoption of the RBMPs.

It appears that the main complex of measures related to hydromorphology that have been considered aims to open the rivers to enable migration of migratory fish, to protect spawning areas and habitats of the migratory fish that have survived downstream of the impoundments and to ensure a suitable water regime for salmonids downstream of the impoundment.

Expected effects of the proposed measures have been assessed within a series of Environmental Impact Assessments projects[69] supported by ISPA (Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession).

Hydromorphological measures, such as dismantling of impoundments or creation of fish channels are considered for HMWBs in all RBDs.

It is not clear from the RBMP whether the ecologically based flow regime has been defined in RBMP or in the national guidance.  Detailed information on specific measures to achieve an ecologically based flow regime is presented in the national guidance document[70].

Measures || EE1 || EE2 || EE3

Fish ladders || ü || ü || ü

Bypass channels || ü || ü || ü

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || ü || ü

Sediment/debris management || ü || ü || ü

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü || ü || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || || ||

Lowering of river banks || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü || ü || ü

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ü || ü || ü

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || || ||

Construction of retention basins || ü || ü || ü

Reduction or modification of dredging || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || || ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

Groundwater bodies are mostly stated to be in good status (only one GWB fails chemical status).  

Groundwater quantitative status (due to over-exploitation) is mentioned as an issue only in East-Estonian RBD. Basic measures to tackle over-exploitation within East-Estonian RBD include measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use (implementation and enforcement of law on water fees and charges), and controls over abstraction and impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register of water abstractions and a requirement for prior authorization of abstraction and impoundment (enforcement of water law and corresponding regulations).

Both basic and supplementary measures are implemented to tackle groundwater pollution in all RBDs. Among basic measures implemented to prevent and limit inputs of pollution to groundwater there are measures for remediation of contaminated land, reduction of diffuse source load from agriculture and extraction of mineral resources in a sustainable manner for groundwater. Another basic measure is the inventory, liquidation or conservation of unused bore wells. Supplementary measures include control and management of closed landfills, updating of the register of springs and karst areas and organising their protection, investments for training and education.

Estonia and Russia notify each other regularly on the planned and implemented measures, however it is stated in the East Estonia RBMP that transboundary cooperation is not needed because the cross-border GWBs are not delineated due to the hydrogeological background and the lack of cross-border impact. Considering the limited local impact of small water abstraction in the Koiva RBD, groundwater bodies at the border with Latvia are not treated as transboundary groundwater bodies[71]. 

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

Point and diffuse sources of pollution are identified[72]. Measures implemented to tackle chemical pollution include:

· Industrial emissions – Re-cultivation of abandoned open mines, implementation of sustainable mining technologies;

· Waste deposits to land/fields – Collection and treatment of leachate, closing down of industrial waste and semi-coke landfills with application of methods to avoid surface and groundwater pollution;

· Households – Construction, reconstruction and renovation of sewage systems (including stormwater), expansion of sewerages, enforcement of implementation of local wastewater treatment systems;

· Atmospheric deposition - Reduction of atmospheric nitrogen emissions from ships according to HELCOM recommendation (RBMP Ch. 20.1);

· Others – Past pollution removal from rivers, banning the use of some agrochemicals (Ch. 16), renovation of manure and silage storages, risk assessment related to handling and transportation of chemicals at installation, municipality and regional scales (Ch. 17).

As regards substance specific measures, an inventory and source tracking of pollution should be carried out in water bodies in which exceedance of threshold values for phenols and oil products have been revealed by monitoring. Measures implemented in order to reduce discharges of phenols into water environment are described in a national programme for years 2004-2014[73].

12.5.1 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

National authorities reported that water services are in general defined and understood as it is stated in the WFD. However the definition of water services included in RBMPs for the purpose of art 9 includes only common water supply and sanitation and is analysed separately for households, industry and agriculture.

In general, water uses such as abstraction for agriculture, industry, and households, along with water uses for power production, cooling, mining, fish farming, navigation and recreation have been identified, but not for Article 9.

Cost recovery rates are calculated for all defined water services.  Cost recovery calculations include financial costs such as capital costs, depreciation, operational costs, maintenance costs and administrative costs.

Information on subsidies, e.g. for creating buffer strips for water protection in agricultural areas, is provided by Estonian Rural Development Programme for 2007-2013.

Environmental and resource costs have been estimated according to a national guidance[74].

It is stated (RBMP Ch. 11) that the three main sectors of water users (households, industry and agriculture) cannot fully cover environmental and resource costs within the coming 5 years and part of the funding  will come from state and municipal budgets.

The 'polluter pays principle' is partly violated as pursuant to § 10 (2) of the current Environmental Charges Act[75], the water abstraction charge is not required if the water is used for generation of hydro-energy, for irrigation of agricultural land or for fish farming purposes.

There is little information on the incentive function of the water pricing policies. The charges for water abstraction have been gradually increasing supporting the mechanism of cost recovery by water users, restricting excessive use of water resources and encouraging reuse of water among industrial users. Increasing costs for common water supply and sanitation have diminished water consumption and lowered the relative cost of the service per household income.

The flexibility provisions of Article 9 and provisions of Article 9.4 have not been applied.

Economic analysis and corresponding issues are topics for a national approach in Estonia and the policies are applied in a similar way in all three RBDs.

12.6 Additional measures in protected areas

The RBMP provides overview of water dependent protected areas and explains that there are measures to achieve protection objectives, but there is no information on the types or magnitude of additional measures.

There are measures mentioned in the RBMP that aim at achievement of the objectives of various nature protection directives, but mostly there is no information available on whether these measures are additional or basic.

Supplementary measures implemented to safeguard water supplies in sparsely populated areas are given in Ch. 12 and include: a) supporting small settlements (less than 50 consumers or total abstraction less than 10 m3 day) in construction or reconstruction of water supply, b) establishment of new wells or cleaning polluted wells, c) making inventories of water, d) organization of monitoring the drinking water quality, e) consultancy and advice to deal with pressures from increases in economic activities.

13. water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management and Climate change adaptation 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity is relevant mainly as a local problem and is caused by water use for human consumption. The pressure is highest in the capital city of Tallinn and its agglomeration. SW abstraction for Tallinn water supply is considered significant, but not  highly significant (RBMP Ch. 4.5). Droughts may be a problem occasionally, depending on season and year. Dry seasons can happen, but they do not pose significant problems.

Projections of water use and water use by sectors is provided in the RBMP, Ch 8.1. Until 2015 projected increase rates in water use are 1% per year for households and 3% per year for both industry and agriculture.

As water scarcity and droughts are generally not an issue in Estonia, there are no specific measures implemented and there is no international coordination for these matters.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods are mentioned in a number of places in the RBMP. Flood protection is not listed as a reason for designation of HMWBs or justification for applying exemptions.

It is mentioned in the RBMP (Ch. 17) that specific flood protection measures will be elaborated in the course of implementation of the Floods Directive.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

Climate change issues are not discussed in the RBMP.

The Estonian authorities have clarified that a review of scientific evidence on climate change impacts on water in Estonia[76] was ordered by the Ministry of the Environment in 2011 and results are now available on their webpage.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning, as set out in the WFD, should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin, and, as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· Estonia needs to prepare more complete RBMPs to include more detail on certain technical aspects of implementation of the Directive, to ensure transparency on issues such as assessment methods, assessment of chemical pollutants and identification of pressures.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· There is currently a relatively high proportion of water bodies, both ground water and surface water bodies which are in good or better status, with the exception of the coastal waters that are almost all failing to achieve good status.  There are also few unknowns, despite a monitoring network which was not WFD compliant for the 1st RBMPs. Estonia needs to confirm this status assessment through the next round of surveillance monitoring exercises to ensure confidence in the assessment. 

· Further efforts are needed to ensure the monitoring networks become WFD compliant, such as to establish a monitoring programme for coastal waters, monitoring of all relevant quality elements both in surveillance and operational monitoring.

· Estonia needs to improve the availability of ecological assessment methods, to finalise intercalibration and to properly apply this fully in its assessment of ecological status.

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· Estonia needs to develop chemical status monitoring programmes, to ensure all relevant priority substances and river basin specific pollutants are identified, and that adequate operational and surveillance monitoring is put in place. It would be helpful to specify exactly which industrial pollutants are causing failure.

· Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are not the only priority substances for which monitoring in a non-water matrix (biota in these three instances, with reference to the biota standards in the EQSD) is appropriate. The requirement for trend monitoring in sediment or biota specified for several substances in Article 3(3) of the EQSD will also need to be reflected in the next RBMPs.

· The review of the assessment of groundwater status needs to be completed.

· Estonia needs to complete the identification of sources of chemical pollution, to enable effective measures to be put in place to reduce chemical pollution for priority substances, and other pollutants, and then progressively reduce and phase-out priority hazardous substances where relevant.

· Estonia needs to provide more transparency in the RBMPs on the assessment of environmental objectives and exemptions.

· Estonia needs to improve its information relating to costs of measures, including insuring that the calculation of disproportionate costs, distinguishes between costs for basic and supplementary measures.

· The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment on whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as earlier in the project planning as possible.

· Estonia should ensure the application of broad definition of water services for the purpose of Article 9 implementation by inclusion of water abstraction for inter alia hydro-energy generation. Estonia should assure adequate contribution to cost-recovery of different water uses disaggregated at least into households, industry and agriculture.

· Estonia needs to further develop co-operation with farmers at the different stages of the preparation of the PoM. This is important as it will ensure technical feasibility, acceptance and the expected success. The right balance between voluntary actions and a strong baseline of mandatory measures needs to be established. A clear commitment at political level is indispensable. The baseline for water protection needs to be very clear so on the one hand any farmer knows the rules, and on the other hand the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes which include cross compliance with water requirements.

[1]     https://www.eesti.ee/eng/topics/citizen/riik/eesti_vabariik_2/uldandmed

[2]     https://www.eesti.ee/eng/topics/citizen/riik/eesti_vabariik_2/uldandmed

[3]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[4]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[5]     https://www.osale.ee/konsultatsioonid/index.php?keyword=veemajanduskava (not referred to in the RBMP)

[6]     https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/121122011019

[7]     http://www.envir.ee/vmk/veemajanduskomisjon (not referred to in the RBMP))

[8]     Fig. 1 in all EE RBMPs.  http://www.keskkonnaamet.ee/vesikonnad/static/images/pilt_121.jpg

[9]     http://www.envir.ee/89749

[10]    http://www.keskkonnaamet.ee/vesikonnad/?op=body&id=11 (not referred to in the RBMP)

[11]    Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU. Task1 – Governance.

[12]    Ibid

[13]    Ibid

[14]    Reference in the RBMP Ch. 1: http://www.envir.ee/380956

[15]    Reference in the RBMP Ch. 22: www.envir.ee/1099232

[16]    http://www.keskkonnaamet.ee/vesikonnad/?op=body&id=120 (not referred to in the RBMP)

[17]    www.keskkonnaamet.ee/vesikonnad/?dl=23 (not referred to in the RBMP)

[18]    http://www.bef.ee/index.php?id=848 (not referred to in the RBMP)

[19]    Amended version of this regulation is available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13210253?leiaKehtiv

[20]    Reference in the RBMP Ch. 1 and Ch. 22: http://www.envir.ee/89749

[21]    Amended version of this regulation is available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13210253?leiaKehtiv

[22]    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf

[23]    Reference in the RBMP Ch. 4.1: http://www.envir.ee/1076062

[24]    Reference in the RBMP Ch. 4.1: http://www.envir.ee/204601

[25]    Reference in the RBMP Ch. 4.1: http://www.envir.ee/1076062

[26]    Report on river basin districts by the Ministry of the Environment (http://www.envir.ee/1084660); Assessment of diffuse load in sub-districts using a single calculation model (http://www.envir.ee/1085022); Development of a baseline scenario of diffuse load on Estonian sub-districts (http://www.envir.ee/1085015); Specification of entrainment coefficients for nutrient load (http://www.envir.ee/1075431).

[27]    Reference in the RBMP Ch. 4.3.2: http://register.keskkonnainfo.ee/envreg/main.

[28]    The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[29] http://www.keskkonnainfo.ee/failid/vesi/pinnaveeseisund.doc (not referred to in the RBMP).Other documentation however imply that was the case, for small rivers with a catchment size between 10 km2 and 25 km2, which were grouped with the larger bodies of running water downstream. The methodology was clear and as a result the total number of river water bodies decreased from 1099 delineated in 2004 to 645. This enabled the monitoring effort to be optimised, and decreased the uncertainty of status classification as noticed in the report on the ecological status of surface waters for 2004-2008.

[30]    http://www.envir.ee/1126098 (not referred to in the RBMP)

[31]    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf (not referred to in the RBMP)

[32]    https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/112042011009 (not referred to in the RBMP)

[33] http://eelis.ic.envir.ee/seireveeb/index.php?id=13 (not referred to in the RBMP)

[34] https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/112042011009 (not referred to in the RBMP)

[35]    Reference in the RBMP Ch. 4.6.1: http://www.envir.ee/NTA

[36]    http://eelis.ic.envir.ee/seireveeb/index.php?id=13 (not referred to in the RBMP)

[37]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[38] Natural surface water bodies only (i.e. excludes HMWB/AWB)

[39] Natural surface water bodies only (i.e. excludes HMWB/AWB)

[40]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[41]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[42]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[43]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[44]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[45]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[46]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[47]    Amended version of this regulation is available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13210253?leiaKehtiv

[48]    http://seire.keskkonnainfo.ee/seireveeb/index.php?id=13. NB information not been fully assessed for this report.

[49]    https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=866073 (not referred to in the RBMP)

[50]    https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/104082011004 (not referred to in the RBMP)

[51]    Amended version of this regulation is available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13210253?leiaKehtiv

[52]    see FWD intercalibration technical report 2009 http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/294/1/reqno_jrc51339_3008_08-volumeriver_dec09.pdf

[53]    Amended version of this regulation is available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13210253?leiaKehtiv

[54]    http://seire.keskkonnainfo.ee/seireveeb/index.php?id=13 (not referred to in the RBMP)

[55]    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2007_0362_en.pdf

[56]http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/gds04shmwbspolicyssummar/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[57]    http://www.envir.ee/1083938

[58]    https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=12857238

[59]    www.mpb.ee

[60]    https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/104082011004 (not referred to in the RBMP)

[61] http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1177403/GW_Landfill_models_2011_TTU.pdf (not referred to in the RBMP)

[62] https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/121122011019

[63]    Reference in the RBMP Ch. 8.2: http://www.envir.ee/1098587

[64] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[65] These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

[66]    RBMP Ch. 22

[67]    http://www.agri.ee/veefoorumil-arutletakse-veekaitse-ja-pollumajanduse-teemadel (not referred to in RBMP)

[68] http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1110073/NTA_tegevuskava_kinnitatud.pdf (not referred to in RBMP)

[69]    Reference in RBMP Ch. 13: http://www.envir.ee/vooluveekogud

[70]    Reference in RBMP Ch. 2.3: http://www.envir.ee/1083938

[71] RBMP Ch. 3.

[72]    Chapter 4.3 and 4.4.

[73]    Reference in RBMP Ch.16: http://www.legaltext.ee/text/et/x80055.htm

[74] Reference in RBMP Ch.8.2.1: http://www.envir.ee/1098587

[75] Reference in RBMP Ch. 11 (updated): https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13197246?leiaKehtiv

[76]    http://www.envir.ee/295059

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Slovenia has a population of 2 million and a total surface area of 20 676 km2.

Four major European geographic regions meet in Slovenia: the Alps, the Dinaric area, the Pannonian plain and the Mediterranean. In the west, it is bounded by the Adriatic Sea.

Slovenia is divided into two river basin districts: Danube and North Adriatic. Slovenia shares catchments with Member States and third countries.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || Countries sharing borders

SI_RBD_1 || Danube || 16422 || AT, HR, HU, IT

SI_RBD_2 || North Adriatic || 4254 || HR, IT

Table 1.1: Overview of Slovenia’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[1]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/si/eu/wfdart13

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing borders || Co-ordination category

1 || 2

km² || % || km² || %

Danube || SI_RBD_1 || AT, HR, HU, IT || 16422 || 2.0 || ||

Adriatic || SI_RBD_2 || HR, IT || || || 2267 || 66.7

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Slovenia[2]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance 2.1 Basic information on RBMP

Slovenia prepared RBMPs for both RBDs as one document entitled 'The RBMP for Danube RBD and North Adriatic RBD 2009-2015' which was officially adopted on 27 July 2011, after the deadline indicated in WFD.

Slovenia reported the information to WISE in 2012.

2.2 Key strengths and weaknesses

The RBMPs of Slovenia follow the content and structure required by the WFD with some exceptions (e.g. map(s) of the monitoring networks established for the purpose of protected areas are missing in the RBMP; surface drinking water protected areas are not presented in the plans) and form a good basis for the water management. The pressures and measures are clearly identified. Public participation was carried out very with the active involvement of the relevant stakeholders. The general public were well informed about the identified problems and proposed general solutions. There is extensive monitoring of chemical status of groundwater including all GWBs that are highly sensitive to pollution and covering 160 parameters. The use of exemptions is transparent and provides the necessary information. The Programme of Measures is water body specific. A summary of measures provides a list of measures with information on the authority responsible for its implementation, estimated budget and timeframe of implementation.

However, a range of weaknesses exist, amongst them are the following:

· There is no clear link between the pressure analysis and the identified significant pressures.  

· The assessment methods for the classification of ecological status are not fully developed for all biological quality elements in all water categories.

· The biota standards for mercury, hexachlorobenzene or hexachlorobutadiene were not applied for the chemical status assessment.

· In the context of measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policy), an economic analysis has not been prepared for all water services identified, because of inaccessibility of data.

· The RBMPs do not contain information on whether international co-ordination has been carried out in practice.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

RBMPs were reported on 27 July 2011, later than the due dates established in Article 14 of the WFD.

The following table shows the dates of consultations

Topic || Date of submission || Released to public

Surface Water Monitoring Stations || 20/09/2011 || 02/04/2012

Groundwater Monitoring Stations || 20/09/2011 || 02/04/2012

Monitoring Programmes || 20/09/2011 || 02/04/2012

Protected Areas || 19/10/2011 || 02/04/2012

Groundwater Methods || 29/02/2012 || 01/03/2012

Surface water Methods || 29/02/2012 || 06/04/2012

Groundwater Bodies || 13/04/2012 || 13/04/2012

RBMP and Programme of Measures || 13/04/2012 || 13/04/2012

Surface water Bodies || 13/04/2012 || 13/04/2012

Table 3.1.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: WISE

Information is provided on the consultations that took place on draft copies of the RBMP in the plans themselves, and in official governmental web-pages on WFD implementation. The draft RBMP was available for public/stakeholder consultation from 22 September 2009 to 22 March 2010. Several workshops on sub-basin level (7 in the Danube RBD and 2 in the North Adriatic RBD) were organized in September 2010. No other date is provided.

3.2 Administrative arrangements

As reported in the RBMP, the national authority responsible for implementation of the WFD and for the preparation of the RBMPs is the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning. Since February 2012, the responsible national authority is the Ministry of Agriculture and the Environment[3].

The same, national approach for the WFD implementation has been followed in both RBDs. Both RBMPs were prepared by the same group of experts.

There were no changes announced in the implementation after the submission of RBMPs.

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

RBMPs in Slovenia follow a national approach. Both RBMPs are prepared as one document with subchapters referring to different RBDs. National legislation defines the structure and the content of a RBMP.

The RBMPs do not completely follow the requirements laid down in Annex VII of the WFD regarding the content and the structure of a RBMP e.g. map(s) of the monitoring networks established for the purpose of protected areas is missing in the RBMP.

The RBMPs provide the list of all international and bilateral commissions with summary of their competences and obligations but make no references to international RBMPs. One of the international plans, the Danube River Basin Management Plan (ICPDR 2009) was adopted in December 2009 (one year and half prior the national RBMPs). Besides this work there have been preparations for other international RBMPs (Sava River Basin Management Plan - draft provided for public consultation in December 2011; River Basin Management Plan of the Adriatic Sea RBD) that are not mentioned in the RBMPs.

The legal status of both RBMPs is national regulation. Both RBMPs (as one document) were accepted with a state decree. The RBMP derives its legal effect from the fact that is adopted in the form of a decree. Hierarchically, a decree is below both types of general legal acts adopted by the National Assembly, the Constitution and statutes. Decrees are implementing legal acts with which the government implements the statutes. They are hierarchically above the rules, issued by ministries and local bylaws (ordinances). RBMP is thus binding for all legislators when preparing other implementing legislative acts or policy documents. The fact that the RBMP is adopted by a decree does not automatically give it a direct legal effect in administrative procedures. The direct legal effect of RBMP is regulated in the Water Act, especially in relation to water rights. The RBMP must be taken into account by administrative decisions having an effect on water. In relation to sectoral plans, the whole RBMP is considered to be an "environmental baseline", i.e. environmental protection objectives "on the basis of which the plans, programmes and other acts in the sectors of spatial planning, water management, forestry, hunting, fisheries, mining, agriculture, energy production, industry, transport (…) are prepared and assessed". In other words, it should be used in the preparation of these plans and programmes and in their environmental assessment.

Water rights are the most important mechanism to control the use of water. A water right must be obtained for any special use of water, which means for any use that exceeds the ordinary use, and also for the extraction of alluvium and of groundwater. The adoption of a new six-year RBMP may set new criteria for the special use of water. The existing water rights may thus have to be amended accordingly. A water permit has to be changed by the Ministry ex officio if "the prescribed criteria for the use of water have changed". Likewise, the concession must be changed "if the prescribed conditions for the use of water or alluvium have changed" or if "this is required in the public interest of water protection". The Water Act does not differentiate between different parts of the RBMP with regard to their legal effect. With regard to the environmental objectives, they do not seem to be formulated in a manner in which they could be used as a basis for decision-making in administrative procedures.

Strategic environment assessment (SEA) was running parallel at final stage of RBMPs preparations (2009-2011). National legislation defines procedure and content of a SEA. SEA mitigation measures are incorporated into RBMPs measures.    

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

The RBMP states that public consultation was carried out, workshops with interested public were held and a harmonization process was organized with sectors.

The plan was available for public consultation from 22 September 2009 until 22 March 2010 on the webpage of the government where a special web page was created. The RBMP lists 12 stakeholders that provided written responses. Their remarks, comments and suggestions are collected and presented in the RBMP together with the Ministry’s response showing where and how a particular comment has been integrated into the RBMP or providing and explanation as to why it was not taken into account.

In September 2010, nine workshops with interested parties on sub-basin level were organised and approximately 30 participants participated at each. They included various stakeholders such as municipalities, local institutions, NGOs, companies and others as well as the general public. At the workshops, the draft RBMP together with some local examples of good practices, were presented as an introduction, then the workshop followed where priorities, problems, solutions and main stakeholders were identified. The results of the workshops were summarised in special reports available on the water awareness website (http://www.skrbimozavode.si).

A harmonisation process has been carried on with the energy/hydropower and agricultural sectors. The results are harmonised measures that are integrated into the final version of the PoM.

There have been some major impacts of the consultation on the final plans. The main impact of the whole consultation process was that the PoM has been supplemented and economically evaluated.

There is no information on whether international co-ordination of public participation was carried out, even though in the context of the Danube area the issue is discussed in the Danube RBMP.

The RBMPs do not specifically provide information on the continuous involvement of stakeholders and general public.

3.5 International cooperation and coordination

The territory of Slovenia belongs to two international RBDs: the Danube River Basin District and the Adriatic Sea River Basin District. In the south, Slovenia borders Croatia.

The RBMPs do not provide any information on international RBDs, international RBMPs or any co-ordination on RBMPs with other Member States / third countries concerned. The RBMP provides information only on bilateral and international commissions and their tasks. According to this the management of shared catchments is dealt in the frame of nine bilateral and international commissions that cover all neighbouring countries. There is no concrete obligation concerning the preparation and implementation of RBMPs mentioned.

A relevant international RBMP, the Danube River Basin Management Plan was adopted in 2009. Slovenia is a member of the ICPDR that produced this international plan.

Slovenia is a signatory of the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin (FASRB). On this basis, the International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC) is coordinating the preparation of a management plan for the international Sava river basin. The draft plans are already publicly available. The plan will contain a transboundary co-ordinated programme of measures for the international Sava river basin.

Work is on-going in a bilateral commission with Italy for the preparation of joint management plans for the Soča/Isonzo river basin and the Gulf of Trieste.

3.6 Integration with other sectors

There is no information in the RBMPs on integration to other sectoral plans, such as regional development plans, energy, transport, etc. However, there is information on harmonisation of the PoM with some sectors (energy / hydropower, agriculture) and the results are harmonised measures that are integrated into the final version of the PoM. The RBMP does not provide further details.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

There are three surface water categories used in Slovenia, rivers, lakes and coastal waters. In the Danube RBD, which is land-locked, only two water categories are used: rivers and lakes. In the North Adriatic RBD, there are only rivers and coastal waters, since there are no lakes with an area larger than 0.5 km2, and transitional water bodies have not been delineated there.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

A surface water typology has been developed for all designated water categories.

The typology has been validated with biological data using a method of numeric multidimensional scaling.

Reference conditions have been established for 27 river types out of 52 surface water body types using a spatially based method (for rivers and lakes partly, not for coastal waters). For the rest, a method based on modelling or expert judgement has been used. The establishment of reference conditions is not complete. For rivers and lakes mainly undisturbed sites were used (approximately 1/3 of all river WBs and 2/3 of all lake WBs). In the Trieste Bay there are no sufficiently undisturbed sites, therefore the reference conditions were defined by expert judgement based on historic data.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

SI_RBD_1 || 52 || 2 || Not relevant || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 21 || 0 || Not relevant || 2

Total || 73 || 2 || Not relevant || 2

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

There is a national background document that gives an overview of surface water types in Slovenia.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

Overall, Slovenia has designated 155 surface water bodies. Of these, 135 are river water bodies, 14 lake water bodies and 6 coastal water bodies. Transitional waters were not delineated.

Slovenia established criteria for independent surface water bodies:

· watercourses with a catchment area greater than 100 km2,

· natural lakes with a surface area greater than 0.5 km2,

· sea and transitional waters,

· man-made canals longer than 3 km, and

· reservoirs on rivers and man-made lakes with a surface area greater than 0.5 km2.

Watercourses or parts thereof which do not meet these criteria are included in the water bodies of the watercourses into which they flow. In this way small water bodies have been included in the RBMP through grouping with larger water bodies. The minimal size of the water bodies is not considered in cases, where a water body or its part is subject to bilateral co-operation with neighbouring countries, or when its status is significantly different from other WBs, or where a detected significant anthropologic pressure occurs.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)[4]

SI_RBD_1 || 110 || 20 || 11 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 18 ||

SI_RBD_1 || 25 || 16 || 3 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 67 || 3 ||

Total || 135 || 19 || 14 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 67 || 21 ||

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

Significant pressures as defined in the RBMP are: loads of outflows from industrial installations and/or communal waste water treatment plants; diffuse pollution from agriculture; water abstractions; regulations of water flow; hydromorphological changes of surface water bodies due to hydropower; flood protection; water accumulation; and any other regulations of water flow and the physical alteration of riverbeds.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SI_RBD_1 || 120 || 99.17 || 1 || 0.83 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 34 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 154 || 99.35 || 1 || 0.65 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

The main significant impacts causing failures of the objectives for surface waters by 2015 are nutrients and organic enrichments (altogether 46% of surface WBs), altered habitats as result of hydromorphological alterations (30% of surface WBs), contamination by other specific pollutants in the Danube RBD and contamination by priority substances and certain other pollutants in coastal WBs in the North Adriatic RBD. There is also high risk of failing the objective for bathing waters because of microbiological contamination for almost 9% of the surface WBs in the North Adriatic RBD.

|| || || Evaluating risk of failing objective by 2015

|| || || SI_RBD_1 || SI_RBD_2 || Total

|| Significant impacts || Water bodies || hrF || F || hrF || F || hrF || F || hrF+F

Ecological status || Organic enrichment || No. || 15 || 3 || 4 || 1 || 19 || 4 || 23

% || 12.4 || 2.5 || 11.8 || 2.9 || 12.3 || 2.6 || 14.8

Nutrients  enrichment || No. || 35 || 5 || 8 || 1 || 43 || 6 || 49

% || 28.9 || 4.1 || 23.5 || 2.9 || 27.7 || 3.9 || 31.6

Contamination by other specific pollutants || No. || 9 || 9 || 6 || 0 || 15 || 9 || 24

% || 7.4 || 7.4 || 17.6 || 0.0 || 9.7 || 5.8 || 15.5

Altered habitats as a result of hydromorphological alterations || No. || 22 || 15 || 5 || 5 || 27 || 20 || 47

% || 18.2 || 12.4 || 14.7 || 14.7 || 17.4 || 12.9 || 30.3

Chemical status || Contamination by priority and priority hazardous substances || No. || 1 || 1 || 0 || 5 || 1 || 6 || 7

% || 0.8 || 0.8 || 0 || 14.7 || 0.6 || 3.9 || 4.5

Protected areas || Contamination of bathing waters || No. || 3 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 6 || 0 || 6

% || 2.5 || 0 || 8.8 || 0 || 3.9 || 0 || 3.9

Table 4.4.2: Overview of significant impacts causing failure of the objectives by 2015

hrF = high risk of failure of the objective

F = failure of the objective

Source: WISE

Significant pressures have been defined by expert judgement taking into account the conceptual understanding of a water body, pressures analysis, monitoring results and the implementation of basic measures.

A pressure and impact analysis has been performed for all emissions from point sources, i.e. industrial installations and/or urban waste water treatment plants. For industrial installations registered in the National register of emissions to water from industrial and other installations (IPPC and non-IPPC) priority and priority hazardous substances, organic pollution, nutrients and other specific pollutants have been considered. However, the analysis of emissions from urban waste water treatment plants included only organic pollution and nutrients. The maximum concentration of individual substances was calculated from the total amount of emission. In the cases where the calculated maximum concentration, which accounted for total emissions of an individual substance, exceeds the EQS and where the analysis showed emission limit values had been exceeded, it is considered that there is a significant pressure from point sources on a specific WB.

Pollution from agriculture has been defined as significant pressure from diffuse sources and a pressure analysis was performed.

Water abstractions (over 70% for small hydropower facilities, the rest for fish farms, drinking water supply, technological water, mills, large hydropower facilities and irrigation) have also been defined as a significant pressure. Data on abstractions have been taken from water concessions. Quantitative criteria were defined by expert judgement.

The significant pressures from water flow regulation and morphological alterations are the regulations of water flow and hydromorphological changes of surface water, flood protection, and the physical alterations of riverbeds. The pressure analysis took into account various parameters.

There are no other significant pressures defined.

The pressure and impact analysis indicated that there are two heavy metals emitted into surface waters in larger quantities in Slovenia: nickel in the whole country and lead in Danube RBD. However the concentrations of these two parameters in surface and groundwater do not exceed the EQSs set for good chemical status. Sectors that contribute most to the emissions of nickel are the metals and metallic products industry and the rubber and plastics industries. Sectors that mostly contribute to the emissions of lead are the paper industry, typography and the production of electrical devices and machines.

4.5 Protected areas

The table below gives an overview of all kind of protected areas designated in Slovenia.

Reason for protection of waters || Statistic || SI_RBD_1 || SI_RBD_2 || Total

2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive) Drinking water protected areas || Total number of groundwater drinking water protected areas (GDWPA) || 1243 || 134 || 1377

Number of GDWPAs established by state decree || 149 || 29 || 178

Number of GDWPAs established by old municipalities ordinances || 1094 || 105 || 1199

Total number of surface water drinking water protected areas || 0 || 0 || 0

76/160/EEC (Bathing water Directive) || Number of protected areas established || 20 || 28 || 48

78/659/EEC (Freshwater fish Directive) || Number of protected areas established || 14 || 8 || 22

Number of SWBs affected || 22 || 13 || 35

79/923/EEC (Shellfish waters Directive) || Number of SWBs affected || 0 || 3 || 3

79/409/EEC (Birds Directive) || Number of protected areas established || 46 || 22 || 68

92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive) || Number of protected areas established || 277 || 63 || 340

Natura 2000 Total || Number of protected areas established || 323 || 85 || 408

% of total area covered by protected areas (km2) || 23.56% || 30.34% || 24.96%

% of SWBs affected || 82% || 77% ||

Ecologically important areas || % of SWBs affected || 99% || 88% ||

Natural protected areas (national parks etc.) || % of total area covered by protected areas || || || 12%

Number of protected areas established || || || 1284

% of SWBs affected || 64% || 65% ||

91/271/EEC (Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive) Nutrient sensitive areas || Number of SWBs affected || 30 || 22 || 52

91/676/EEC (Nitrates Directive) Prevent nitrate pollution || % of total area covered by protected areas || 100% || 100% || 100%

Flood Protection || Flood areas (km2) || 1256 || 62 || 1318

Flood Endangered Urbanized Areas (km2) || 63 || 3 || 66

Table 4.5.1: Overview of protected areas in Slovenia

Source: RBMP and SI

5. Monitoring 5.1 General description of the monitoring network

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

A programme for monitoring the water status in the period 2006-2008 has been established in accordance with the WFD for all relevant water categories in both RBDs. The monitoring network is able to monitor chemical and ecological status of surface waters, quantitative and chemical status of groundwater and status of water in protected areas. Surveillance, operational and investigative monitoring sub-programmes have been established. Some of the monitoring stations serve also as intercalibration or reference monitoring points and some others monitor protected areas or are parts of international networks.

The purpose of monitoring is to evaluate the status of waters, to assess long-term changes and the effects of the implementation of measures, to find out causes of excessive pollution etc.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

SI_RBD_1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SI_RBD_2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

SI_RBD_1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SI_RBD_2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

|| || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

Slovenia has reported the number of monitoring sites for its RBDs. The number of monitoring sites is in line with the data provided for the European Commission’s 2009 report on monitoring in the EU.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

SI_RBD_1 || 36 || 172 || 4 || 12 || - || - || 0 || 0 || 93 || 29 || 110

SI_RBD_2 || 12 || 28 || 0 || 3 || - || - || 4 || 5 || 11 || 0 || 5

Total by type of site || 48 || 200 || 4 || 15 || - || - || 4 || 5 || 104 || 29 || 115

Total number of monitoring sites[5] || 225 || 17 || - || 6 || 219

Table 5.1.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.2 Monitoring of surface waters

All physico-chemical quality elements (QEs) are monitored, but not all biological quality elements. Among hydromorphological QEs only hydrological quality elements are monitored, all morphological quality elements are missing with the exception of tidal regime, which is regularly monitored.

The RBMP explains that since the methodology used in the assessment/classification of ecological status using morphological QEs is still under development, the morphological QEs have not been defined yet. The RBMP also indicates that among biological quality elements, monitoring of fish for lakes is missing. According to the RBMP biological QEs for the ecological status of surface waters are defined, but the metric for fish is still under development.

An operational monitoring programme has been established, and it is clear from the RBMPs how the biological quality elements have been chosen to detect the existing pressures.

All priority substances and other specific pollutants are being monitored as part of surveillance monitoring programme in rivers, lakes and coastal waters once a month. Priority substances and other pollutants that were detected in WBs are monitored in water as part of operational monitoring program once a month with the exception of pesticides that are monitored 4 times a year. There is no chemical operational monitoring for lakes since there were no pressures identified from chemical pollutants in the two lakes of Slovenia.

In order to protect surface waters from indirect effects, every three years monitoring for priority substances in sediment or biota is carried out. National legislation defines that concentration trends of 12 substances are monitored in sediment and/or biota. The EQSs for three of them (Mercury and its compounds, Hexachlorobenzene and Hexachlorobutadiene) are defined in the decree.

Grouping of water bodies for monitoring and assessment of status has been applied. In Slovenia groups of river WBs were formed in five cases with two to three WBs in a group with one shared monitoring point. In all other water bodies a single monitoring point was selected.

An international monitoring programme for surface waters has been operating under the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). Particular attention is paid to the transboundary pollution load. In view of the link between the nutrient loads of the Danube and the eutrophication of the Black Sea, the monitoring of sources and pathways of nutrients in the Danube RB and the effects of measures taken to reduce the nutrient loads into the Black Sea are an important component of the scheme. 

There is no transboundary monitoring network in the North Adriatic RBMP. It is reported that it should be operational from 2015.

A national monitoring programme in accordance with the Barcelona Convention has been in operation since 1999 and includes monitoring programmes of bathing waters, of waters important for the life of sea-mussels and sea-snails, of priority substances in sediments and/or biota, of eutrophication, of pollution from the coast, and biomonitoring.

The number of monitoring stations has increased since 2007 (as reported in the 2009 Commission report). The number of monitoring station for WISE and RBMP differ because hydrological stations were also reported to WISE, whereas in the RBMP only stations for physico-chemical and biological elements were reported. The status assessment for the 1st RBMP was prepared only on the basis of these quality elements. The RBMP refers to a national regulation that contains the rules on the monitoring of surface water status which is completely harmonised with the WFD.

5.3 Monitoring of groundwater

A quantitative groundwater monitoring programme has been established. It is carried out in a network of monitoring water table in GWBs with dominant alluvial porosity and a network of monitoring of water flow of rivers in GWBs with dominant karstic, fractured rock or mixed porosity.

Both a surveillance monitoring programme and an operational monitoring programme have been established for groundwater. Groundwater is the most important source of drinking water (97%) in Slovenia. Therefore, the operational monitoring does not only include GWBs that are at risk of not meeting the requirements for good groundwater status, but also all GWBs that are highly sensitive to pollution (such as karstic GWBs or GWBs that are to a large degree used as a source of drinking water).

Groundwater chemical status monitoring is designed to be able to detect significant and sustained upward trends. The operational monitoring includes approximately 50 to 160 parameters measured for each measurement at individual monitoring sites. The number of parameters depends on pollutants that were detected in the previous monitoring samples. Sampling is 2 to 4 times a year (4 times per year for those parameters that did not meet quality standards) and once per year for deep aquifers. Surveillance monitoring includes all 160 parameters.

There is no information on international monitoring programmes related to groundwater in the RBMPs. However, there is an international monitoring programme for groundwater in place for the whole Danube River Basin, which was initiated in the year 2002 and has been operational since December 2006. Monitoring of 11 transboundary GWBs of basin-wide importance has been integrated into this monitoring network. It includes both quantitative and chemical monitoring. The Permanent Italian-Slovenian Commission for Hydro-economy has set up an expert group to prepare a roadmap for the implementation of the First Italian – Slovenian Isonzo-Soča Common Management Plan. A wide monitoring network has been set up in order to define the quality and quantity of water bodies in accordance with the WFD, a transboundary monitoring network should be operational from 2015.

The number of groundwater monitoring stations is the same as in 2007 (as reported in the 2009 Commission report). Surveillance monitoring and monitoring of groundwater quantity is performed in all 21 GWBs, while operational monitoring of groundwater quality only in 12 GWBs.

The RBMP refers to a national regulation that contains the rules of groundwater monitoring.

5.4 Monitoring of protected areas

The RBMPs briefly mention specific monitoring programmes in protected areas which are presented in detail in the monitoring programme of water status in the period 2010-2015. It includes the following monitoring programmes for surface waters: programme for abstraction of drinking water, for bathing waters, for waters important for the life of freshwater fish, and for waters important for the life of sea-mussels and sea-snails. Groundwater is the main source of drinking water therefore a specific monitoring programme for monitoring the quality of groundwater for drinking water protected areas was established. Provisions of Annex V 1.3.5 for monitoring of surface waters for abstraction of drinking water have been implemented.

The number of monitoring stations has increased since 2007 (as reported in the 2009 Commission report). The monitoring programme of surface water for abstraction of drinking water from rivers is carried out at 6 monitoring stations in Slovenia, for bathing waters at 48 monitoring stations (37 reported under bathing Water Directive for season 2007), for waters important for the life of freshwater fish at 22 monitoring stations, and for waters important for the life of sea-mussels and sea-snails at 3 monitoring stations in the North Adriatic RBD.

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

There are 132 surface water bodies delineated in Slovenia. More than half of all surface water bodies in Slovenia have been assessed as being at good ecological status and 8% are at high status. Only less than 7% of the surface water bodies are of poor or bad status.

There are differences between the RBDs, more than 80% of the water bodies are of good or higher ecological status in the North Adriatic RBD while only one water body is of less than moderate ecological status.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

SI_RBD_1 || 104 || 7 || 6.7 || 50 || 48.1 || 38 || 36.5 || 6 || 5.8 || 2 || 1.9 || 1 || 1.0

SI_RBD_2 || 28 || 4 || 14.3 || 19 || 67.9 || 3 || 10.7 || 1 || 3.6 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 3.6

Total || 132 || 11 || 8.3 || 69 || 52.3 || 41 || 31.1 || 7 || 5.3 || 2 || 1.5 || 2 || 1.5

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

SI_RBD_1 || 17 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 47.1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 52.9

SI_RBD_2 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 20.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 80.0

Total || 22 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 40.9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 13 || 59.1

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

Nearly 95% of Slovenia’s surface water bodies are of good chemical status, only 7 surface water bodies are of poor chemical status and one surface water body is of unknown status.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SI_RBD_1 || 104 || 103 || 99.0 || 1 || 1.0 || 0 || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 28 || 24 || 85.7 || 4 || 14.3 || 0 || 0

Total || 132 || 127 || 96.2 || 5 || 3.8 || 0 || 0

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SI_RBD_1 || 17 || 16 || 94.1 || 1 || 5.9 || 0 || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 5 || 3 || 60.0 || 1 || 20.0 || 1 || 20.0

Total || 22 || 19 || 86.4 || 2 || 18.2 || 1 || 4.4

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

There are 21 groundwater bodies delineated in Slovenia. Slovenia has reported that more than four fifth of its groundwater bodies have good chemical status while only 4 of them are of poor status. All groundwater bodies are in good chemical status in the North Adriatic RBD. All GWBs have been assessed.

RBD || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SI_RBD_1 || 14 || 77.8 || 4 || 22.2 || 0 || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 17 || 81 || 4 || 19 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

All 21 GWBs are in good quantitative status according to Slovenia’s reporting. All GWBs have been assessed.

RBD || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SI_RBD_1 || 18 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 21 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

In total nearly half of Slovenia’s SWBs were assessed as being of good status in 2009; according to the information reported the number of WBs of good status is expected to increase by 34% in 2015 reaching good status for more than four fifth of the SWBs.

Four fifths of the groundwater bodies were assessed as being of good status in 2009. One more groundwater body is expected to reach good status by 2015 and 3 others will still be in poor status by that date.   

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SI_RBD_1 || 121 || 56 || 46.3 || 100 || 82.6 || 36.4 || || || || || || || || || 14 || 0 || 0 || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 33 || 20 || 60.6 || 28 || 84.8 || 24.2 || || || || || || || || || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 154 || 76 || 49.4 || 128 || 83.1 || 33.8 || || || || || || || || || 12 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[6]

Water bodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Water bodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Water bodies with unknown/unclassified/not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SI_RBD_1 || 104 || 57 || 54.8 || 93 || 89.4 || 34.6 || || || || || 11.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 28 || 23 || 82.1 || 27 || 96.4 || 14.3 || || || || || 7.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 132 || 80 || 60.6 || 120 || 90.9 || 30.3 || || || || || 10.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[7]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SI_RBD_1 || 104 || 103 || 99.0 || 104 || 100 || 1.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 28 || 24 || 85.7 || 28 || 100 || 14.3 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 132 || 127 || 96.2 || 132 || 100 || 3.8 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[8]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SI_RBD_1 || 18 || 14 || 77.8 || 15 || 83.3 || 5.6 || || || || || 17 || 0 || 0 || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 3 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 21 || 17 || 81.0 || 18 || 85.7 || 4.8 || || || || || 14 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[9]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SI_RBD_1 || 18 || 18 || 100 || 18 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 3 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 21 || 21 || 100 || 21 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[10]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SI_RBD_1 || 17 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 41.2 || 41.2 || || || || || 5.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 16.7 || 16.7 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 23 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 34.8 || 34.8 || || || || || 4.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[11]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SI_RBD_1 || 17 || 16 || 94.1 || 17 || 100 || 5.9 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 6 || 4 || 66.7 || 5 || 83.3 || 16.7 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 23 || 20 || 87.0 || 22 || 95.7 || 8.7 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[12]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

There is a national approach of ecological status of surface waters assessment.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

The assessment methods for the classification of ecological status are not fully developed for all biological quality elements in all water categories. Assessment methods for coastal waters are fully developed while the assessment methods for ecological status of lakes based on fish fauna were not used since it had not yet been developed. The RBMP explains that Phytoplankton is not a relevant BQE for Slovenian rivers.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

SI_RBD_1 || - || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

SI_RBD_2 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

The biological assessment methods are able to detect all identified major pressures in all relevant water categories.

Standards in support of the biological assessment have been set for physico-chemical QEs. Limit values of ecological status classes for general physico-chemical parameters are defined for rivers and lakes. They are required by the national legislation on surface water status and also include limit values for nitrate and BOD5 in the case of rivers, and a limit value for the concentration of dissolved oxygen in water in the case of lakes. In coastal waters limit values for physico-chemical parameters are not yet defined, therefore the physico-chemical quality elements were not used to classify ecological status of coastal waters in this RBMP. A methodology for the assessment of hydromorphological alteration of rivers was developed in the period 2009–2012. A methodology for the assessment of hydromorphological alteration of lakes was completed in 2011. A methodology for coastal waters is currently under development.

A national background document was produced in Slovenia to identify the relevant river basin specific pollutants. The EQSs for all relevant specific pollutants have been set and limit values defined. The process of EQS identification is described and the methodology used follows the procedure required by Annex V 1.2.6 WFD. The EQSs were not separately set for rivers, lakes or coastal waters, but they are set for all categories of water bodies, because the toxic susceptibility of biota of fresh surface water and marine waters are comparable, as reported in the above mentioned background document.

The “one-out-all-out” principle has been applied to derive the overall ecological status.

Uncertainty has been defined for classification of ecological status. The RBMP explains that confidence for classification of ecological status is defined with three classes: high, medium and low for quality elements, and for categories of WBs. Confidence for coastal waters, HMWB and AWB has not been assessed. The RBMP states that since monitoring of BQEs, which mainly defines ecological status, started in 2006, there are only a few data available therefore the confidence of ecological status is low in most cases.

Ecological status assessment methods have not been fully developed for all national surface water body types. There are still some gaps. The RBMP lists the following national water body types: 73 ecological types of river, 2 ecological types of lakes and 2 ecological types of coastal waters. The hydromorphological classification system is not yet developed for any of the water categories. The methodology for the classification of the ecological status of lakes based on fish fauna as well as the methodology of coastal waters based on macroalgae and angiosperms are also still in the development process.

The RBMP refers to the national legislation which defines class boundaries for ecological status of rivers, lakes and coastal waters expressed as ecological quality ratios. The class boundaries for ecological status assessment are not completely consistent with the results of the intercalibration of phase 1 (published in COM Decision 2008/915/EC). The RBMP states that in the future all methods for classification will have to be intercalibrated at the EU level and confirm the ecological status of water bodies assessed in the first RBMP.

The RBMP refers to national legislation which corresponds to Directive 2000/60/EC and Directive 2008/105/EC, and defines assessment methods including metrics and class boundaries. There are several national guidance documents defining assessment methods for the classification of ecological status separately for different water categories and different BQEs as well as for supporting physico-chemical quality elements. 

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

Not all relevant quality elements were used in ecological status assessment of surveillance monitoring sites.

The biological quality elements used in the ecological status assessment for rivers are benthic invertebrate, macrophytes and phytobenthos. Fish was also included in surveillance monitoring for rivers (2006-2008), even though the methodology for assessment of ecological status based on fish was not developed, and consequently these data were not used for assessment of ecological status.

All relevant BQEs except fish were used in the ecological status assessment for lakes, and all relevant BQEs in the ecological status assessment for coastal waters. For HMWBs that are lakes or AWBs ecological potential was not defined, because status assessment methods with BQEs were not yet developed.

Among relevant supporting quality elements, chemical and physico-chemical QEs including specific pollutants (priority list pollutants and other pollutants) were included in the ecological status assessment. Only the assessment of coastal waters based on general physico-chemical QEs was not included in the ecological status assessment because the boundary values have not yet been defined.

An assessment based on relevant supporting hydromorphological QEs was not included in the ecological status assessment, because hydromorphological quality standards and methodologies to assess ecological status/potential had not yet been developed.

The RBMP states that the most sensitive biological quality elements have been selected for ecological status assessment for the operational monitoring sites so that the existing pressures are to be sufficiently detected. 

7.3 River basin specific pollutants

Regarding river basin specific pollutants, there were 18 WBs (15%) in the Danube RBD and 1 WB (3%) in the North Adriatic RBD classified as achieving moderate ecological status due to specific pollutants in 2009. The relevant specific pollutants are metals, halogenated organic compounds, metolachlor, sulphate, polychlorinated biphenyl, cobalt, molybdenum, mineral oils and anion-active detergents. 

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage of Heavily Modified and Artificial water bodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The number of HMWBs and AWBs in Slovenia is given below. 15% of the surface water bodies in Slovenia have been designated as HMWBs or AWBs.

Type of water bodies at good status / potential || SI_RBD_1 || SI_RBD_2 || Total

Number of natural surface water bodies reported in RBMP || 104 || 28 || 132

Number of heavily modified plus artificial surface water bodies reported in RBMP || 17 || 6 || 23

Total number of all surface water bodies reported in RBMP || 121 || 34 || 155

Table 8.1: Number of different water body types in Slovenia

Source: WISE

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

There have been 19 HMWBs (12% of all WBs) and 4 AWBs (3%) designated in Slovenia.

The water uses for which the water body has been designated as HMWB are only 'storage for power generation' and 'navigation, port facilities'. Other uses for which water bodies are being designated as HMWB/AWB are flood protection use, irrigation and industrial use. The RBMP describes significant anthropogenic physical modifications that have led to the designation of HMWB separately for rivers and lakes (length of derivation channel, flood protection structures, urbanization of river banks and lake shore etc.), and for coastal waters (massive piers, excavations for navigable ways etc.).

The methodology used for the designation is briefly explained in the RBMP, and in detail in a background document. The designation process follows the stepwise approach of the CIS Guidance nº4.

The RBMP does not discuss the issue of uncertainty in relation to the designation of HMWB. There is no future action planned to improve the designation process that would be mentioned in the RBMP.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

GEP has been defined for HMWBs that are rivers. GEP has not been defined for HMWBs that are lakes or coastal waters, because the methodology has not yet been defined.

An alternative approach has been used for defining GEP, which is assessed on the basis of a module (index), through which hydromorphological impacts on communities of organisms are assessed. Analyses of the biological element 'benthic invertebrates' are used for the calculation of this index.

It is clear from the PoM which mitigation measures are foreseen, but there is no information in the RBMPs on the expected ecological improvements.

No background document or national / regional guidance document has been reported.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

The assessment results have been reported for 9 HMWBs that are rivers. For all of them a moderate or worse GEP is defined. For the rest of the HMWBs (10) and for all AWBs (4) ecological potential assessment has not yet been performed, since the methodology for defining GEP has not yet been defined.

The reliability of the results of the ecological potential assessment has not been calculated.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

National legislation includes all EQSs in Slovenia. Chemical status was assessed during the period 2006-2008. All EQSD substances (substances and priority hazardous substances from Annex 1 of the Directive 2008/105/EC) have been considered in the legislation, but the RBMP reports that some substances were not included in the assessment of chemical status, since their limits of detection (LOD) were higher than EQSs. Where laboratories improved analytical methods during the period 2007–2008 (lowered limits of detection), the problematic parameters were reincorporated into the monitoring process.

National standards used in the assessment are those in Annex I of the EQSD.

The standards in biota and or sediment have not been applied in the first RBMPs for defining chemical status. In the period 2006–2008, the results of monitoring of sediments and biota served only for trend assessment. However it is clear from the national legislation that Slovenia transposed the EQSs for biota for mercury and its compounds, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene. The Decree also defines appropriate indicators for various types of water (rivers, lakes and coastal) and conditions in WBs (distribution of species, other biotic conditions).

It is not clear from the information provided in the RBMPs whether background concentrations were considered in the assessment of compliance with the EQSs. However, the topic of background concentrations is dealt with in the national legislation and it matches with the requirements of the Directive 2008/105/EC.

It is also not clear whether bioavailability was taken into account in the assessment of compliance with the EQSs for metals. There is no information found in the RBMPs on this subject, however the national legislation matches with the Directive 2008/105/EC regarding taking into account hardness, pH or other water quality parameters that affect the bioavailability of metals while assessing the monitoring results against the EQS.

There is no information in the RBMPs on the designation and use of mixing zones.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

There are only two substances that are responsible for exceedances in the seven water bodies (two river WBs and five coastal WBs) that have not yet achieved good chemical status. Tributyltin compounds (coatings for protection of ships from algal growth) are responsible for most of these failures.

CAS Number || Name of substances || Name of Water Body || WB failing good chemical status

Number || %

SI_RBD_1

7439-97-6 || Mercury and its compounds || Sava Vrhovo-Boštanj || 1 || 1

36643-28-4 || Tributyltin compounds (Tributhyltin-cation) || Krka Soteska-Otočec || 1 || 1

SI_RBD_2

36643-28-4 || Tributyltin compounds (Tributhyltin-cation) || Coastal WBs || 5 || 15

Table 9.2.1: Substances responsible for exceedances

Source: RBMPs

10. Assessment of groundwater status

All existing pressures in the years 2006-2008 were taken into account when establishing of all the current basic measures.

The RBMPs provide information on existing risks and status: out of 21 GWBs in Slovenia, there are 3 GWBs in the Danube RBD that are at risk of not meeting good status by 2015 and 2 GWBs that are probably at risk of not meeting good status.

In all the cases the GWBs are at risk of not meeting good chemical status. In all three relevant GWBs the quality standard for nitrate has been exceeded and in one of the GWBs also atrazine. There is another GWB in the Danube RBD that was not in a good chemical status due to atrazine in the years 2006-2008.

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

Slovenia established methodologies for groundwater quantitative status assessment. There are no GWBs in poor quantitative status in Slovenia.

The impacts of abstractions have been considered in the groundwater quantitative status assessment. The quantity of abstracted water has been estimated based on water rights information. Abstraction and available GW resource are calculated for every GWB.

Water balance in GWBs with aquifers in unconsolidated alluvium has been calculated on the basis of fluctuation of water level in aquifers using data from the period of 1990-2006. A GWB is in a good quantity condition if trends in more than 75% of measuring points do not show a decreasing water level. Water balance in GWBs with groundwater in rock formations (karstic, fractioned rock and mixed porosity) has been calculated on the basis of data on daily water flows in rivers. A GWB is in a good quantitative status if the exploitable quantity of water is greater than the abstraction.

GW associated surface waters and GW dependent terrestrial ecosystems were considered in the assessment of quantitative status and a methodology was also provided in a guidance document. However, there is a large gap of information on local hydrodynamic conditions and conceptual models of GW dependent terrestrial ecosystems and GW associated surface waters.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

In the national legislation on groundwater status all the substances of Annex II Part B of the GWD were considered, but threshold values (TV) were defined only for those substances that are relevant and might be found in groundwater in Slovenia. The basis for the determination of those threshold values is the protection and use of groundwater as a source of drinking water. A methodology for calculating TV exceedances has also been established.

GW associated surface waters and GW dependent terrestrial ecosystems were, in principle, considered in the assessment of chemical status. However, a methodology for assessing the chemical and quantitative state of groundwater and the impact on the ecological and chemical status of surface waters and directly dependent terrestrial ecosystems has not yet been developed, and this aspect is therefore not yet included in the assessment of groundwater status. Similarly, this element has not yet been included in the determination of threshold values.

The RBMP reports that the diminution of surface water chemistry and ecology for associated surface waters due to transfer of pollutants from the groundwater body have not been assessed for the GWBs. The reason is that the source of the substances causing failures is surface water pollution by industrial wastewater and not the groundwater itself. 

The RBMP states that in Slovenia the status of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems is unfavourable in 13 management zones and favourable in 53 management zones with regard to the Habitats Directive. The reasons for the unfavourable status of these ecosystems are not known (not necessarily water related), therefore not yet included in the assessment of groundwater status.

Background concentrations were considered in the status assessment. Naturally occurring substances that are characteristic for each of the GWBs are clearly described in the definition of GWBs, and later on in describing of groundwater chemical status. The RBMPs report gaps in data on background levels of naturally occurring substances in groundwater in geological strata, mainly for deep thermal aquifers. 

The substances causing poor status in groundwater bodies in Slovenia are nitrates and in some places pesticides. Locally, the presence of chlorinated organic solvents is detected, although no water body has been defined as having poor chemical status because of them. For the purpose of the protection of groundwater, threshold values have been set for chlorinated organic solvents at national level. When setting parameters for threshold values, the minimum list of pollutants of Annex II Part B GWD was taken into account.

Trend assessment was undertaken for pollutants on GWBs and on the level of individual measuring points. Trends were assessed in those GWBs that were evaluated with poor chemical status and for which a long set of data was available. Additional trend assessments were carried out on those GWB that were evaluated with good chemical status but some of the measurements for individual monitoring points exceeded the quality standards and for which a long set of data was available.

In the Danube RBD, there were statistically significant trends of decreasing concentrations of atrazine and desethyl-atrazine identified for all GWBs examined. In general terms, the chemical status of groundwater has been improving since 1998 and statistically significant downward trends in pollutants have been identified, therefore there is no need for trend reversals.

Additional trend assessment showed also statistically significant trends of decreasing concentrations of nitrates identified. There is no information on trend reversals on those individual monitoring points where trends of nitrates are increasing.

There is no information on transboundary coordination of threshold value establishment.

10.3 Protected areas

In accordance with the national legislation 178 water protection zones were established, and additional 1199 water protection zones are protected with old municipality ordinances, which equals to a sum of 1377 water protection zones in Slovenia that cover the area of 3454 km². All protected areas were in the period 2006–2008 in good status. All sources of water in accordance with Drinking Water Directive 80/778/EEC are in good status without additional treatment. 

All GWBs in Slovenia are associated to drinking water protected areas.

GWDPA || SI_RBD_1 || SI_RBD_2 || Total

Total number of groundwater drinking water protected areas (GDWPA) || 1243 || 134 || 1377

Total size of the area covered by GDWPAs || 2593 km2 || 861 km2 || 3454 km2

Number of GDWPAs established by state decree || 149 || 29 || 178

Size of the area covered by GDWPAs established by state decree || 1059 km2 || 235 km2 || 1294 km2

Number of GDWPAs established by old municipalities ordinances || 1094 || 105 || 1199

Size of the area covered by GDWPAs established by old municipalities ordinances || 1534 km2 || 626 km2 || 2160 km2

Table 10.3.1: Status of the groundwater drinking water protected areas (GDWPA)

Source: RBMPs

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

RBD || Total no. of SWBs || Percentage of SWBs at good ecological status || Percentage of SWBs at good chemical status

Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027 || Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027

SI_RBD_1 || 121 || 47.1 || 85.1 || 85.1 || 100 || 98.3 || 99.2 || 99.2 || 100

SI_RBD_2 || 34 || 67.6 || 79.4 || 79.4 || 100 || 82.3 || 82.3 || 82.3 || 100

Table 11.1: Objectives for surface water bodies

Source: WISE and SI

RBD || Total no. of GWBs || Percentage of GWBs at good quantitative status || Percentage of GWBs at good chemical status

Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027 || Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027

SI_RBD_1 || 18 || 100 || 100 || 100 || 100 || 77.8 || 83.3 || 83.3 || 100

SI_RBD_2 || 3 || 100 || 100 || 100 || 100 || 100 || 100 || 100 || 100

Table 11.2: Objectives for groundwater bodies

Source: WISE and SI

Type of water bodies and the exemptions || SI_RBD_1 || SI_RBD_2 || Total

Total number of all surface water bodies reported in RBMP || 121 (100%) || 34 (100%) || 155 (100%)

Number of surface water bodies to which exemptions under Article 4.4 apply || 18 (15%) || 7 (21%) || 25 (16%)

Number of surface water bodies to which exemptions under Article 4.5 apply || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%)

Number of surface water bodies to which exemptions under Article 4.6 apply || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%)

Number of surface water bodies to which exemptions under Article 4.7 apply || 3 (3%) || 0 (0%) || 3 (2%)

Total number of groundwater bodies reported in RBMP || 18 (100%) || 3 (100%) || 21 (100%)

Number of groundwater bodies to which exemptions under Article 4.4 apply || 3 (17%) || 0 (0%) || 3 (14%)

Number of groundwater bodies to which exemptions under Article 4.5 apply || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%)

Number of groundwater bodies to which exemptions under Article 4.6 apply || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%)

Number of groundwater bodies to which exemptions under Article 4.7 apply || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%)

Table 11.3: Status and the exemptions for 4.4 – 4.7 by water category and RBD

Source: WISE

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

The main additional objective for drinking water protected areas is 'preventing any deterioration in water quality caused by new developments.' This objective does not necessary require more stringent criteria, but additional safeguard measures. For developments that can have significant effect on water quality, the national legislation on drinking water protected areas requires the preparation of a special study to assess the impacts of these new developments on drinking water. Based on the results of these studies, additional safeguard measures, that can mean more stringent criteria, have to be implemented. In addition, according to the new Water Act, protection of all drinking water is the responsibility of the State. To increase safety, all existing drinking water safeguard zones have to be revised and new State decrees for drinking water safeguard zones have to be established. An additional measure was implemented to speed up this process.

Additional objectives for shellfish protected areas in the North Adriatic RBD are 'no deterioration of quality of waters in the areas important for life and growth of sea-shells and sea-snails' and 'maintaining suitable quality of waters'. These objectives represent additional and more stringent criteria for achieving good status compared to WFD criteria. The specific requirements for the protected area are defined in national legislation. These specific requirements are pollution parameters (temperature, colour, suspended substances, and salinity) and quality parameters (physical, chemical and microbiological). 

Additional objectives for bathing water areas are 'no deterioration of quality of bathing waters' and 'achieving at least sufficient bathing water quality'. These objectives represent additional and more stringent criteria for achieving good status because of the specific microbiological requirements of the protected area defined in the Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC) and national legislation.

For the time being the assessment for Natura 2000 areas only includes a status assessment, additional objectives in accordance with the Water Framework Directive have not yet been defined in this planning cycle. According to the RBMP, this is planned to be done in the future.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

A different approach is taken for surface waters and for groundwater. There is an assessment of the main impacts and main drivers causing exemptions at water body level for groundwater, and only an overall assessment of the main impacts causing exemptions for surface waters. The main impacts causing exemptions at WB level for surface waters are: organic pollution, pollution with nutrients, pollution with specific pollutants and priority substances. The main impacts causing exemptions at WB level for groundwater are: nutrient pollution from households and pollution with nutrients (nitrogen) and pesticides from agriculture. These impacts are only causing an extension of the deadline (Article 4(4)).

Disproportionate costs has been assessed in a special study, however, disproportionate costs have not been applied as an argument for justifying an exemption under Article 4(4).

Technical infeasibility has been used only for surface WBs. The RBMP says that due to the fact that the sources of pollution are not yet known in several WBs it is impossible to implement appropriate mitigation measures to improve the status of water in time therefore extension of time periods is needed for WBs to achieve GES or GEP.

Exemptions due to natural conditions have only been used in the Danube RBD for surface and groundwater bodies. The RBMP says that ‘natural conditions do not allow timely improvement in the status of the surface water body.’ The main reason for this is that aquifers are very sensitive to pollution due to high permeability, very thin upper protective layer and high levels of naturally occurring nitrogen. Therefore it is impossible to make adequate changes in agriculture in such a short period of time.

RBD || Global[13]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

SI_RBD_1 || 17 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SI_RBD_2 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 19 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.1.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

Exemptions under Article 4.6 were not defined in Slovenia. It is mentioned though, that prolonged droughts may have a negative effect on chemical and quantitative status of groundwater which might be the reason for possible future application of Article 4(6).   

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

Exemptions according to Article 4(7) have been used on three surface WBs in Danube RBD, because four new hydropower plants are planned there. Only those new modifications were included into the RBMP as exemptions for which a National Spatial Planning project has already been confirmed or it was in the process of being confirmed by legal procedure.

For each of these new modifications, practicable steps have been taken to mitigate the adverse impacts on the status of the affected WBs. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) was not carried out for the National Spatial Plans for two facilities for which the plans commenced before 21 July 2004 and therefore SEA was not compulsory (Article 13 of Directive 2001/42/EC). The cumulative effects were/are dealt with in the environmental report for the National Spatial Plans for the other two facilities.

The RBMP provides justification for overriding public interest for these projects based on the national energy program and the strategic environmental assessment for this program.

It is not clear if the issue of cumulative effects as part of environmental impact assessment has been considered in the context of projects under the exemption of Article 4(7).

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

There is no indication in the RBMPs that the exemptions from measures required to prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater have been used.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[14] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

The Slovenian RBMPs contain Programmes of Measures including basic and supplementary measures.

There is no indication in the RBMPs that the PoM has been co-ordinated with other Member States or with third countries. However, there is indication in other documents that the PoM has been co-ordinated during regular meetings of the bilateral commissions with neighbouring Member States / third countries. There is also an indication of international co-ordination of the Joint Programme of Measures (JPM) for the Danube River Basin District Management Plan. The JPM represents more than a joint list of national measures, since the effects of national measures on the Danube basin-wide scale is also estimated and presented.

The scope of the application of the measures varies a lot and depends on a specific measure.

The measures are mostly established at national level and applied to WBs. The RBMP specifies the relevant authorities and other stakeholders responsible for the implementation of measures.

Field: || National authority || Local authority || Other

Agriculture || Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning together with various governmental agencies that are a part of it (MOP) Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Food Ministry of Health || Municipalities || Enterprises (companies with large breeding facilities - once state owned agricultural companies) Farmers NGOs (fishing fellowships) Individuals: non-farmers that own agricultural land and cultivate it mainly for self-sufficiency/additional income Companies that hold local public mandates

Households || MOP Ministry of Interior Affairs Ministry of Defence || Municipalities || Individuals Companies that hold local public mandates

Industry || MOP Ministry of the Economy || Municipalities || Enterprises (managers of industrial facilities) Companies that hold local public mandates

Navigation || MOP Ministry of Transport and Ministry of the Economy || Municipalities || Enterprises (managers of industrial facilities)

Energy || MOP Ministry of Transport and Ministry of the Economy || Municipalities || Enterprises (power stations) Individuals (owners of small private power stations)

Table 12.1.1: Authorities and other stakeholders responsible for the implementation of measures in Slovenia 

Costs of measures have been clearly identified for different types of measures. The cost for basic measures is €2376 million and is valid for the period 2010 – 2015 period, while the cost for supplementary measures is identified at €40.8 million and is valid for the 2011-2015 period. This equals to a total of €2416.8 million for Slovenia in the time period 2010-2015.

There is a clear financial commitment to implement the PoM. The budget for basic measures is provided from the State Water Fund and other state budgets, from municipalities’ budgets, EU Cohesion and Structural funds. Around 20% of the budget will have to be provided from individual sources (for individual waste water treatment plants). The budget for supplementary measures is provided from the State Water Fund and other State budgets (74%), the rest are the resources from the water rights owners. The RBMP clearly states that the Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning will strive to obtain some more resources from Climate Change Fund and some other EU sources to reduce the Ministry’s share.

The PoM provides timeline foreseen for the implementation of the measures. The PoM is planned to be operational by December 2012. Most of the basic measures were planned to be operational before 2010, supplementary measures in 2011 and three (out of 165) measures in 2013. The three supplementary measures are not so much related to implementation measures for achieving a good status of water in this planning period, but to increase the level of knowledge base for the next planning period. The time frame for execution of measures is generally from 2010 to 2015, the whole planning period. There are some measures that have to be finalised by the end of 2012. For some supplementary and most of the basic measures it is indicated that they will continue after the end of this planning period.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

There are several types of agricultural pressures that have been identified as significant in Slovenia. The most important pressures regarding water quality are related to chemical pollution. Agriculture is identified as an important diffuse source of pollution: a few surface water bodies in Slovenia indicated high pressure from agriculture due to nitrogen, phosphorus and plant protection products. The RBMP reports that nitrogen is the most problematic parameter. The most important agricultural pressures on the quantity of water are water transfers / abstractions linked to fish-farms and irrigation. Due to a new irrigation programme in agriculture, the use of water for irrigation is expected to increase significantly. Significant agricultural pressures on hydromorphology are mainly modifications due to drainage of agricultural land.

To a certain degree measures have been discussed and agreed with farmers and other stakeholders. Important stakeholders (mainly national institutions) were involved in several ways (regular meetings, continuous involvement, sector-specific workshop). Local stakeholders and farmers were involved mainly through public workshops.

A number of technical measures have been selected to address the pressures. Reduction of nitrogen pollution includes various measures connected to implementation of the relevant national legislation. Basic measures for reduction of pesticide pollution include more stringent controls on the use of plant protection products. Additional measures include site and problem specific guidelines, education of farmers, and the development of alternatives to the current farming practice. Basic measures linked to fishing and fish farming include provisions for fishing and fish farming practice, additional measures require adaptation of fishing and fish farming practice by restrictions in feeding. Measures for improving water use management through introduction of adaptation of farming to climate change (droughts) with the selection of different crops and use of more efficient irrigation systems are also included as well as measures linked to restrictions of use of surface water for irrigation and restrictions of use of water in the areas with large irrigation systems.

Financial compensation is provided for losses of income due to reduction of pollution in drinking water safeguard zones and other protected areas (biodiversity, eutrophication etc.).

Non-technical measures aim to improve various controls, mainly supervision and inspection of wastewater discharges from various agricultural and food processing operations, setting up new codes for fishery, awareness raising and education, preparation of measures to increase the impact of measures included into the Rural Development Programme, preparation of technical standards for breeding facilities and special project on fertilising and using quick nitrogen tests to prevent pollution.

The scope of the application of the measures varies. Many measures are general, some of them target various sub-sectors (crop farming, livestock etc.), others various geographic areas (depending on the characteristics of the area).

The costs of measures have been identified, and there is a clear financial commitment to implement them. For the new financial period of rural development 2014–2020 two new measures are provided for payments on the basis of the Water Framework Directive (promotion of the use of rapid soil nitrates tests and the composition and application of fertilisation plans on the basis of results of analyses and plants' needs for nutrients; planting and maintenance for an ecological type of typical riverside vegetation;)

Some information concerning the timing for the implementation of the measures is provided. In general the implementation is planned until 2015.

There is no information provided on how the inspections of the WFD measures are organised and how the implementation will be followed up.

Measures || SI_RBD_1 || SI_RBD_2

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ü || ü

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ||

Measures against soil erosion || ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ||

Technical measures for water saving || ü || ü

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || ü || ü

Co-operative agreements || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || ||

Nutrient trading || ||

Fertiliser taxation || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü || ü

Institutional changes || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || ü || ü

Farm advice and training || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || ü || ü

Certification schemes || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || ||

Land use planning || ||

Technical standards || ü || ü

Specific projects related to agriculture || ü || ü

Environmental permitting and licensing || ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

Basic measures related to hydromorphological pressures are mainly directed towards achieving the environmental goal of preventing deterioration of water status because of new modifications in water environment. Most of them all are very general. There is one specific measure entitled ‘Basic measures defined in concession contracts for the production of electricity from large hydroelectric power stations’. Its purpose is to ensure that all mitigation measures set up in concession contracts, which are connected to improvements of GES/GEP, are going to be implemented. Additional measures related to hydromorphological pressures are directed towards improving GES or GEP. Some of them are general (improvement of inspection etc.). Other measures are very specific and geared to concrete actions for improving GEP/GES with concrete activities (for example placement of tree trunks in a riverbed, dredging, restoration of fish ladders etc. as well as preparation of relevant implementation project documentation).

There are nine hydromorphological measures directly related to the improvement of GEP in HMWBs. Among them, one measure deals with the definition of proper implementation measures in concrete HMWBs (preparation of projects and plans); the other eight measures are general implementation measures with concrete types of actions that will be implemented in accordance to the plans/projects from the first measure.

A specific measure has been included in order to achieve an ecological base flow regime or a minimum flow that is called ‘Ecologically acceptable flow’, as defined in the relevant national legislation. Since 2002 a procedure has been required to define ecologically acceptable flow in a water agreement whenever new water rights are awarded for new water use. The usual procedure is Environmental Impact Assessment. The specified measure will be the basis for refining the methodology, thresholds and procedure in order to optimise the positive impact on water.

Slovenia carried out a cost-effectiveness analysis of the hydromorphological measures. The details, to what extent the planned hydromorphological measures will improve GES / GEP, will be defined later.

Measures || SI_RBD_1 || SI_RBD_1

Fish ladders || ü || ü

Bypass channels || ü || ü

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || ü

Sediment/debris management || ü || ü

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || ü || ü

Lowering of river banks || ü || ü

Restoration of bank structure || ü || ü

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ü || ü

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || ||

Inundation of flood plains || ||

Construction of retention basins || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || ü || ü

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || ü || ü

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

In the GWBs that are at risk of not meeting good status by 2015, the main impacts are exceeding threshold values for nitrates and atrazine. The main pressures are diffuse pollution from agricultural production and from urbanised areas with inadequate sewage and/or wastewater treatment system. Therefore the main measures to tackle the problem are connected to the above pressures.

There are no basic or supplementary measures related to groundwater quantitative status that were established to directly tackle groundwater over-exploitation since it is not an issue in Slovenia. However, there are several measures that are connected to this problem. Basic measures are mainly connected to restrictions, bans and conditions of water use, to inspection of water abstraction and to the optimisation of the use of water by proper pricing policies.

Among supplementary measures, there are two measures related to basic research to solve groundwater over-exploitation problems and to improve response to droughts: analysis of water availability and future demand, and development of water use with consideration of climate change. Besides those, supplementary measures limit, restrain and condition use of water, and also enhance water governance. Most of them are general, but some are very specific. For example, a measure connected to restrictions of irrigation that fosters use of more efficient irrigation systems consequently decreases water demand. Subsidies for shifting to less water-demanding land uses are financed through the Rural Development Programme.

Several measures related to groundwater chemical status were established to prevent and limit inputs of pollution. There are 53 basic measures and some supplementary measures that are mainly related to restrictions of use and production of hazardous substances as well as to the control of pollution from various diffuse sources (agriculture, transportation etc.) and point sources (various sectors of industry etc.). There are very few measures that mention a specific hazardous substance. They rather refer to pollution from a specific industry or activity. 

Measures that limit inputs into groundwater of any non-hazardous substances are several basic measures connected to the improvement of communal waste water systems and communal waste water treatment as well as construction of new communal waste water systems, and supplementary measures for communal waste water treatment in karstic areas. There is also a supplementary measure connected to control emissions from waste disposal sites.

There are several supplementary measures reported in the RBMP to be specifically implemented in groundwater bodies with exceedances. These are GWBs at risk or of poor status to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD and also parts of GWBs where groundwater quality standards or threshold values are exceeded, although the groundwater body is of good chemical status. Most of these specific measures are additional restrictions, subsidies of environmental friendly practices, technologies and uses, tightened supervision and inspection etc. Subsidies for shifting to less water-demanding agricultural uses or less pollution generating production techniques are financed through the Rural Development Programme.

There is an indication that the PoM has been co-ordinated through regular meetings of bilateral commissions with neighbouring Member States / third countries.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

There are two basic inventories of sources of pollution. The first is called ‘National register of emissions in water from industrial and other installations’ (IPPC and non-IPPC) that gives on-line information on polluters, type of pollution and reported quantities of specific pollutants in wastewater per year since the year 2000. The second is ‘National register of emissions in water from communal waste-water treatment facilities’ that gives on-line information on monitoring results since the year 1998. The sources of pollution in the registers are all polluters that are obliged to perform operative monitoring of wastewater as defined in their operating permit. Data is collected from their yearly reports. There is no indication in the RBMP that there is any inventory of diffuse sources. Both inventories of sources of pollution cover the following categories of pollutants: priority substances and certain other pollutants, non-priority specific pollutants and main pollutants identified by Member State, deoxygenating substances, and nutrients.

Main measures included in the PoM to tackle chemical pollution are mainly connected to the inspection of emissions in the wastewater sector. There are measures that deal with reduction of pollution in agriculture from nutrients and plant protection products (subsidies for more environmentally conscious agricultural production, increase of inspections etc.). There are also measures connected to emissions from waste deposits and to treatment of sludge from wastewater treatment facilities. Measures taken to tackle chemical pollution from households are mainly connected to the construction of new and upgrading of old communal waste water treatment plants, reconstruction of old and construction of new sewage network systems, construction of small wastewater treatment plants, more stringent emission standards in vulnerable areas (karstic area, bathing waters), and checking of the surveillance monitoring system for the control of emissions of point and diffuse sources. Among others there are also measures taken to tackle chemical pollution from road and maritime traffic activities etc.

There are substance specific measures in the PoM targeted to reduce/phase-out the presence of priority substances and non-priority specific pollutants or river basin specific pollutants. However, there is no table or overview of substances that are targeted by specific measures in the RBMP. The types of substance specific measures included in the PoM are: reduction/phase-out of emissions through more stringent control of emissions in wastewater from various types of industrial facilities (production of non-ferrous metals, brewery etc.) or from particular systems of waste treatment (for example treatment of oils and greases, remains of amalgam etc.); reduction/phase-out of the application of pollutants connected mainly to restrictions of use of fertilizers, biocides and plant protection products; examination of the point sources of pollution with discharges to the ground with the goal of introducing more stringent regulation; supervision of systems against algal growth on ships, which target the use of tributyltin compounds.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

Water services in Slovenia are defined by the Water Act. The following activities are ensured: (1) abstraction, self-abstraction, impoundment, storing, treatment and distribution of surface or groundwater and (2) treatment of wastewater that is than discharged into surface water. It is also explained that for the first planning period, water services are defined as all activities for which costs are recovered and collected or environmental taxes for pollution from wastewater collection and treatment are paid. For the next planning period, the list of water services will be extended, because there will be other services included for which cost recovery or environmental tax haven't been collected yet. Economic analysis was not prepared for all identified water services.

Financial costs (operating and maintenance costs, investment costs, administrative costs) and subsidies are included into cost recovery calculation. Cross-subsidies are not permitted in Slovenia. Price differentiation for services within the provision of public services is prohibited by national legislation.

Environmental and resource costs were not estimated but they are partially internalised through payments of water pollution levies. Those payments are included in water services, which are grouped into 5 sectors: agriculture, industry, energy, public services (households), and other activities. Some activities that affect the status of waters and cause natural resource costs of water and environmental costs are still not contributing to the payment of these costs (e.g. diffuse sources of pollution from agriculture). Ensuring full recovery of environmental and resource costs has been included in the Programme of Measures. The measure covers the preparation of background documents for the assessment of environmental and resource costs for all activities that cause these costs and introduction of payments that will cover these costs.

The principle of cost recovery is included in Slovenian legislation. Cost recovery has not been calculated for all defined water services. The estimate of financial cost recovery was provided only for public services of water supply and collection and treatment of communal waste water. Cost recovery for other water services was not possible to estimate, because of a lack of data.

The polluter pays principle is reported, but its full implementation is not in place as there is no adequate contribution of all water uses to cost recovery of water services and environmental and resource costs haven't been assessed. However national legislation includes cost the recovery principle and an environmental tax is applied.

It is mentioned that none of the selling prices cover whole production price, so contribution to cost recovery is lower than 100%. At the same time Slovenian authorities confirm the use of subsidies for water providers, but no justification in respect of the application of flexibility provisions and provisions of Article 9.4 has been provided.

The Slovenian authorities claim that the water pricing policy gives incentives for efficient water use. They provide statistical examples of reduction of water consumption over a period of time. The RBMP also states that water pricing policy provides incentives for efficient use of water resources. However it is not reflected in the RBMPs, where no information is provided concerning implementation of, for example, metering, volumetric charging or efficiency promoting tariffs.

There was national co-ordination on the application of Article 9 since the same approach was taken for both RBDs. There is no information on international co-operation regarding Article 9 issues.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

Water bodies, where additional measures should be applied, have been clearly identified and the type of measures needed is also indicated, but the measures are very general without water body specific actions or targets. The cost of the additional measures is not provided in the RBMP.

The total of two additional measures has been included in the PoMs in order to improve protection of drinking water safeguard zones. Their purpose is to speed up the process of revising drinking water safeguard zones protected under municipality ordinances and establishing new drinking water safeguard zones protected under State Decrees and to additionally safeguard deep aquifers. The sizes and restrictions in State Decrees are prepared specifically for each drinking water safeguard zone in close co-operation with the local community (farmers etc.) to be as site specific as possible.

Regarding Shellfish protected areas, the RBMPs and additional sources of information[15] include a list of basic and supplementary measures for these areas. However it is unclear if specific additional measures have been established to meet the set objectives.

Supplementary measures in other than drinking water or shellfish protected areas are not specifically designed for protected areas but are measures for 'prevention of deterioration or worsening of status', and 'measures for achievement of good status or good potential'. However, their implementation can have significant effect on other protected area especially for Natura 2000 sites.

13. water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management AND Climate change adaptation, 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity in Slovenia is mainly an issue of inadequate supply system (old distribution systems or even lack of communal water supply systems in some villages). The causes of droughts mentioned in the RBMP are irregular rainfall patterns with long dry and hot period during summer months which are even more extreme because of increased impacts of climate change (North East and South West parts of Slovenia). The effects are mainly economic losses in agriculture. Summer droughts may also have significant effects on groundwater quality in agricultural areas due to high values of nitrates and pesticides.

There is very limited data on trend scenarios given in the RBMP: the description of the trends is only qualitative. Water demand trends are presented based on water use data in the years 2002 to 2008 for the energy sector, agriculture, industry and urban supply. Water availability trends are only provided for groundwater resources as part of assessment of groundwater status.

There are no measures to deal explicitly with water scarcity and droughts in the RBMP. Since water scarcity in Slovenia is not really an issue of water quantity, but a problem of water distribution systems, the problems are planned to be solved with the realisation of the Operative programme of drinking water supply for the period 2006–2013. Problems related to droughts are dealt with several other measures, particularly with measures dealing with adaptation of water management to climate change.

Slovenia has informed the Commission about on-going activities in the area of drought management, such as the establishment of a system of drought monitoring and early warning, assessment of vulnerability and risks and the preparation of mitigating measures, the preparation of short-term and long-term measures in the case of drought and measures to reduce exposure which will create the basis for the preparation of drought management plans. Once drought management plans have been drawn up, their content and provisions is planned to be taken into account in the RBMP.

There is an indication that the PoM has been co-ordinated on regular meetings of bilateral commissions with neighbouring Member States / third countries.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods were addressed in the RBMP, flood risk areas are presented in detail. The flood risk map of Slovenia that was first prepared in the year 2000 has been upgraded and prepared taking into account Floods Directive (2007/60/EC). For each of the areas at risk of flooding, a preliminary risk assessment has been prepared at the water body level. Floods are considered significant water management pressure so there are several water management goals related to flood risk management defined in the RBMPs. One of the most important goals is to protect natural flood and other water retention areas.

Floods were addressed as a reason for HMWB designation.

Floods were not used as an Article 4.6 WFD justification. Floods were not used as an Article 4.7 justification, even though projects for building new hydropower plants also include flood protection water infrastructure.

There is one basic measure to reduce flood risk included in the RBMPs: to prepare flood risk management plans according to Floods Directive (2007/60/EC). Reducing flood risk is indirectly included also in some other measures (measures related to maintenance of water infrastructure, building new flood protection infrastructure parallel to building new hydropower plants etc.).

Floods were addressed also in the context of climate change adaptation. There are trends in water flow regime for surface waters provided as part of the trend analysis for the examination of the consequences of climate change for each surface WB. The analysis is based on data intervals from the year 1971 until 2000 and shows in approximately one third of the Slovenian territory am increasing trend of high flow regimes, and in one third of it a falling trend.

Future co-ordination with the implementation of the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) is mentioned in the RBMPs and the above mentioned basic measure is included in the PoM.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

Climate change is included in the plans with a specific chapter that presents findings from various international reports on future trend scenarios related to climate change (mainly reports from IPCC and EEA), and explores and identifies the main problems related to water management relevant to particular RBDs. In addition, there are several references to climate change in other chapters, mainly connected to potential risk due to floods and droughts (over-abstraction of groundwater etc.), changes in marine habitats and uncertainties to predict the influences of climate change due to insufficient knowledge and inappropriate data.

A draft of the National Climate Change Strategy was developed in September 2011 in Slovenia, although the strategy is not mentioned in the RBMP.

The PoMs have not been checked against the expected future climate change impacts. However, the RBMP mentions that this climate check is planned to be carried out in the second RBMP cycle.

There are two specific supplementary measures included in the PoMs linked to climate change adaptation: preparation of strategy and operative program for adaptation of water management to climate change until year 2027 on the level of river basins and of river sub-basins; and the development of water use with consideration of climate change.

The RBMP mentions that in the future cycles it is planned to include more concrete measures for adaptation of the water sector to climate changes, prepared on the basis of better understanding of future hydrologic and hydro-geologic conditions. The concrete tasks planned to integrate climate problems into the water management in the second cycle are the preparation of the basis for a strategy of adaptation of water management to climate change; the preparation of guidelines for the consideration of climate changes in water planning; the design of a procedure for the verification of the adjustment ability of the Programme of Measures; and the identification of the possibility of the water sector to respond to climate change.

Regarding the international co-ordination of measures, the Danube River Basin District Management Plan provides information that the Danube countries will develop an approach and strategy to ensure that the Danube RBMP will be followed-up by specified actions regarding climate change adaptation that will allow full integration of climate issues within future Danube RBMPs.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· The link between identified significant pressures and the pressure analysis should be made clear.  

· The assessment methods for the classification of ecological status are not fully developed for all biological quality elements in all water categories. All assessment methods for the status assessments should be developed.

· The national EQSs for specific pollutants in transitional and coastal waters have been set at the same level as those for freshwaters, which may not be appropriate in the light of the latest technical guidance. Reference should be made to the latest version of the Technical Guidance Document on the Derivation of Environmental Quality Standards published under the Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD.

· The biota standards for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and  hexachlorobutadiene in the EQSD should be applied for the chemical status assessment, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived; the plan does not appear to indicate which EQSs were used. Biota EQS should also be considered for the other substances where analysis in water is problematic. The trend monitoring in sediment or biota specified for several substances in Directive 2008/105/EC Article 3(3) and will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· A link between pollutants and specific measures that aim to prevent / limit them should be established. 

· It should be made clear how the assessment of the expected effects of supplementary measures has been performed.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs shall be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

· A link should be established to existing international RBMPs and international monitoring networks in the RBMPs. The RBMPs should provide information on key issues (e.g. PoM) subject to international co-ordination. Slovenia should enhance international cooperation with neighboring countries, mainly for the river basins in the Adriatic RBD.

· In the context of water scarcity and droughts, water demand trends and water availability trends should be calculated.

 

[1]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[2]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[3]     At the beginning of 2012, the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning have been divided and partly merged with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry into Ministry of Agriculture and the Environment and partly with the Ministry of Transportation into the Ministry of Transportation and Spatial Planning.

[4]     Area of groundwater bodies not reported.

[5]     The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[6]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[7]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[8]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[9]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[10]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[11]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[12]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[13] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[14]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

[15] Information extracted from 'EC Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU'.

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Slovakia is a landlocked country surrounded by five neighbours: the Czech Republic and Austria in the west, Poland in the north, Ukraine in the east and Hungary in the south. About 60% of the Slovak territory has an altitude over 300 m above the sea level, prevailingly in the West Carpathians. The total area of the Slovak Republic is 48 845 km² and the population is 5.4 million.

The territory of the Slovak Republic belongs to two international river basin districts (RBDs): Danube River basin and Vistula River basin. The Danube River Basin District is shared with 18 countries. The Vistula River Basin District is shared with Poland, Czech Republic, Belarus and Ukraine.

Information on areas of the national river basin districts including the sub-basins is provided in the following table:

RBD / Sub-basin || Name || Size (km2) || % of SK territory || Countries sharing RBD

SK30000 || Vistula (Dunajec & Poprad sub-basins) || 1950 || 4 || BY, RU, UA

SK40000 || Danube || 47084 || 96 || DE, PL, UA, AT, BG, CZ, HR, HU,  RO, IT, MD, ME,  RS, SI, BA, AL, CH, MK

Sub-basin

|| Morava sub-basin || 2282 || ||

|| Dunaj sub-basin || 1158 || ||

|| Vah sub-basin || 18769 || ||

|| Hron sub-basin || 5465 || ||

|| Ipel sub-basin || 3649 || ||

|| Slana sub-basin || 3217 || ||

|| Bodva sub-basin || 858 || ||

|| Hornad sub-basin || 4414 || ||

|| Bodrog sub-basin || 7272 || ||

Table 1.1: Overview of Slovakia’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[1]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/sk/eu/wfdart13

The share of Slovakia in the Vistula and Danube RBDs is indicated below. Coordination in the Danube basin is more developed than for the Vistula.

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

1 || 3

km² || % || km² || %

Vistula || SK30000 || BY, RU, UA || || || 1957 || 1.0

Danube || SK40000 || DE, PL, UA, AT, BG, CZ, HR, HU,  RO, IT, MD, ME,  RS, SI, BA, AL, CH, MK || 47084 || 5.8 || ||

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Slovakia[2]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

The coordinating role in the international Danube River basin is carried out by the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR, MKOD). Slovak cooperation in the international Vistula River basin is managed by the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic (MoE) through the Agreement between the Governments of the Slovak Republic and Poland on water management on transboundary waters.

There is one small and one large RBD consisting of a number of sub-basins. Therefore the Slovak administration decided to report on both RBDs in one plan.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

The Slovak Republic reported one river basin management plan (RBMP) covering both, the Danube and the Vistula River Basin Districts. The RBMP was reported to the Commission on 23 April 2010.

The main strengths of the plan are as follows:

· The RBMP is well-structured in line with the WFD Annex VII and provides most of the necessary information concerning all elements of the Annex VII in a clear manner.

· The RBMP provides a comprehensive description of key pressures, the status of both surface and groundwaters and the programmes of measures.

· The review of significant pressures in the Plan was based on the concept of significant water management issues which included organic pollution, nutrient pollution, pollution by hazardous substances and hydromorphological alterations, and also groundwater quality and quantity. This concept was applied for both RBDs in a unified manner and is based on the approach applied internationally by the ICPDR for the Danube RBD.

· To prepare the RBMP a large amount of data has been collected, processed and analysed (even though there are still certain information gaps), forming a solid basis with the potential of setting the measures towards achieving the WFD environmental objectives.

· The whole process of the development of the RBMP was managed by a single administration unit, the Ministry of Environment, which enabled a good and effective coordination of all actors.

· Multiple mechanisms were used in the public consultation process on the RBMP.

The main shortcomings of the plan are as follows:

· There is one plan for two RBDs. It does not always provide a clear guide if an issue/problem is relevant for both or only for one RBD. It was often difficult to identify RBD-specific information.  WFD Art 13(1) stipulates that Member States shall ensure that a river basin management plan is produced for each river basin district lying entirely within their territory.

· The data available form a solid basis for the plan, but a detailed perspective on the links between pressures and status and respective measures for surface waters is missing. It is not clear if the proposed measures are based on the status assessment of surface water bodies.

· Financial and technical constraints do not enable sufficient implementation of the programme of measures to achieve environmental objectives for all water bodies by 2015. There is no clarity about the level of detail of the measures, when they will be implemented and what ecological improvements can be expected. It is also unclear when the measures will be implemented more specifically at the RBD level.

· No information was provided on how the measures have been discussed with the stakeholders, including which impact the consultation held on the RBMPs,

· There was little information on costs of programme of measures per sector. It is not clear which specific measures will be taken for those priority substances which are the cause for not reaching good chemical status. The same applies for the specific pollutants which are the cause for not achieving good ecological status. It is unclear if there are measures taken to reduce the pollution with priority substances and phase-out or cease the emissions discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances.

· The status of associated surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were not considered for assessing chemical status of groundwaters. Trend evaluation for groundwaters is foreseen in the 2nd RBM cycle.

· Intercalibration has not been accomplished for all biological quality elements (BQEs) and thus not applied for the classification. There is no information in the plan if the typology has been verified with biological data.

· The methodology for assessing good ecological potential (GEP) very closely follows the CIS Guidance. However, the assessment methods for the BQEs are not yet complete and there are data gaps that still need to be closed.

· The reference conditions have been established for all BQEs but for fish they are only preliminary. Fish were not included in the first RBMP, as they were not monitored in 2007 and 2008. The ecological status assessment methods for fish have not been developed for rivers or for lakes.

· The operational monitoring programme is based on the results of the risk assessment but there is no information given as to the relationship between the pressures and the BQEs that indicate the pressure.

· The activities at the level of international RBD are not always sufficiently explained/referred to in the RBMP (e.g. monitoring activities not mentioned in WISE) and there is a gap in understanding of international activities and obligations.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

The RBMP was reported to the Commission on 23 April 2010 (Slovak Water Plan containing RBMPs for Danube RBD and Vistula RBD).

3.2 Administrative arrangements – river basin districts and competent authorities

The Ministry of Environment is the competent authority for WFD implementation. The other government authorities participating in the WFD implementation process are the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Transport, the Supreme Postal and Telecommunications Office and other unspecified organisations.

The national approach in WFD implementation has been followed on the whole territory of Slovakia, no specific differences can be distinguished between Danube and Vistula RBDs at the national level.

Figure 3.2.1: Danube RBD contains the following sub-basins: Morava, Dunaj, Vah, Hron, Ipel, Slana, Bodva, Hornad and Bodrog

Source:RBMP

3.3 RBMPs – Structure, completeness, legal status

One RBMP was reported for the whole territory. The RBMP is well-structured and provides most of the necessary information in a clear manner. It is however not always easy to identify the RBD specific information.

In addition Sub-plans for sub-basins/subunits were reported, all with a similar structure to the main plan, mentioning all of the different sectors and water management issues raised.

The Government adopts the RBMPs by Regulation. The Ministry of Environment endorses the RBMP. The RBMP, once endorsed by the Government, shall be published in the National Collection of Laws as a Governmental Regulation. However, the Governmental Regulation applies only to the Programme of Measures and the environmental objectives, and therefore only these parts of the Water Plan are published and mandatory. The remaining parts of the RBMP of the Danube River and the Vistula River are not legally binding documents as they are not published in the Collection of laws of Slovakia's official legal acts (i.e. they cannot be classified under any category of legal instruments according to the law).

There is a link between the RBMPs and individual decisions. The PoM has a binding effect. The environmental objectives are a generally binding legal regulation. The State authorities are obliged to take into account the RBMP and the Slovak Water Plan while issuing permits for the special use of waters, granting consents, giving statements and other decisions. Competent authorities, legal entities and natural persons are bound by these RBMPs.

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

The participation of stakeholders was ensured through consultations with the following publication dates for:

· the timetable for preparation of the RBMP:     01/01/2007

· the overview of preliminary significant water management issues:          31/12/2007

· the draft RBMP: 17/01/2009

In addition consultations took place during the approval process of the RBMP.

The consultation process was organized as follows:

· Consultation documents were uploaded onto the WFD implementation website;

· Communication was sent to stakeholders from all sectors via e-mail (the mailing list was prepared in cooperation with stakeholders);

· Number of information dissemination options were used, including seminars and public consultations with identified stakeholders being invited;

· Feedback was collected by e-mail and post;

· Comments were evaluated and published on the website of the Ministry of Environment.

It is not clear from the RBMP which stakeholders were involved, and what impact the consultation had on the content of the RBMP. The list of stakeholders, together with the applied or proposed measures, objections and observations and the method of their evaluation has been provided in a separate document “Evaluation of Feedback”, which is available on the website of the Ministry of Environment. All acceptable recommendations and observations by stakeholders were included into the final versions of RBMPs (Slovak Water Plan).

For consultation purposes, the Ministry of Environment set up the Cross-sectoral coordination group for the implementation of the WFD as an expert and consulting body of the Ministry. Members of the group include representatives of Ministries, the Slovak National Council for Agriculture, Environment and Countryside Protection, the Network Regulation Authority, the Slovak Chamber of Agriculture and Food, the Slovak Cities and Municipalities and numerous professional associations.

3.5 International cooperation and coordination

Slovakia is a signatory of the Danube River Protection Convention and a Contracting Party to the ICPDR. The ICPDR is a coordination platform for the river basin management for the whole of the international River Basin District (level A). A specific sub-basin-wide cooperation (B-level) is organized under the ICPDR for the international Tisza River Basin shared by Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Serbia and Slovakia. In addition to the cooperation in river basin districts, the bilateral transboundary RBM issues in all Slovak RBDs are dealt with by the bilateral commissions established in cooperation with the Czech Republic, Hungary, Austria and Ukraine. These Commissions meet regularly to manage RBM issues between two neighbouring countries.

The international plan for the Danube RBD is available on the ICPDR website. Various elements of the RBMP for the Danube River Basin District have been applied in the Slovak plan, such as the concept of significant water management issues, nutrient emission assessment by the MONERIS model, the concept of confidence of the status assessment, measures for phosphate reduction and flood protection measures.

No international RBMP was adopted for the Vistula RBD. The coordination of implementation of the WFD between the Slovak Republic and Poland is ensured by the Slovak-Polish "WFD Working Group" set up under the Slovak-Polish Committee for Border Waters on the basis of the Agreement of the Slovak and Polish Governments on Water Management of Border Waters. The Ministry of Environment is responsible for the Slovak activities within this working group, while Poland is represented by the Krakow Regional Water Management Authority. During preparing and drafting the 1st national RBMPs the data for jointly shared water bodies were internationally harmonised in accordance with the WFD requirements (typology, water bodies, impacts and consequences, risks of not achieving good status, economic analysis, water management issues, water body status and measures).

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

Slovakia is a land-locked country so the only water categories in the basin are rivers and lakes; there are no transitional and coastal waters.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

Surface water typology has been developed for rivers and lakes using abiotic criteria (System A). For rivers the following descriptors from the Annex II were applied: ecoregion, altitude, catchment area and geology. For lakes, ecoregion, altitude, depth, surface area and geology were used as descriptors. However, there is no information in the RBMP as to whether the typology has been verified with biological data. Validation of the typology will be carried out in the next RBM planning cycle using the results of the BQEs monitoring. The results of the validation will be described in the revision of the Article 5 analysis report.

The minimum size of lake water bodies for inclusion in the RBMP was set to 0.5 km2 and the minimum catchment size of river water bodies was 10 km2. None of the Slovak lakes exceeds this threshold and all reservoirs were assessed as HMWBs. Water bodies below the threshold size were not separately delineated and were considered to be a part of a water body in the catchment in which they are located.

This approach was based on the system A typology according to WFD Annex II, which specifies values for size descriptors for rivers and lakes. The smallest size range for a System A river type is 10 – 100 km2 catchment area. The smallest size range for a System A lake type is 0.5 – 1 km2 surface area.

RBD || Water category || Number of types

SK30000 || Vistula rivers || 5

Vistula lakes || 0

Vistula reservoirs (HMWB) || 0

SK40000 || Danube rivers || 34

Danube lakes || 0

Danube reservoirs (HMWB) || 14

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

Reference conditions were established using data collected in 2003 – 2006. Reference conditions were assessed using combination of several methods. Where possible, reference sites were identified and respective data were collected. However, this was the case only for 50% of river types. In order to define reference conditions for the remaining river types, modelling, expert judgement or a combination of the two were used. There were however only preliminary reference conditions available for fish because a new approach was adopted in Slovakia in 2009 in the context of the intercalibration exercise. The reference conditions for fish will be reported in forthcoming planning cycles.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

SK30000 || 83 || 11 || 0 || || 4 || 598

SK40000 || 1677 || 11 || 0 || || 97 || 773

Total || 1760 || 11 || 0 || || 101 || 766

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

The review of significant pressures was based on the concept of significant water management issues which in Slovakia include:

· Organic pollution

· Nutrient pollution

· Pollution by hazardous substances

· Hydromorphological alterations

Slovakia did not report data to WISE on specific pressures. An overview table and graph on this has therefore not been included.

This concept was applied for both RBDs in a unified manner and is similar to the concept applied by the ICPDR for the international Danube RBD. Significant water management issues were identified by the Article 5 report (Danube Basin Analysis) and they were derived according to the requirements of the WFD.

The following point sources of pollution are considered as significant in Slovakia, meaning that the pressure contributes to an impact that may result in the failing of the environmental objective:

· Communal pollution sources subject to Directive 91/271/EEC on urban waste water treatment: the agglomerations over 2000 PE and agglomerations under 2000 PE with waste water collection systems, but no waste water treatment;

· Industrial pollution sources from specific industrial branches defined by Annex III of the Directive 91/271/EEC;

· The sources of pollution falling under the category of industrial activities referred to in Article 2 of Annex I to Directive 96/61/EC;

· Pollution sources from permitted discharges or in which priority substances and or country specific chemical substances have been identified;

· All sources of wastewater for which the ratio of waste flow to the flow rate of the receiving river water body at the level Q355,  is 1:1 or higher.

The following diffuse sources of pollution are considered as significant:

· All agricultural activities – application of mineral and organic fertilisers and plant protection products. Water bodies with an area of agricultural land in their basins of over 40% are considered as being subject to significant pollution from agriculture;  

· Agglomerations defined by Council Directive 91/271/EEC where level of waste water removal does not meet the requirements of that Directive;

· Municipalities under 2000 PE without a public sewer system.

In addition to the above, mining activities and transport were considered as a significant pressures for groundwaters.

The following criteria were used to define ‘significant’ pressures from water flow regulation and morphological alterations:

1) River coverage:

a. Covered reach > 100 m;

b. Length of all covered reaches is 150 m and is more than 50% of the total length of the water body.

2) River straightening: the length of straightened reaches > 10% of the total length of the water body.

3) Backwater:

a. Backwater length > 1500 m for B/H > 15;

b. 1000 m for B/H < 15;

c. 600 m for B/H < 8;

d. Total backwater length > 10% of the total length of the water body.

4) Bank reinforcement: the length of reinforced reaches > 10% of the total length of the water body.

5) Flood protection: the distance of dikes from the river < 3B within the river length of 5B (B = river width).

6) Urbanization: constructions are located in a distance of less than 5 m from the river within the reach > 15% of the total length of the water body.

7) Combined assessment integrating criteria 4, 5 a 6 divided into 6 classes: class 3 and above = river with a significant change. Class 2: river with nearly natural changes. Class 1: natural stream.

8) Lateral profile change:

a. River bed widening > 20% within a reach > 1 km;

b. River bed narrowing < 25% within a reach > 1 km.

9) Locks and weirs.

10) Water abstractions:

a. Abstractions, downstream of which a discharge of 60% of Q355 is not secured (large rivers);

b. Abstractions, downstream of which a discharge of Q355 is not secured (small rivers).

Invasive alien species (both neozoa and neophyta) and accidental pollution were considered as other significant pressures. The major causes of contamination by accidental pollution are wastewater discharges and oil pollution.

4.5 Protected areas

The following protected areas are addressed in the RBMP:

· Drinking Water Protected Areas;

· Bathing water areas (Directive 76/160/EEC);

· Sensitive areas and vulnerable zones;

· Natura 2000 sites designated under Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats) and Directive 79/409/EEC (Birds).

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

SK30000 || 11 || || || || 8 || 9 || || || 1 || ||

SK40000 || 202 || 36 || 38 || || 65 || 372 || || || 1523 || || 1

Total || 213 || 36 || 38 || || 73 || 381 || || || 1524 || || 1

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[3]

Source:WISE

5. Monitoring 5.1 General description of the monitoring network

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

WFD compliant monitoring has been established in Slovakia based on a “Monitoring programme for Slovak Waters”, which is periodically updated. It includes monitoring of surface waters, groundwaters and protected areas.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

SK30000 || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

SK40000 || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Table 5.1.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

SK30000 || 31 || 29 || - || - || 8 || 8 || 39

SK40000 || 529 || 565 || 23 || 7 || 122 || 1098 || 1468

Total by type of site || 560 || 594 || 23 || 7 || 130 || 1106 || 1507

Total number of monitoring sites[4] || 698 || 23 || 2421

Table 5.1.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.2 Monitoring of surface waters

In surface waters, all quality elements as required by the WFD were monitored with the exceptions reported below. Both the operational and surveillance monitoring programmes had two sub-programmes, one for rivers and one for lakes. Composition, abundance and age structure of fish was not monitored in rivers (fish monitoring is expected to be included under next RBM planning cycles as indicated in the RBMP). In lakes only phytoplankton was monitored among BQEs and no hydromorphological quality elements were reported.

Operational monitoring is based on the results of the characterisation and impact assessment carried out in accordance with Article 5 which identified water bodies at risk. Sampling sites are revised on an annual basis. Sampling sites are located in the lower parts of the catchments or downstream the significant pollution sources. There is no information given in the RBMP as to the relationship between the pressures and the BQEs that indicate the pressure. The major aims of operational monitoring in Slovakia are in line with WFD: 

· establishing the status of those bodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives, 

· assessing any changes in the status of such bodies resulting from the programmes of measures,

· monitoring of water quality and quantity in relation to impacts from water uses.

The selection of biological quality elements and physico-chemical quality elements monitored in water bodies at risk took account of the causes of risks and the expected impacts. Water bodies at risk included in the monitoring programme for 2007 and 2008 were located mainly on medium and large watercourses, and most of them were candidates for, or had already been designated as heavily modified water bodies. 

All substances listed in Annex I of the Directive 2008/105/EC were monitored in surface water bodies – at representative sample points specified for the assessment of the chemical status. However in most of the water bodies not all priority substances were analysed. Priority substances were monitored 12 times per year, while the other river basin specific substances four times per year. This is in agreement with WFD Annex V 1.3.4. Monitoring of priority substances in sediments or biota was not carried out; therefore no trends in these matrices were assessed.

Chapter 4.1.4 of the Slovak WISE report provides information only about national and RBD-specific monitoring activities. However, according to the International Danube RBD Management Plan there is an international monitoring network for the Danube River Basin District in place (ICPDR TNMN). This monitoring is based on the national monitoring activities but it is focussed on addressing the monitoring requirements for an international river basin district. More details can be found at www.icpdr.org.

Surface water monitoring in border areas of the Vistula RBD was part of the Water Status Monitoring Programme in 2007 and Water Status Monitoring Programme for 2008 – 2010. This monitoring programme in the border areas was agreed with Polish partners in accordance with WFD requirements.

5.3 Monitoring of groundwater

The groundwater monitoring network includes both chemical and quantitative monitoring. In 2007 there were 541 sites used for GW chemical monitoring and 1505 sites for groundwater quantitative monitoring (both surveillance and operational). Operational monitoring is carried out in all GW bodies being at risk of not achieving WFD environmental objectives. The sites included in the network were those located in the direction of groundwater flow from a potential pollution source and those suitable for monitoring of diffuse pollution sources. The design of the monitoring network took into account the results of the pressure and impact analysis, regional conceptual models, groundwater flow directions, the existing monitoring sites, groundwater vulnerability, inventories of point sources of pollution, land use and vulnerable zones according to the Nitrates Directive. One of the goals of the monitoring assessment was the detection of significant and sustained upward trends in pollutants, however no trends were evaluated.

In the International Danube RBD, similarly to surface waters, there is an international monitoring network for groundwater in place under the ICPDR. This monitoring is based on the national monitoring activities but it is focussed on addressing the monitoring requirements jointly agreed by the ICPDR for the international Danube River Basin District. The ICPDR WFD Art.8 report listed 97 sites used for GW quality monitoring and 420 sites for groundwater quantity monitoring in Slovakia for the international purposes. There is no information on international coordination of monitoring in the Vistula RBD.

5.4 Monitoring of protected areas

At present there are 1777 drinking water sources used in Slovakia with the respective protected area of 8 616 km2, i.e. 17.5% of the country area. Monitoring is carried out in line with the Law 354/2006 by public water supply management companies. It comprises 15 microbiological and 71 physico-chemical and radiochemical parameters. There was no information found to indicate whether all priority substances discharged into a water body and all other substances discharged in significant quantities that could affect the status of the body of water and which are included in the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive are monitored in drinking water protected areas.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

SK30000 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2*

SK40000 || 49 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 33 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 47*

Total || 52 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 35 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 49

Table 5.4.1: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas[5].

Note: *Number of monitoring sites reported at programme level.

Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

SK30000 || 83 || 61 || 73.5 || 5 || 6.0 || 16 || 19.3 || 1 || 1.2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SK40000 || 1617 || 422 || 26.1 || 610 || 37.7 || 532 || 32.9 || 46 || 2.8 || 7 || 0.4 || 0 || 0

Total || 1700 || 483 || 28.4 || 615 || 36.2 || 548 || 32.2 || 47 || 2.8 || 7 || 0.4 || 0 || 0

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

SK30000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SK40000 || 60 || 4 || 6.7 || 21 || 35.0 || 30 || 50.0 || 5 || 8.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 60 || 4 || 6.7 || 21 || 35.0 || 30 || 50.0 || 5 || 8.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SK30000 || 83 || 80 || 96.4 || 3 || 3.6 || 0 || 0

SK40000 || 1617 || 1550 || 95.9 || 67 || 4.1 || 0 || 0

Total || 1700 || 1630 || 95.9 || 70 || 4.1 || 0 || 0

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SK30000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SK40000 || 60 || 43 || 71.7 || 17 || 28.3 || 0 || 0

Total || 60 || 43 || 71.7 || 17 || 28.3 || 0 || 0

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SK30000 || 4 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SK40000 || 97 || 58 || 59.8 || 13 || 13.4 || 26 || 26.8

Total || 101 || 62 || 61.4 || 13 || 12.9 || 26 || 25.7

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SK30000 || 4 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SK40000 || 97 || 66 || 68 || 5 || 5.2 || 26 || 26.8

Total || 101 || 70 || 69.3 || 5 || 5 || 26 || 25.7

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SK30000 || 83 || 65 || 78.3 || 66 || 79.5 || 1.2 || || || || || || || || || 20 || 0 || 0 || 0

SK40000 || 1677 || 1024 || 61.1 || 1061 || 63.3 || 2.2 || || || || || || || || || 37 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1760 || 1089 || 61.9 || 1127 || 64 || 2.2 || || || || || || || || || 36 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027[6]

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SK30000 || 83 || 66 || 79.5 || 66 || 79.5 || 0 || || || || || 20.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

SK40000 || 1617 || 1032 || 63.8 || 1035 || 64.0 || 0.2 || || || || || 36.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1700 || 1098 || 64.6 || 1101 || 64.8 || 0.2 || || || || || 35.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027[7]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SK30000 || 83 || 80 || 96.4 || 83 || 100 || 3.6 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SK40000 || 1617 || 1550 || 95.9 || 1617 || 100 || 4.1 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1700 || 1630 || 95.9 || 1700 || 100 || 4.1 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027[8]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SK30000 || 4 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SK40000 || 97 || 58 || 59.8 || 58 || 59.8 || 0 || || || || || 13 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 101 || 62 || 61.4 || 62 || 61.4 || 0 || || || || || 13 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027[9]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SK30000 || 4 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SK40000 || 97 || 66 || 68.0 || 71 || 73.2 || 5.2 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 101 || 70 || 69.3 || 75 || 74.3 || 5.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027[10]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SK30000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SK40000 || 60 || 25 || 41.7 || 26 || 43.3 || 1.7 || || || || || 60 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 60 || 25 || 41.7 || 26 || 43.3 || 1.7 || || || || || 60 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2012 and 2027[11]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SK30000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SK40000 || 60 || 43 || 71.7 || 60 || 100 || 28.3 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 60 || 43 || 71.7 || 60 || 100 || 28.3 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027[12]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

In Slovakia the ecological status assessment was based on the WFD CIS Guidance document No. 13 “Overall approach to the classification of ecological status and ecological potential”, which was identically applied for both the Danube and Vistula RBDs. The ”one-out-all-out” principle has been applied to derive the overall ecological status. Classification systems are type specific and cover all types.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

SK30000 || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

SK40000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Table 7.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

The assessment methods for classification of ecological status were fully developed for all BQEs with the exception of fish (the method for fish using the EFI index was under development but was not available for the first RBMP; this BQE will be included in the next RBM planning cycle). The ecological status assessments in rivers lack the assessment of fish, and therefore do not comply with the WFD requirements.

For the assessment of benthic macroinvertebrates, the multihabitat assessment using multimetric index was applied. Phytoplankton abundance and phytoplankton biomass expressed in terms of chlorophyll-a were used for the analysis of phytoplankton. Benthic diatoms were selected as a representative group for phytobenthos assessment. A multimetric method was applied also for the analysis of macrophytes. All these methodologies for BQE assessment were type-specific and used reference conditions. The above facts support the statement that the assessment of BQEs in rivers (except fish) was close to being WFD compliant, however, the full compliance would require a complete intercalibration (see text below).

There were no assessment methods available for macrophytes, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates in lakes (reservoirs). The ecological status assessments for lakes are thus based only on phytoplankton, which is not in compliance with the WFD. The ecological status assessments do not include hydromorphological quality elements since there are no natural lakes in Slovakia with an area larger than 0.5km2.

The assessment methods have been developed for all physico-chemical quality elements (QEs) relevant for the main pressures affecting the water bodies in the RBD. This assessment was WFD compliant. The class boundaries for the physico-chemical QEs relevant for the main pressures were calculated using the long-term monitoring data and EQR. EQR were set to 0,8; 0,6; 0,4 and 0,2 and the threshold values were calculated using the percentiles from the monitoring data. Relationships between the biological class boundaries and the physico-chemical and hydromorphological class boundaries were defined during preparation of the classification schemes. Individual BQEs (characterised by metrics) were tested by statistical methods, particularly together with physico-chemical QEs. Simultaneously, harmonisation was made between individual quality elements in terms of the classification schemes for individual types of watercourses.

Ecological improvement was assessed at the sub-unit (sub-basins) level using organic pollution indicators (BOD5, CODCr and nutrient pollution (Ntotal and Ptotal). The effectiveness of the implemented measures will be shown by the assessment of the status/potential of water bodies and/or quality of surface waters in analysis pursuant to Article 5 of the WFD and in further planning cycles.

Evaluation of the ecological status of surface water bodies is based on evaluation of data from monitoring at representative sampling points. Criteria for the selection of representative sampling points were defined in the “Assessment of the status of surface water bodies in Slovakia for 2007”.

Uncertainties in the assessment were elaborated as a determination of the reliability of the assessment of the ecological status of surface water bodies. Reliability was expressed on a three-level scale (low, medium and high) in accordance with the method used in the International Danube RBMP.  A brief description of this method is provided in Chapter 5.1.2 of the Slovak Water Plan and details can be found in the “Assessment of the status of surface water bodies in Slovakia for 2007”.

The assessment methods for hydromorphological QEs includes a methodology for the hydromorphological assessment of rivers, a methodology for setting reference conditions for hydromorphological QEs and a procedure for setting classification schemes for hydromorphological QEs. The characteristics for setting reference conditions were based on data on the hydrological regime, river continuity and morphological conditions in line with the requirements of WFD.

The confidence and precision for both Slovak RBDs was assessed using a modified methodology that was developed by the Monitoring and Assessment Expert Group of the ICPDR.

Compliance with the good/moderate boundary for benthic invertebrates from the intercalibration exercise has been assured. The results of intercalibration, published by the Commission Decision (2008), were used for the assessment of the ecological status for benthic invertebrates for three types of water courses. Phytobenthos, macrophytes and fish were included in the second intercalibration phase (2009–2011) so they were not intercalibrated in the Eastern continental GIG within the EU Intercalibration phase 1. Consideration was taken of the intercalibration metrics agreed under the Central Baltic Geographical Intercalibration Group for establishing of classification schemes for benthic invertebrates in other types of water courses and for macrophytes and phytobenthos. These schemes were then used for assessing ecological status. Based on the above, the boundaries published in the Commission Decision were taken into account for assessing the state of surface waters for the other national types as well.

There was also no intercalibration for lakes among the countries in the EC GIG in IC phase 1, therefore no assessment system for lakes has been intercalibrated.

Environmental quality standards (EQS; both MAC-EQS and AA-EQS) were developed for 26 river basin specific pollutants relevant for both Slovak RBDs, and were used for the ecological status assessment. These standards have been set in accordance with the procedure described in the WFD Annex V 1.2.6. Substances 4-methyl-2,6-di-tertbutylphenol, bisphenol-A, arsenic, zinc and copper were responsible for the failure WBs to achieve good ecological status.

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)

SK30000 || || ||

SK40000 || || 4-methyl-2,6-di-tercbutylphenol ||

SK40000 || 7440-38-2 || Arsenic ||

SK40000 || || bisphenol-A ||

SK40000 || 7440-50-8 || Copper ||

SK40000 || 7440-66-6 || Zinc ||

Table 7.2: River basin specific pollutants causing failure of status

Source: RBMPs

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (HMWB) and assessment of good ecological potential (GEP)

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

53 HMWBs have been designated in Slovakia, which represents 3% of the total number of water bodies. A national approach for the designation of HMWBs was followed in the early 2000s, which has since been replaced by procedures described in the HMWB Guidance No. 4. The Slovak RBMP specified the following water uses for which water bodies have been designated as HMWB: navigation including port facilities, storage for drinking water supply, storage for power generation, flood protection, urbanisation and wider environment.

The following types of physical modifications were considered in the designation of HMWBs: locks; weirs/ dams/ reservoirs; channelization/ straightening/ bed stabilisation; bank reinforcement/ embankment; flood protection measures; changes of lateral profile; and water abstractions.

The evaluation of the significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment was carried out according to the so-called “first determination test”, which was the first step of the standard HMWB designation procedure applied at the national level. The impact of several alternatives of restoration measures on the water use (e.g. flood protection, water abstraction for drinking water production) and on the wider environment was explored. If the test confirmed that the proposed restoration measures will not have any significant adverse impact on the water use and on wider environment, the water body was designated as natural. More detailed description of the approach for defining significant adverse effects was not provided in the RBMP, thus the criteria applied were not fully clear. The RBMP does not discuss the issue of uncertainty in relation to the designation of HMWB.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

GEP is defined. A two-step procedure was applied for the definition of GEP. The ‘reference-based approach’ according to the WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4 was applied deriving GEP from reference conditions of a comparable water body. The methodology for setting GEP is water body specific, a special passport was prepared for each candidate water body.

However, it should be pointed out that the assessment methods for the BQEs are not yet finalised and therefore the methodology for defining GEP is also incomplete. The Slovak authorities confirm that missing data will be collected by the monitoring programmes in the next planning cycle that will serve for updating of the evaluation systems and classification.

Group || Class || Overall N (%) || High confidence N (%) || Medium confidence N (%) || Low confidence N (%)

Artificial water bodies – SK40000 || High || 1 (14.29) || || || 1 (14.29)

Good || 4 (57.14) || || 1 (14.29) || 3 (42.86)

Moderate || 2 (28.57) || || || 2 (28.57)

Poor || 0 || || ||

Bad || 0 || || ||

Total || 7 (100.00) || || 1 (14.29) || 6 (85.71)

Heavily modified water bodies – SK40000 || High || 3 (5.66) || || || 3 (5.66)

Good || 17 (32.08) || || 5 (9.43) || 12 (22.64)

Moderate || 28 (52.83) || || 12 (22.64) || 16 (30.19)

Poor || 5 (9.43) || || 1 (1.89) || 4 (7.55)

Bad || 0 || || ||

Table 8.1: Assessment methods for HMWB and AWB

Source: WISE

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters

Good surface water chemical status means the chemical status required to meet the environmental objectives for surface waters established in WFD Article 4(1)(a). That is the chemical status achieved by a body of surface water in which concentrations of pollutants do not exceed the EQSs established in WFD Annex IX and under WFD Article 16(7), and under other relevant Community legislation setting EQSs at Community level. The Directive 2008/105/EC (EQSD) lays down EQSs for priority substances and certain other pollutants as provided for in WFD Article 16, with the aim of achieving good surface water chemical status.

In Slovakia all EQSs laid down in Part A of Annex I of the Directive 2008/105/EC have been applied for the assessment of the chemical status of surface water bodies, but in most of the water bodies not all priority substances were monitored. All priority substances pursuant to the draft (at that time) EQSD were monitored at representative monitoring points for the assessment of chemical status of surface water bodies. Slovakia did not opt to apply EQSs for biota for mercury and its compounds, hexachlorobenzene, or for hexachlorobutadiene according to Article 3(2a) of the EQSD, nor were EQSs for sediment and/or biota derived for the priority substances.

The chemical status assessment was, in principle, compliant with the WFD, following the provisions of the EQSD, but more clarity is needed as to the description of which priority substances were monitored in which water bodies. In addition, in the event that some substances were not analysed because they were considered as not relevant based on the pressures and impacts analysis, a justification should be added.

Background concentrations for heavy metals have been set using the available data from chemical monitoring activities in 1993-2007 in combination with information on geological characteristics, chemical composition of river sediments and groundwaters, and on the surface water typology. Mixing zones were not used for chemical status assessment. There was no explanation found on how the bioavailability factors of metals were considered in the assessment of compliance with EQS.

The priority substances responsible for exceeding the EQSs set by the EQSD are shown in the table below including percentage of water bodies failing good chemical status:

Priority substance || % of water bodies failing good chemical status

Cadmium || 0.2

Lead || 0.1

Mercury || 1.5

Trifluralin || 0.2

Brominated diphenylether || 0.1

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) || 1.8

Nonylphenol || 0.1

Flouranthene || 0.1

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene || 0.1

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene || 0.1

Table 9.1: Substances responsible for exceedances

Source: RBMPs

10. Assessment of groundwater status

Information on groundwater status was based on the assessment of groundwater chemical and quantitative status. 13 out of 75 GW bodies were found to be at risk of not meeting good chemical status (all of them in the Danube RBD - groundwater bodies in the Vistula RBD were all in a good chemical status). The following numbers of groundwater bodies or groups of groundwater bodies (in brackets) were found to be at risk of not meeting good chemical status due to the following pollutants: sulphates (6), chlorides (5), ammonium (6), nitrates (3), arsenic (2), atrazine (4), simazine (2), cadmium (1), trichloroethylene (1) and tetrachloroethylene (1).

The RBMP provides information that GW quality standards or threshold values (TVs) for some pollutants have been exceeded and GWBs – in line with the Directive 2006/118/EC – are still considered being of good chemical status. No details about these GWBs and/or pollutants are reported, which is a drawback of the plan.

All substances in Annex II Part B of the Directive 2006/118/EC have been taken into account at the establishment of groundwater threshold values. The reference values used for the calculation of threshold values were derived from drinking water standards.

Investigations as to whether concentrations of pollutants in groundwater bodies result in a failure to achieve the environmental objectives for associated surface waters, or in any significant diminution of surface water chemistry and ecology, or in any significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were not carried out due to missing data, methodologies and criteria. It is foreseen to perform such assessment in the second RBM cycle. Trend assessment was not carried out under the first plan. It is mentioned in the RBMP that trend assessment is foreseen in the second planning cycle.

For the assessment of groundwater quantitative status the following criteria were applied:

· The available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long term annual average rate of abstraction;

· Failure to achieve the environmental objectives specified under Article 4 for associated surface water bodies resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions;

· Significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration.

The RBMP indicates that 'available groundwater resource' has been fully applied in accordance with the definition provided in WFD Art. 2.27. A comparison of annual average groundwater abstraction against ‘available groundwater resource’ has been reported to be calculated for every groundwater body and two GW bodies in the Danube RBD failed to achieve good quantitative status because of this criterion. The balance between recharge and abstraction of groundwater is assessed in line with WFD requirements.

Co-ordination with the neighbouring countries was reported to be considered in the context of bilateral transboundary Commissions at the establishment of threshold values. However, it was not mentioned in the RBMP with which countries such co-ordination was carried out and no further details were provided.

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

SK30000 || 2 || ||

SK40000 || 168 || ||

Total || 170 || 0 || 0

Table 10.1: Status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

Article 4 of the WFD defines a number of exemptions to the general objectives that allow for an extension of deadlines beyond 2015, less stringent objectives, a temporary deterioration, or deterioration for the implementation of new projects, provided a set of conditions are fulfilled. The exemptions for WFD Article 4 are the provisions in Article 4(4) (extension of deadline), 4(5) (lower objectives), 4(6) (temporary deterioration) and 4(7) (new modifications).

Slovakia reported in the RBMP that for both RBDs, given the large number of measures required for achieving environmental objectives, it would not be possible to complete those objectives by the deadline set by the WFD from financial (necessary budgets not available) and technical/capacity problems. Therefore the application of exemptions according to Article 4(4) is foreseen but no further details concerning application of exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5) was provided. An approach based on comparison of costs of the proposed combination of measures with the "ability to pay" of the investors responsible for financing the measures was used to assess whether the implementation of the measures would incur a disproportionate cost. Financial implications of the planned measures were assessed using the average unit prices based on the past experience with implementation of similar measures.

Exemptions according to Article 4(6) were not applied. No information was provided in the RBMP on exemptions according to Article 4(7).

The need for the application of exemptions stemmed primarily from the low confidence in the status assessment and from insufficient knowledge of the relationship between biological, chemical and hydromorphological quality elements.

In the Danube RBD technical infeasibility has been used as a justification for exemptions in relation to hydromorphological measures. Technical infeasibility was assessed in relation to the required implementation date for the proposed measures, i.e. by 22 December 2012. Measures proposed for the elimination of hydromorphological changes (ensuring river continuity) include alterations of the existing constructions and modifications or newly planned constructions (e.g., constructing a bio-corridor). Considering the time needed for providing the required documentation (as required by projects operated under conditions of public procurement) it was found that meeting the deadline of 22 December 2012 is not realistic.

The question of disproportionate cost was used to assess the technical and economic options, taking into account the impacts on employment, economic stability and prosperity. Time constraints for implementing individual measures were considered when drafting the implementation plan. Deadlines extending beyond 2015 were thus proposed based on an analysis of the needs and options (technical and economic) and considering the available capacities. External impacts were also considered, such as the impact of recession and economic instability in production and sales. This analysis revealed that plans to meet the WFD requirements by 2015 are not realistic and extended implementation deadlines are needed. Failure to take account of the above mentioned facts could result in negative financial consequences for investors with adverse impacts to the implementation of measures. Slovakia therefore adopted an approach which will ensure achievement of the required environmental objectives, even though their achievement would need longer time periods. This approach is in line with the provisions of the WFD Art. 4 (4) (a).

The exemptions due to natural conditions were defined for groundwater. Despite the basic and supplementary measures that were reported to have been applied in the 1st RBM cycle to achieve the good GW status, the physico-chemical properties of polluting substances as well as their environmental fate including sorption and degradation rates would not make it possible to see the effects of the measures by 2015. Based on the establishment of the inventory of exemptions from measures required to prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater, a monitoring programme is planned for the 2nd RBM cycle.

The application of exemptions was co-ordinated in a transboundary context in the Danube RBD. In the international Danube RBMP the exemptions applied in the different Danube countries have been put together to provide a basin wide overview. In the Vistula RBD the coordination of implementation of the WFD between the Slovak Republic and Poland is provided by the Slovak-Polish "WFD Working Group" set up under the Slovak-Polish Committee for Border Waters on the basis of the Agreement of the Slovak and Polish Governments on Water Management of Border Waters. The application of exemptions in the transboundary water bodies was harmonized by this working group.

RBD || Global[13]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

SK30000 || 17 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

SK40000 || 623 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

Total || 640 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

Table 11.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

12. Programmes of measures 12.1 Programme of measures – general

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[14] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

Slovakia reported significant pressures at the sub-unit level (sub-basins). Measures were proposed in relation to the risk analysis accomplished in accordance with WFD Art. 5, which defined the significant water management issues. Measures were based on the programmes approved by the government (e.g., Slovak National Programme for Implementing Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment, Programme of Pollution Reduction by hazardous substances and priority hazardous substances and others). Ecological improvement was assessed at the sub-unit level using organic pollution indicators (BOD5, CODCr) and nutrient pollution (Ntotal and Ptotal). However, any detailed information on the links between pressures and status, and the respective measures for surface waters was missing so it is not clear if the proposed measures are based on the status assessment of surface water bodies. This means that the programme of measures for surface waters has been based on the risk analysis rather than on monitoring data or status assessment, which is a serious misunderstanding. It was stated in the Slovak RBMP that the programme of measures is linked to the necessity of achieving environmental objectives by 2015 but a clear reference to the results of the status assessment was not reported. The planning therefore misses the ecological perspective introduced by the WFD.

For each groundwater body failing to achieve good quantitative status a list of basic and supplementary measures was provided.

An overview of measures has been provided for sub-basins, river basin districts and at the national level. The structure of the programme of measures refers to the significant water management issues (organic pollution, pollution by nutrients and hazardous substances, hydromorphological alterations, groundwater quantity and quality). The overview of measures  in the RBMP provides detailed information such as the number of planned interventions to ensure the longitudinal connectivity (per sub-basin), number of WWTPs to be built/reconstructed, specification of transitional period for IPPC permits for key polluters, etc.

The Slovak Ministry of Environment is responsible for the implementation of the programme of measures and co-operates in this respect with other ministries, local authorities, enterprises and NGOs. The RBMP does not specify any formal responsibilities of other actors, there is only the reference to the overall responsibility of the national authority.

Total costs of programme of measures in the Danube and Vistula RBDs for 2010 - 2027 are €2724 million. There is a breakdown of costs by pressure provided in the plan addressing point sources, diffuse sources, morphological alterations, specific measures in protected areas and monitoring activities.

Measures implementation time plan is as follows:  

· Legislative measures – their implementation is required by 2012 at latest;

· Administrative measures – their implementation will follow the legislation;

· Technical measures

o In agglomerations – construction of collecting systems and WWTPs – the implementation timetable is based on the needs to fulfil obligations arising from the Treaty on Accession to the EU (in accordance with the requirements of Council Directive 91/271/EEC) published in the EU Official Journal no. 17 of 23. 9. 2003;

o Industry – sources subject to the IPPC Directive – within the meaning of the accession agreement between Slovakia and the Commission for implementation of that directive;

o Agriculture – application of the Programme of agricultural activities in declared vulnerable zones, which has been implemented since the introduction of the first action programme in 2004; completion of storage capacities where required for livestock manure in vulnerable areas depending on the focus of production and number of animals;

o The implementation of hydromorphological measures (with the exception of measures to improve the hydrological regime) is based on a longer timeframe – to 2027.

A cost assessment of the programme of measures in the RBMP provides budget lines from 2010. However, it is obvious that the whole programme will not be operational by 2012 as there are measures that will become operational later (up to 2027).

There is a clear allocation of financing responsibilities for the programme of measures among the state budget, budgets of municipalities, EU funds and other funds. The RBMP provides information on the proportion of the total budget for the programme of measures from different contributors.

An international Joint Programme of Measures (JPM) has been developed for the whole Danube River Basin District. The JPM is firmly based on the national programmes of measures, which shall be made operational by December 2012, and describes the expected improvements in water status by 2015. Priorities for the effective implementation of national measures on the basin-wide scale are highlighted and form the basis of further international co-ordination. Some additional joint initiatives and measures on the basin-wide level that show transboundary character and are undertaken through the framework of the ICPDR are presented in the JPM as well. There is a basin-wide WFD compliant monitoring programme in place under the ICPDR and jointly agreed EQSs for chemical pollutants.

In the Vistula RBD the coordination of the programme of measures between the Slovak Republic and Poland is organized by the Slovak-Polish "WFD Working Group" set up under the Slovak-Polish Committee for Border Waters on the basis of the Agreement of the Slovak and Polish Governments on Water Management of Border Waters. 

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Measures are set at the national level (jointly for the Danube and Vistula RBDs). Agriculture is considered as a key source of pollution by nutrients, organic substances and pesticides. There are only few significant point sources related to agricultural production. The major release of pollutants from agriculture occurs through diffuse sources. Only 3.6% of groundwater use was attributed to agriculture in 2007 in Slovakia. The self-abstraction of water is not referred to in the RBMP. This issue should be addressed in the RBMP update. Morphological modifications due to agriculture have not been indicated as a significant pressure. The major impact caused by pollution by nutrients in Slovakia is eutrophication. Agriculture is reported as one of the sources of nutrients. Soil erosion is considered as one of key sources of organic pollution and pollution by nutrients but no specific reference to agriculture is provided.

The Programme of Measures reports on a number of measures related to agriculture, such as reduction or modification of fertilisers and pesticide application, measures against soil erosion, compensation for land cover, implementation and enforcement of existing older EU legislation, awareness raising, setting up or redefining codes of agricultural practice, advice and training and environmental permitting and licensing. Basic measures stem from the implementation of the Nitrates Directive and are defined in action programmes in vulnerable zones. Supplementary measures include application of codes of agricultural practice, provision of guidance for farmers, ecological awareness rising, enhanced checking mechanisms, financial support for organic farming and compensation policies. The scope of the measures was not reported.

A number of measures related to pesticides in groundwater were indicated:

· Basic measures:

o A number of legislative acts setting rules for the handling and monitoring of hazardous substances;

o Preparation of risk analyses of contaminated sites, remediation of old contaminated sites;

o Preparation of monitoring programmes;

o Revision of emission permits.

· Supplementary measures:

o Preparation of an action plan for sustainable use of pesticides;

o Monitoring programme for pesticides in groundwaters;

o Implementation of economic and financing tools – polluter pays principle;

o Ecological awareness raising.

As mentioned above the measures are planned for years 2010 - 2027. Construction of WWTPs and building of storage facilities for nitrates is planned for 2010 – 2015[15]. The agricultural measures will be primarily funded by the State budget, EU funds and from private sources.

Complementary to the RBMP, the Slovak Authorities informed the Commission that consultation with farmers occurred through representatives of the farming sector nominated to the Interdepartmental coordination group for WFD implementation and to the working group for public participation. The activities of the working group for public participation were intended to inform stakeholders about the actual development of the whole implementation process, to analyse and create a process of public participation in the next period and provide the implementation team with information and opinions from stakeholders.

The approach follows the basic provisions of WFD Art. 11 and the Nitrates Directive but there is no link to the chemical and ecological status results and no detailed timing for the implementation.

Measures || SK30000 || SK40000

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü ||

Measures against soil erosion || ü || ü

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ||

Technical measures for water saving || ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || ü || ü

Co-operative agreements || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || ||

Nutrient trading || ||

Fertiliser taxation || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü || ü

Institutional changes || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || ü || ü

Farm advice and training || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || ü || ü

Certification schemes || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || ||

Land use planning || ||

Technical standards || ||

Specific projects related to agriculture || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || || ü

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

There are clear links between uses and hydromorphological pressures. Measures to be taken to achieve GES/GEP are: Fish ladders; bypass channels; removal of structures (weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement); reconnection of meander bends or side arms; restoration of bank structure; and operational modifications for hydropeaking. No information was found in the RBMP on guidelines/regulations on the definition of an ecologically based flow regime. The only related activity reported in the Plan was the planned revision of operational procedures for flow regulation at several dams on the Vah River to reduce hydropeaking. The programme of hydromorphological measures was prepared simultaneously with the designation of HMWB but there is no evidence in the RBMP as to whether hydromorphological measures have been considered in the HMWB (and not only in natural water bodies).

The RBMP refers to the planning of necessary hydromorphological measures for reaching good ecological status/potential through flood management programmes. It is mentioned that the reconnection of meander bends or side arms and floodplain restoration (lateral connectivity enhancement) will have a positive impact on flood protection.

Mitigation measures were proposed for the existing pressures based on:

· Results of screening;

· Additional photographic documentation from monitoring of barriers performed by the Slovak National Countryside Protection Body;

· Opinions of biologists, including fishermen and technical staff of the Slovak Water Authority.

An improvement of the ecological status/potential is expected and the level of improvement will be demonstrated by monitoring results. 

The time plan for the implementation of measures extends beyond 2015. Technical infeasibility has been used as a justification for exemptions in relation to hydromorphological measures. Therefore, prioritization of measures related to river continuity restoration was made and approx. 7% of the longitudinal connectivity interruptions will be removed in the first cycle. The time plan for implementation of measures ensuring lateral connectivity goes up to 2027, applying an exemption according to Art. 4 (4).

The overall planned budget for the implementation of measures related to hydromorphology in 2011 - 2027 amounts to €64.9 million.

In general, the national approach to implementation of measures related to hydromorphology follows the provisions of WFD Art. 11 (3) (i), but it lacks information on the links to the ecological status of the surface waters.

Measures || SK30000 || SK40000

Fish ladders || ü || ü

Bypass channels || ü || ü

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ||

Sediment/debris management || ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || ü || ü

Lowering of river banks || ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü || ü

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || ü || ü

Inundation of flood plains || ||

Construction of retention basins || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

To tackle over-exploitation of groundwater resources the following basic measures were applied:

· Regulation of groundwater abstraction;

· Development of interconnected water supply systems;

· Augmentation of groundwater bodies;

· Regulation of surface water abstraction in water bodies with hydraulic interconnection with groundwater bodies;

· Reduction of water losses in water supply systems; and

· Hydrogeological exploration and preparation of new sources.

The supplementary measures addressing groundwater overexploitation include:

· Reconsideration of exploitable groundwater resources in relation to climate change;

· Revision of abstraction permits;

· Obligation of monitoring of level/discharge at sources;

· Recording of abstracted volumes;

· Fines for illegal abstractions;

· Improvement of technologies for groundwater processing;

· Artificial recharge;

· Land-based water retention;

· Rainwater management;

· Training of professionals; and

· Awareness raising.

A number of basic measures were implemented to prevent inputs of hazardous substances into groundwater, such as, legislative acts setting the rules of handling with and monitoring of hazardous substances; preparation of risk analyses of contaminated sites; remediation of old contaminated sites; preparation of monitoring programmes; and revision of emission permits.

Supplementary measures were also applied such as the preparation of an action plan for sustainable use of pesticides, monitoring programme for pesticides in groundwater, implementation of economic and fiscal tools (polluter pays principle) and ecological awareness raising.

In general, measures are taken in groundwater bodies not achieving good status. No reference was provided in the RBMP on international co-ordination of measures related to GW bodies.

The RBMP does not provide any information that requirements stemming from groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been taken into account in the definition of required measures.

The programme of measures for achieving environmental objectives concerning groundwater quality and quantity provides information about the various technical details of planned basic and supplementary measures, but provides no overview of the detailed implementation time plan and of the effectiveness of the proposed measures.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

There is an inventory of sources of pollution which covers priority substances, non-priority specific pollutants or main pollutants identified by Slovakia at the river basin level, and nutrients. Total N and total P emissions and a list of relevant priority substances and national river basin specific pollutants are provided for key sources and for all sub-basins. The relevant national river basin specific pollutants include aniline, benzothiazole, PCBs, MCPA, 4-methyl-2,6-di-tert-butylphenol, bisphenol-A, dibutylphthalate, diphenylamine, phenantrene, zinc, arsenic, chromium, copper, cyanides, toluene and xylenes. The RBMP identifies industrial emissions (including wastewater from mining industry), emissions from households through public sewers, atmospheric deposition and emissions of pesticides from agriculture as significant sources of chemical pollution. The inventories are based on reporting to the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (EPRTR) according to Regulation EC No. 166/2006.

Revision of permits/authorisations and construction of wastewater treatment plants are among the key measures to be taken to tackle chemical pollution. No information is provided in the RBMP on substance specific measures.

Reduction of pollution by priority substances and the phasing out or cessation of emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances will be accomplished by issuing permits for waste water discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 21 (2) (d) of the Slovak Water Act and in accordance with point 3 of Part A of the Annex to Government Regulation No. 279/2011. In the permit, the state water management authority shall also specify measures and the timeframe of implementation to achieve environmental objectives, taking account of the availability, effectiveness and complexity of the technical solution according to an industry branch. If a detected spill of dangerous substances into water endangers the water body, corrective measures must be taken by the subject responsible for handling these substances, i.e. the polluter.

The application of the gradual phasing out of the emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances is based on the Section 17 (4) of the Slovak Water Act which states that "For discharge of waste water from an industrial source the priority substances contained in it must be progressively reduced and priority hazardous substances progressively limited with the aim of phasing out or ceasing their emissions, discharges and leakages."

The national approach to the implementation of measures related to chemical pollution follows the provisions of WFD Art. 11 (3) (g,h,k,l), information has not been provided on the effectiveness of the planned measures as well as on the links to the chemical and ecological status of surface waters. It is assumed that by 2015 assuming discharges of chemical substances from waste water will be fully compliant with the provisions of EU legislation and best available technologies will be applied by all significant industrial polluters.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

Article 9 of the WFD includes the concepts of incentive pricing, cost recovery (including environmental and resource costs) and the polluter-pays principle. In addition, it also introduces the concepts of water 'services' and water 'uses'.

The following activities were identified in Slovakia as water uses for Article 9 purposes: drinking water production and supply, wastewater collection and treatment, hydropower and water abstraction. The RBMP identified the following water services: abstraction, agriculture (water abstraction and water supply), industry (water abstraction, water supply, wastewater treatment), households (wastewater treatment, water supply), hydropower (water abstraction, use of hydro energetic potential), cooling water use, impoundment, storage and distribution of surface water or ground water, wastewater collection and treatment for households, treatment and distribution of surface water or groundwater.

There is an incentive pricing policy in place in Slovakia that takes into account the polluter-pays principle. This is based on payments for drinking water supply, waste water collection for households, surface and groundwater abstraction and waste discharges into surface waters. Resources gathered from the payments are used i.a. for financing of measures needed for achieving WFD environmental objectives. The revision of water pricing policy is foreseen in order to adjust the water pricing policy in such a way that it would provide better incentives for sustainable and effective use of water resources.

The cost recovery principle has been applied in Slovakia, but only a general explanation is provided in the RBMP: that an adequate contribution to cost recovery is ensured through specific policies, instruments and legislation in place. The adequate contribution of the different water uses to the recovery of the costs is based on the polluter-pays principle, e.g., payments for wastewater discharges are based on such principle. Further analysis of this adequateness principle is foreseen in the next RBM cycles.

The economic analysis conducted according to Article 5 (Annex III), which was undertaken in 2004, did not address all issues sufficiently and it was updated for the RBMP.  However, no further details on this issue were provided in the RBMP.

The structure of the cost recovery rates calculation includes water supply for households, water supply for industry, water supply for agriculture, wastewater collection and treatment for households, wastewater collection and treatment for industry, hydroenergetic potential, surface water abstraction and abstraction of water for energy production. Cost recovery levels are calculated covering the whole RBD/Member State. The calculation of recovery levels includes capital costs, operating costs, maintenance costs and administrative costs. Financial cost data was collected at river basin level.

The assessment of subsidies, particularly cross-subsidies, was done for the whole RBD/ Member State. Cross-subsidies are no longer in use– the unified rates for drinking water supply and wastewater treatment were set in 2007 for all users/sectors. The only subsidies were those received from the EU. Environmental and resource costs have not been estimated due to missing methodology.

The recovery levels calculation was based on drinking water supply, wastewater treatment technical costs (material), water abstraction costs (or wastewater discharge costs), energy costs, repair costs, other services, personal costs, taxes, other operating costs and depreciation.

WFD Article 9.4 states that Member States shall not be in breach of the WFD if they decide, in accordance with established practices, not to apply the provisions of paragraph 1 (second sentence) and for that purpose the relevant provisions of paragraph 2, for a given water-use activity, where this does not compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of the WFD. Slovakia did not fully apply Article 9 requirements (as provided for in Art. 9(4)) because the detailed economic analysis had not been completed (this analysis was planned for 2010, i.e., after publishing of the RBMP), and because the current practices (e.g., no charges for irrigation) do not compromise the achievement of the WFD objectives.

In general, the adequate contribution to cost-recovery is stated in the Slovak RBMP, but it is not explained, there is no detailed economic analysis and calculation, and, in practice, an adequate contribution of agriculture sector to cost recovery is questionable as irrigation is free of charge. The environmental and resource costs are not considered due to lack of data and an appropriate methodology. All these issues are planned to be addressed in more details in the next RBMP update.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

The RBMP chapter on costs of programme of measures lists the measures and their costs related to Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC and 76/160/EEC) and Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC, as amended by Directive 98/83/EC).

The water bodies in Slovakia do not need additional measures to reach the more stringent objectives relating to protected areas. It was reported that only all basic and complementary measures will have a positive effect also on protected areas (NATURA 2000 and bathing water) in the reduction of pollution pressures and hydromorphological pressures.

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts, AnD flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity and droughts were not considered as relevant in the two Slovak RBDs. No major decreasing trend of minimum flows was reported.

Hydrological assessment was based on:

· Daily discharges;

· Minimum discharges for different time periods (years, seasons, months, etc.);

· N-years minimum discharges;

· 7-days Q100;

· Non-discharge characteristics (duration of low discharge periods).

To develop future prognoses for water availability, trends were assessed for daily and monthly average flows as well as for monthly minimum flows at stations which are in operation since 1971 and earlier. Based on these analyses the trend levels were determined and applied for the Slovak rivers. The most decreasing trend was observed for the Ipel, Morava and Slana river basins and for selected tributaries of the Hron.

No data on future water demand trend scenarios were provided, Water scarcity and droughts were not considered as significant water management issue and no exact future prognoses were provided.

Even though water scarcity and droughts is not considered to be a significant water management issue in Slovakia, it has been addressed in the international RBMP for the Danube RBD as a future challenge in relation to the impact of a climate change. Reference to this issue was also made in the international Tisza RBMP (sub-basin of the DRB District shared by RO, HU, UA, SK and RS), which was under preparation at the time of completing the Slovak RBMP.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Flood risk management issues are addressed in the RBMP in a separate chapter reviewing the key provisions of the EU Floods Directive (carrying out the preliminary flood risk assessment and designation of areas of potential significant flood risk, preparation of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps and development of flood risk management plans) and also plans for preparation of flood risk management plans in the Danube and Vistula RBDs including aspects of international coordination. Future coordination of river basin management with the implementation of the Floods Directive is clearly mentioned in the RBMP.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

The issue of climate change was addressed in the first RBMP in a separate chapter on climate change.

The issues referred to in relation to adaptation to climate change were as follows:

· Climate change impacts specific monitoring;

· Analysis of variability and changes of selected hydrological and climatic elements;

· Impacts on agricultural production;

· Impacts on forest ecosystems;

· Proposal of adaptation measures in water management.

A supplementary measure was applied to reconsider exploitable groundwater in the context of climate change in connection to groundwater quantity. A climate check of the Programme of Measures has not been carried out.

It is not described how climate change will be further integrated in subsequent planning cycles. No information is provided on the potential establishment of a national climate change adaptation strategy. A National Climate Change Programme has been in place since 1993, managed by the Ministry of Environment.

14. recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· There is one plan for two RBDs and the plan does not always provide a clear guide as to whether an issue/problem is relevant for both or only for one RBD. It was often difficult to identify RBD-specific information. Future RBMPs need to be more transparent in this respect, and it is recommended that Slovakia develops one RBMP per national part of the RBD on its territory.

· More information needs to be included in the plan on the involvement of interested parties and consultation, since it is not clear from the RBMP which stakeholders were involved, and what impact the consultation had on the content of the RBMP.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle. Regarding characterisation, for instance, reference conditions should be established for all BQEs.

· The RBMPs need to provide more information on the links between pressures and status, and the respective measures for surface waters.

· There are a number of gaps in the monitoring programmes which need to be addressed. There is no adequate fish monitoring in rivers, only phytoplankton is monitored in lakes, there is no monitoring of priority substances in sediments and biota, and not all priority substances were monitored in all water bodies. These gaps in the monitoring design resulted in an incomplete status assessment of surface water bodies, which has to be improved. In particular, mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived, and trend monitoring in sediment or biota for at least the substances specified in EQSD Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.

· The ecological status assessment in rivers lacks the assessment of fish, and for lakes it is only based on phytoplankton. The ecological status assessment does not include hydromorphological quality elements. No assessment system for lakes has been intercalibrated. Most of the BQEs have not been intercalibrated, and have thus not been used in the classification. All these shortcomings need to be addressed.

· More information needs to be included in the RBMPs on priority substances, such as a detailed description of which priority substances are monitored in which water bodies and, when substances are not assessed, a clear explanation of the reasons, in order to fully assess the chemical status.

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· The methodology for defining GEP in Slovakia is incomplete because the assessment methods for the biological quality elements are not yet fully developed. More work needs to be done fulfilling the requirements of WFD Art. 4.1.(a)(iii), collecting the missing data, and updating evaluation systems and classification.

· A methodology for trend analysis in groundwater assessment should be in place, even if it was not possible to carry out such an analysis during the first RBMP cycle. This needs to be in place for the second cycle.

· A large number of exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. While the WFD provides for exemptions, specific criteria must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans. The high number of exemptions applied in these first RBMPs is a cause for concern. The Slovakia should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainty.

· It is unclear whether there are new physical modifications planned in RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· Only little improvement of the water status is expected by 2015 and the objectives for subsequent planning deadlines are not always clear. Objectives should be clearly indicated and transparent in order to be able to reach good status of waters in a reasonable timeframe.

· It is not clear if the measures proposed in the Plan have been based on the assessment of the status of surface water bodies. This means that the programme of measures for surface waters may be based on the risk analysis rather than on monitoring data or status assessment, this is a shortcoming to be addressed. Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so that the approach to achieve the objectives is clear. All the relevant information on basic and supplementary measures should be included in the summary of the PoM to ensure transparency of the planned actions for the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in the WFD.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resources in Slovakia. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farming community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately advised and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

[1]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[2]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[3]     This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[4]     The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[5]     Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[6]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[7]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[8]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[9]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[10]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[11]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[12]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[13] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[14]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management

[15]    They are not detailed in the reported information

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Italy has a population of 60 million[1] and a total surface area greater than 300000 km2. A large proportion of the territory is upland or mountainous: in mainland Italy, the Alps spread as an arc across the northernmost part of the country, while the Apennines stretch through the centre of the country. Most of the population lives in lowland areas, which as a result have a high population density.

Italy has eight river basin districts (see table below). The largest, the Po Basin, has 74000 km2 and covers almost one-quarter of the country’s territory. Six RBDs cover mainland Italy, while one each covers Italy’s two large islands, Sardinia and Sicily.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || Countries sharing RBD

ITA || Eastern Alps / Alpi orientali || 40851 || AT, CH, SI

ITB || Po Basin / Bacino del Po || 74000 || CH, FR

ITC || Northern Appenines / Appennino settentrionale || 38131 || FR

ITD || Serchio || 1565 || -

ITE || Middle Appenines / Appennino centrale || 36302 || -

ITF || Southern Appenines / Appennino meridionale || 68200 || -

ITG || Sardinia / Sardegna || 24000 || -

ITG || Sicily / Sicilia || 26000 || -

Table 1.1: Overview of Italy’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[2]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/wfdart13

Three Italian RBDs share catchments with other Member States, and two with Switzerland:

· ITA shares catchments with Slovenia and small catchments with Austria and Switzerland;

· ITB shares catchments with Switzerland and a small catchment with France;

· ITC shares catchments with France.

The table below provides information for several key shared catchments (note that the data for the Danube refers to Italy’s share of the whole IRDB; for the others, data refers specifically to the catchment).

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

1 || 2 || 4

km² || % || km² || % || km² || %

Danube || ITA || AL, AT, BA,BG, CH, CZ, DE, HR, HU, IT, MN, ME, MK, PL, RO, RS, SL, SK, UA || 565 || <0.1 || || || ||

Rhine || ITB || AT, BE, CH, DE, FR, IT, LI, LU, NL || 60 || <0.1 || || || ||

Po || ITB || CH, FR || || || 70153 || 94.8 || ||

Ticino/ Lago Maggiore (Sub--basin Po) || ITB || CH || || || 3229 || 48.9 || ||

Adda/ Lake Como (Sub--basin Po) || ITB || CH || || || 7448 || 94.0 || ||

Isonzo/ Soca || ITA || SI || || || 1133 || 33.3 || ||

Adige/ Etsch || ITA || CH || || || || || 11970 || 98.9

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Italy[3]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance 2.1 Adoption of the RBMPs

In Italy, each RBMP was adopted by the ‘permanent institutional conference’ of the RBD Authority on 24 February 2010 (all RBDs except ITG adopted on 25 February 2010 and ITH on 25 March 2010).

The RBMPs were then passed to Italy’s ‘State-Regions conference’ for its opinion, and then to the President of the Council of Ministers (i.e. the Prime Minister), for approval: this last stage is important, as the final approval gives the RBMPs legal status.[4] (This procedure also encompasses the Programme of Measures, considered part of the RBMPs.) The opinion was provided by the Council of Ministers on 27 July 2011[5].

There has been a change of the law in Italy since the adoption of the RBMPs, which now do not require the two subsequent stages previously required, that is Opinion of the State/Regions Council, then "Approval by the President of the Council of Ministers".

The eight Italian RBMPs were adopted by the institutional committees of the provisional RBD Authorities in early 2010 (the provisional nature of the RBD Authorities is discussed in Section 3 on Governance), and in July 2011, all the RBMPs received a positive opinion from the State/Regional Council.

Recent information from the Italian authorities states a different process. According to them, the procedure as described in the first paragraph is based on Art.65 of the legislative decree n.152 of the 3 April 2006, prior to the public consultation. The actual adoption is based on Law n.13 of 27 February 2009 (later completed by Art.4 of Legislative Decree n.219 of 10 December 2010) and is done by the Institutional Committees (including ministries of key administrations and presidents of the regions) of the national river basin authorities enlarged with the regions belonging to the districts. They published the RBMPs together with the Programmes of Measures on the above mentioned dates.

2.2 Links with other water plans

The RBMPs draw heavily on previous plans, in particular the Piani di Tutela delle Acque (Water Protection Plans) prepared at regional level. The regional plans are dated from 2004 to 2009, and they are an element of the Italy’s approach prior to the transposition of the WFD.[6] The RBMPs take a number of measures from these earlier plans (see Section 12, below). In addition, the RBMPs cite other water plans, for example, the Piani di assetto idrogeologico (Plans of hydrological assets), typically at regional level: these cover water quantity issues.

While the RBMPs provide a means to integrate planning at regional level with planning at RBD level, the added value of the first round of RBMPs is not fully clear.[7]

2.3 Key strengths and weaknesses

A common strength for Italy’s RBMPs is that all underwent strategic environmental assessment (SEA).

However, a range of weaknesses exist. Some of the detailed national rules and approaches related to river basin management were issued relatively late in the preparations of the RBMPs. This is the case, notably, for the approach to monitoring and classification set out in the Ministry of Environment’s Decree 56 of 2009.[8] In addition, in recent correspondence with the European Commission, Italy has also highlighted the role of legislation produced after the RBMPs, notably Ministerial Decree (DM) 260/2010 of Nov. 2010.[9]

Partly as a result of this situation, the RBMPs have a number of weaknesses:

• Monitoring programmes (Art. 8 of the WFD) were under revision in many regions: the RBMPs are based on monitoring and other results undertaken at regional level (see section 3 on governance), and the regions have implemented new Italian legislation at different paces. As a result, in key areas such as monitoring, the approaches and methods used by regions within RBDs can vary (see Section 5, below).

• The status classification of many surface and groundwater bodies has not been completed (Art. 4), and the identification of exemptions appears to be incomplete as well. Here too, there are major differences in the extent of assessment across Italy’s regions (see Section 7, below).

• A common approach to ensure adequate incentives for efficient use and an adequate contribution from different users was not in place by 2010 (Art. 9). Moreover, economic analysis varied significantly across the RBMPs.

• The links between the Programmes of Measures, the impacts of human activities and the objectives are not clearly presented in the RBMPs (Art. 11).

It should also be noted that there are some differences in data provided in the RBMPs and that reported in WISE: in some cases, the WISE data are more recent. These differences, however, have made a systematic review of the RBMPs more difficult. 

3. Governance 3.1 RBMP timelines

The dates of publication of RBMP documents are provided in the table below: these are behind the due dates set, inter alia, in Art. 14 of the WFD.

RBD || Timetable || Work Programme || Statement on consultation || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Management Plan

Due dates || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009

ITA || 29/04/2009 || 29/04/2009 || 01/07/2009 || || 18/09/2009 || 12/03/2010

ITB || 30/03/2009 || 30/03/2009 || 30/03/2009 || 10/04/2009 || 23/07/2009 || 22/03/2010

ITC || 28/03/2009 || 28/03/2009 || 10/04/2009 || 10/04/2009 || 16/07/2009 || 22/12/2009

ITD || 31/03/2009 || 31/03/2009 || 31/03/2009 || 31/03/2009 || 30/06/2009 ||

ITE || 10/04/2009 || 10/04/2009 || 30/04/2009 || 30/04/2009 || 30/06/2009 ||

ITF || || || || || ||

ITG || 22/05/2009 || 22/05/2009 || 22/05/2009 || 22/05/2009 || 22/05/2009 || 25/02/2010

ITH || || || || || ||

Table 3.1.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: WISE

The Directive requires a logic sequence of 3 distinctive consultation steps of each 6 months, to enable meaningful involvement and consultation of interested parties. In Italy these steps were all started within a 3-7 month period, depending on the RBD. It is not clear from the RBMPs if for each of these sequences the 6 month minimum period was respected. No information was reported to WISE on consultations in ITH(Sicily) and ITF.

All of the final RBMPs were reported to the EEA Central Data Repository (CDR) in May 2010, with the exception of ITH (Sicily), reported in July 2010.

It should be noted that the data submitted to WISE was updated compared to that presented in the RBMPs: as a result, it is sometimes difficult to assess the situation set out in the RBMPs.

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

Overall, the administrative arrangements and relationships are set in national legislation. The national Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea has the lead role for policies and methodologies to implement the Water Framework Directive in Italy, while Italy’s regions are directly responsible for many aspects of implementation, including monitoring, managing and protecting water bodies, as well as many enforcement activities and many aspects of planning.[10]  As a result, the RBD authorities, beyond the preparation of the RBMPs, appear mainly to have a co-ordinating role.

Each river basin district (RBD) has an authority in charge of preparing its RBMP. However, by early 2012, these RBD authorities had only been named on a provisional basis[11]: in most cases, the authorities for the river basins of 'national interest' were temporarily designated as the RBD authorities, and notably carried out this role for the preparation of the first RBMPs.[12]

This is an issue in particular for four RBDs where the provisional authority is based on a river basin authority that covers only part of the RBD. Thus, the Arno RBA prepared the RBMP for the Northern Apennines (ITC), though the Arno covers only part of the RBD territory; similar situations are seen in the Eastern Alps (ITA), the Central Apennines (ITE) and the Southern Apennines (ITF).[13]

Figure 3.2.1: Organisation overview of authorities involved in Italy’s RBMPs

Source:Pressures and Measures study on Governance

For each RBD, an ‘institutional committee’ brings together the regions with representatives of key national ministries – environment, agriculture, economic development and infrastructure/transport among others (see the figure 3.2.1). At present, the institutional committees of the former river basin authorities ‘of national interest’ are used for this purpose, with their membership enlarged to all regions in the RBD.

While this temporary system is to be replaced by full RBD authorities, it does not appear that steps are underway to move to a permanent system. 

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

The RBMPs have a binding effect on public administrations and bodies, once they are approved by the President of the Council of Ministers.[14] In principle, this means that they should be binding on permitting and planning decisions; however, this is not explicitly stated in Italy’s legislation. Moreover, the legislation does not contain explicit provisions for the review of existing permits and concessions, for example in terms of environmental objectives set in the RBMPs.[15]

According to recent information from the Italian authorities, the RBMPs and the Programmes of Measures are operational from the moment they have been published by the enlarged Institutional Committees.

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

Italian legislation calls for the active involvement of all concerned parties in the preparation, review and updating of RBMPs.[16]

In all RBDs, the draft RBMP was available via web sites and in print in government offices, public meetings were held and interested parties also had the opportunity to submit written comments. However, the extent of consultation varied. The highest number of consultations was seen in ITB, where meetings included broad public information events, stakeholder meetings and thematic meetings on specific issues. In Sardinia (ITG), on the other hand, the public participation process of the RBMP was integrated with that for the SEA of the plan.

Most of the plans, including ITB and ITC, list written comments and how they have been taken into account: comments brought new knowledge for the RBMPs, they have influenced supplementary measures and in some cases proposed approaches for measures that will be considered in implementation.

No mention was found in the legislation or in the RBMPs concerning the involvement of stakeholders in the implementation stage of the plans.

3.5 International cooperation and coordination

Italy has a bilateral agreement with Slovenia for shared catchments in ITA, and joint monitoring has been carried out. In addition, Slovenian authorities (as well as Austrian and Swiss authorities) were consulted on the ITA RBMP. Italy also has a bilateral agreement and commission with Switzerland, in particular affecting shared catchments in ITB.  ITB also shares a catchment with France. The RBMP for ITB does not mention co-operation with France or Switzerland for its preparation, though both countries provided input to the SEA of the plan. The RBMP for ITC refers to informal contacts with French authorities regarding a single shared catchment; in addition, according to information recently provided by Italy, documents were exchanged via the national Ministry of Environment.

3.6 Integration with other sectors

Most RBMPs refer to a broad range of existing sectoral plans, in particular the Piani territoriali di coordinamento, co-ordinating territorial plans for land use and development, which are prepared at provincial (i.e. sub-regional) level. Some RBMPs cite rural development plans and energy plans; ITE refers to structural fund programmes. Most RBMPs do not describe the specific interactions with these sectoral plans; however, in a few cases, such as the RBMP for ITC, individual measures are linked to rural development plans.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts

A court ruling[17] has been issues against Italy by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for failing to submit the reports required under Article 5 of the Directive, on Characterisation of the River Basin Districts, review of the environmental impacts of human activity and economic analysis of water use. Italy has since complied and the case is closed.

4.1 Water categories in the RBD

Each of Italy’s RBMPs includes all four water categories (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters).

4.2 Typology of surface waters

A national system for typologies is set out in national legislation[18], based on system B of the WFD. National legislation calls for the validation of typologies with biological data, as well as methods for the establishment of reference conditions.[19] The 2010 RBMPs do not, however, provide information on validation of surface water types with biological data; the plan for ITB refers to work in progress in this area. Nor do the RBMPs refer to reference sites. The RBMP for ITC mentions ongoing work on this topic in the regions.

According to recent information provided by Italy, reference conditions are provided in DM 260/2010, which is legislation issued after the RBMPs were prepared.

Italy has reported almost 600 surface water body types, the great majority of which are river water bodies (see the table below). While the methodology for the identification of surface water types is set at national level, it appears that separate types have been determined on a hydro-ecoregion basis; however, some regional types are also included in the list found in the 2010 legislation.[20]

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

ITA || 88 || 8 || 10 || 4

ITB || 90 || 13 || 6 || 2

ITC || 63 || 7 || 7 || 7

ITD || 5 || 1 || 1 || 1

ITE || 64 || 7 || 4 || 6

ITF || 107 || 5 || 7 || 10

ITG || 12 || 6 || 10 || 5

ITH || 15 || 4 || 1 || 5

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

Overall, Italy has designated over 8600 surface water bodies (see the table above) of which most are rivers.

Nearly all of the RBMPs refer to the criteria for the delineation of small river, lake or transitional water bodies set out in national legislation[21]. However, for the most part the RBMPs do not provide information on how small water bodies have been addressed.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

ITA || 1853 || 1231 || 40 || 1 || 49 || 13 || 24 || 63 || 123 || 311

ITB || 1906 || 12 || 116 || 14 || 14 || 16 || 2 || 122 || 141 || 566

ITC || 1304 || 28 || 33 || 0 || 11 || 4 || 48 || 19 || 186 || 135

ITD || 51 || 11 || 2 || 4 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 11 || 444

ITE || 501 || 30 || 38 || 10 || 6 || 3 || 22 || 59 || 133 || 260

ITG || 755 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 57 || 0 || 217 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITH || 256 || 15 || 32 || 1 || 31 || 1 || 65 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITF || 1018 || 6960 || 38 || 4 || 12 || 14 || 110 || 24 || 139 || 136

Total || 7644 || 1236 || 300 || 7 || 181 || 6 || 489 || 14 || 733 || 275

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

The RBMPs do not refer to a common approach or criteria to determine significant pressures and impacts. While 2008 Italian legislation identifies key types of pressures to be estimated, it does not describe a method to identify whether they are significant.[22]

Some RBMPs, such as those for ITA and ITC, refer to the use of both numerical tools and expert judgement in pressure analysis; however, they do not provide details on the specific methods used. The RBMP for ITD (Serchio) lists, in a few cases, simple threshold criteria, such as the size of dams. Other RBMPs refer to ongoing work in this area.

While there is limited information on methods in the RBMPs, the data available on WISE shows that determinations of significant pressures have been made in all RBDs. These data indicate that diffuse sources are a significant pressure for almost 40% of surface water bodies, and point sources for over 25%. Water abstraction is a significant pressure for more than 15% of surface water bodies. However, almost 45% of surface water bodies are not subject to significant pressures. Significant differences are seen, however, across the RBDs: for example, diffuse sources are a significant pressure for more than half of the SWBs in ITC (northern Appenines), ITD (Serchio) and ITH (Sicily), but affect less than 30% of the SWBs in ITG (Sardinia).

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

ITA || 1022 || 51.98 || 355 || 18.06 || 572 || 29.09 || 151 || 7.68 || 125 || 6.36 || 490 || 24.92 || 25 || 1.27 || 39 || 1.98 || 394 || 20.04

ITB || 808 || 39.65 || 487 || 23.9 || 784 || 38.47 || 384 || 18.84 || 310 || 15.21 || 45 || 2.21 || 16 || 0.79 || 81 || 3.97 || 13 || 0.64

ITC || 470 || 33.67 || 274 || 19.63 || 769 || 55.09 || 339 || 24.28 || 74 || 5.3 || 65 || 4.66 || 1 || 0.07 || 1 || 0.07 || 66 || 4.73

ITD || 14 || 25.45 || 21 || 38.18 || 39 || 70.91 || 11 || 20 || 5 || 9.09 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 14.55

ITE || 200 || 35.27 || 221 || 38.98 || 194 || 34.22 || 94 || 16.58 || 41 || 7.23 || 7 || 1.23 || 3 || 0.53 || 3 || 0.53 || 8 || 1.41

ITF || 608 || 51.61 || 507 || 43.04 || 439 || 37.27 || 324 || 27.5 || 6 || 0.51 || 281 || 23.85 || 28 || 2.38 || 27 || 2.29 || 10 || 0.85

ITG || 548 || 53.2 || 229 || 22.23 || 277 || 26.89 || 84 || 8.16 || 102 || 9.9 || 0 || 0 || 72 || 6.99 || 43 || 4.17 || 11 || 1.07

ITH || 165 || 42.97 || 181 || 47.14 || 203 || 52.86 || 15 || 3.91 || 20 || 5.21 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3835 || 44.52 || 2275 || 26.41 || 3277 || 38.04 || 1402 || 16.28 || 683 || 7.93 || 888 || 10.31 || 145 || 1.68 || 194 || 2.25 || 510 || 5.92

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

The RBMPs identify a broad range of economic sectors that create pressures. These include: for industry, both abstractions and point source pollution; for agriculture, point and diffuse source pollution from livestock raising, as well as abstractions and diffuse source pollution for crops; coastal works, including for recreation, affecting transition and coastal waters. The information is presented for the most part in general terms: only a few RBMPs describe or list significant pressures for individual water bodies. An example is presented in the sub-basin report for the Ticino River, in ITB: this lists the number of SWBs affected by 25 different types of pressures, from urban wastewater discharges to abstractions to engineering works.

4.5 Protected areas

In Italy, over 11,000 protected areas have been designated, according to information provided to WISE (see the table below).[23] Just over half of these areas are for drinking water abstraction under Art. 7 of the WFD (no information was found on the breakdown of protected areas associated with SWBs and GWBs).

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

ITA || 1774 || 71 || 91 || || 131 || 318 || 272 || 20 || 13 || 18 || 20

ITB || 354 || 46 || 146 || || 121 || 440 || 125 || 3 || 9 || 9 || 69

ITC || 3259 || 594 || 111 || || 173 || 334 || 76 || 7 || 26 || 35 || 14

ITD || 327 || 2 || 10 || || 16 || 23 || || || 1 || 1 || 1

ITE || 253 || 269 || 44 || 6 || 89 || 328 || 105 || 6 || 35 || 48 || 6

ITF || 7 || 1 || 35 || 1 || 6 || 190 || 33 || 1 || 7 || 13 ||

ITG || 49 || 662 || 37 || || 30 || 92 || 107 || 6 || 1 || 17 || 103

ITH || || || || 1 || || || || || || ||

Total || 6023 || 1645 || 474 || 8 || 566 || 1725 || 718 || 43 || 92 || 141 || 213

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[24]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Italy has reported the number of monitoring sites for six of the eight RBDs (see the Table 5.2). In total, over 2900 sites were reported for surface waters, and over 5100 sites for groundwater. The number of surface water monitoring sites is more or less similar to those provided for the European Commission’s 2009 report on monitoring in the EU (a direct comparison is not possible, however, as that report included sites in ITG, though not those in ITH – data for neither RBD are available now).

A larger number of groundwater sites are reported now: greater than 5000, while the 2009 report identified less than 4000. (Italy’s submission for the Commission’s 2009 report on monitoring identified surveillance and operational monitoring stations, though no quantitative stations; the information now in WISE does not differentiate among type of groundwater monitoring station.)

As noted above, in April 2009 the Ministry of Environment issued a decree[25] setting out a detailed approach for monitoring. That same year, a Legislative Decree of the government transposed Directive 2006/118/EC on groundwater, updating methods for the monitoring of groundwater. Many of the RBMPs state that the introduction of these new approaches was underway at the time of their preparation, and thus had not been fully used for the classification of water body status.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

ITA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITB || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITC || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITD || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITF || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITG || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITH || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

ITA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITB || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITC || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITD || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITF || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITG || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITH || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

ITA || 340 || 516 || 14 || 10 || 0 || 93 || 32 || 48 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITB || 365 || 261 || 38 || 48 || 0 || 33 || 0 || 12 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITC || 217 || 149 || 7 || 13 || 2 || 9 || 20 || 189 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITD || 32 || 5 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITE || 115 || 68 || 9 || 16 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 14 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITF || 111 || 277 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total by type of site || 1180 || 1276 || 70 || 89 || 4 || 135 || 53 || 263 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total number of monitoring  sites[26] || 2288 || 176 || 139 || 316 || 5162

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

Ministerial Decree 56/2009 calls for monitoring of all relevant quality elements, and it lists the BQEs to be used in relation to existing pressures and impacts. It specifies that all priority substances should be monitored, and it calls for the monitoring of substances in biota and in sediment (the decree identifies 21 substances to be monitored in sediment).

As noted above, this decree’s updated approach was being introduced at the time of the RBMPs, and information on monitoring is not always clear. For several RBDs, such as ITC and ITF, all QEs are cited for surveillance monitoring in the WISE summary; however, in these cases, the full RBMP reports do not specify which QEs were monitored prior to 2009. For other RBDs, the information reported suggests that not all QEs were monitored. For ITB, hydro-morphological elements are only reported at an aggregated level and details for the specific QEs are not provided. For ITE, only hydro-morphological QEs are reported for coastal and transition waters.

Similar gaps are seen for several other areas of monitoring covered in the decree. For priority substances, for example, the RBMP for ITB cites the list provided in DM 56/2009; however, several other RBMPs refer to the decree without specifying the substances it lists. A similar issue is seen for the monitoring of sediments in coastal and transitional waters: while this is set out in the 2009 decree, only the RBMPs for ITG and ITH provide details. It appears, moreover, that grouping was by and large not applied in the monitoring used to prepare RBMPs: it is mentioned for few monitoring programmes, such as one in ITC for rivers.

Overall, more than half of the surface water bodies in Italy have not been classified (see Section 6 below), and this may be linked to the changes underway in the approach to monitoring and classification at the time that the RBMPs were in preparation.

Regarding international cooperation, Italy has had consultations with Slovenia to define a coordinated monitoring programme for shared catchments in ITA. The RBMP for ITB does not detail international monitoring work, though subsequent information provided by Italy mentions joint monitoring activities under the agreement between Italy and Switzerland. No information was found regarding cooperation with France on monitoring in ITB or ITC.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

It appears that all RBDs have both surveillance and operational monitoring programmes for groundwater, and these cover both quantitative and chemical status. For example, the overview report for ITB refers to 1900 monitoring points, of which 575 gather information on chemical status, 301 on quantitative status, and the remainder cover both areas.[27]

Operational monitoring was not appropriate at the time of establishing the first RBMPs to classify the status therefore a new monitoring network was reported to be under development. There was no link between monitoring and pressures. Detecting trends is the aim of the monitoring but it was not implemented yet in the first plans.

Italy’s 2009 legislation sets out approaches to detect significant and sustained upward trends. Little information on this topic was found in the RBMPs; however, in ITC it is noted that significant upward trends had been detected in two groundwater bodies, indicating that at least to some extent this had been monitored.

Italy has consulted with Slovenia regarding groundwater monitoring; moreover, according to recent information provided by Italy, transboundary projects on groundwater monitoring have been launched with Slovenia, financed by the cross-border cooperation programme under EU structural funds. Italy does not share groundwater bodies with Austria, France or Switzerland.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

For the most part, the RBMPs do not indicate separate monitoring programmes for protected areas; rather, this type of monitoring is integrated in regular programmes. (Exceptions are seen in ITB and ITC, where separate programmes monitor fish protected areas.)

Italy’s submissions to WISE provide information on the number of monitoring sites associated with protected areas (groundwater sites associated with drinking water abstraction were not reported for ITG and ITH). For some categories, the new data are quite different from those provided in the 2009 report. No bathing water sites were listed then, but the number of fish and shellfish monitoring sites was about three times higher. About 20% fewer urban wastewater monitoring sites are listed now, while the number of groundwater monitoring sites associated with drinking water abstraction is three times higher than the previous information.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

ITA || 55 || 34 || 44 || 120 || 193 || 156 || 288 || 69 || 276 || 131

ITB || 19 || 33 || 11 || 118 || 147 || 197 || 319 || 18 || 167 || 595

ITC || 8 || 59 || 113 || 50 || 117 || 186 || 64 || 23 || 158 || 525

ITD || 0 || 1 || 1* || 1 || 10 || 21 || 3 || 1* || 3 || 31

ITE || 101 || 5 || 40 || 65 || 63 || 122 || 56 || 8* || 84 || 208

ITF || 1 || 16 || 4 || 100 || 205 || 112 || 82 || 2 || 196 || 155

ITG || 0 || 0 || 49* || 0 || 0 || 80* || 7* || 0 || 60* || 0

ITH || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 184 || 148 || 262 || 454 || 735 || 874 || 819 || 121 || 944 || 1645

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas[28].

Note: *Number of monitoring sites reported at programme level.

Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

Almost one-quarter of all surface water bodies in Italy have been assessed as being at good ecological status; and 1% are at high status (see Table below). For just over half of Italian surface water bodies, however, the status has not been determined: this includes all the waters in ITG and ITH. There are important variations across the RBMP (See also section 7 below).

Larger differences in assessment, however, are seen across regions (including the two autonomous provinces): in 7 of Italy’s regions, the status of all SWBs is reported as unknown (in an eighth, it is known for less than 4% of SWBs); in 7 other regions, however, the status of less than 15% of SWBs is unknown. This occurs across RBDs – ITB, for example, includes a region where the ecological status of only one SWB is unknown (Emilia-Romagna) as well as a region where the ecological status is unknown for all SWBs (Piedmont). These differences highlight the importance of the regions as the underlying entities for WFD implementation, rather than the RBDs.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

ITA || 1479 || 53 || 3.6 || 542 || 36.6 || 114 || 7.7 || 26 || 1.8 || 6 || 0.4 || 738 || 49.9

ITB || 1595 || 23 || 1.4 || 493 || 30.9 || 270 || 16.9 || 95 || 6.0 || 15 || 0.9 || 699 || 43.8

ITC || 1008 || 1 || 0.1 || 626 || 62.1 || 208 || 20.6 || 46 || 4.6 || 10 || 1.0 || 117 || 11.6

ITD || 44 || 4 || 9.1 || 21 || 47.7 || 14 || 31.8 || 5 || 11.4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITE || 476 || 8 || 1.7 || 84 || 17.6 || 95 || 20.0 || 24 || 5.0 || 0 || 0 || 265 || 55.7

ITF || 785 || 0 || 0 || 17 || 2.2 || 8 || 1.0 || 2 || 0.3 || 0 || 0 || 758 || 96.6

ITG || 999 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 999 || 100

ITH || 34 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 34 || 100

Total || 6420 || 89 || 1.4 || 1783 || 27.7 || 709 || 11.0 || 198 || 3.1 || 31 || 0.5 || 3610 || 56.2

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

ITA || 487 || 1 || 0.2 || 80 || 16.4 || 41 || 8.4 || 38 || 7.8 || 10 || 2.1 || 317 || 65.1

ITB || 442 || 1 || 0.2 || 79 || 17.9 || 146 || 33.0 || 121 || 27.4 || 12 || 2.7 || 83 || 18.8

ITC || 388 || 0 || 0 || 93 || 24.0 || 153 || 39.4 || 97 || 25.0 || 16 || 4.1 || 29 || 7.5

ITD || 11 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 27.3 || 5 || 45.5 || 3 || 27.3 || 0 || 0

ITE || 69 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1.4 || 12 || 17.4 || 3 || 4.3 || 1 || 1.4 || 52 || 75.4

ITF || 182 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 182 || 100

ITG || 31 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 31 || 100

ITH || 29 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 29 || 100

Total || 1639 || 2 || 0.1 || 253 || 15.4 || 355 || 21.7 || 264 || 16.1 || 42 || 2.6 || 723 || 44.1

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

ITB || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITE || 22 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 4.5 || 19 || 86.4 || 1 || 4.5 || 1 || 4.5 || 0 || 0

ITF || 211 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 211 || 100

ITH || 321 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 321 || 100

Total || 555 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0.2 || 20 || 3.6 || 1 || 0.2 || 1 || 0.2 || 532 || 95.9

Table 6.3: Ecological status of ‘unknown’ surface water bodies (not specified whether natural, heavily modified or artificial water bodies)

Source: WISE

For over three-quarters of Italy’s surface water bodies, chemical status is unknown, according to the information reported to WISE (see the table below). In each RBD, a majority of SWBs were not assessed, and none were assessed in ITG and ITH. (See also section 9 below.) Here too, there are strong differences across the regions: chemical status is reported as unknown for all SWBs in 9 regions; in contrast, for 2 regions, chemical status is assessed for 85% of SWBs.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

ITA || 1479 || 136 || 9.2 || 14 || 0.9 || 1329 || 89.9

ITB || 1595 || 505 || 31.7 || 90 || 5.6 || 1000 || 62.7

ITC || 1008 || 333 || 33.0 || 55 || 5.5 || 620 || 61.5

ITD || 44 || 2 || 4.5 || 3 || 6.8 || 39 || 88.6

ITE || 476 || 161 || 33.8 || 17 || 3.6 || 298 || 62.6

ITF || 785 || 46 || 5.9 || 6 || 0.8 || 733 || 93.4

ITG || 999 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 999 || 100

ITH || 34 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 34 || 100

Total || 6420 || 1183 || 18.4 || 185 || 2.9 || 5052 || 78.7

Table 6.4: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

ITA || 487 || 99 || 20.3 || 26 || 5.3 || 362 || 74.3

ITB || 442 || 109 || 24.7 || 106 || 24.0 || 277 || 51.4

ITC || 388 || 118 || 30.4 || 89 || 22.9 || 181 || 46.6

ITD || 11 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 27.3 || 8 || 72.7

ITE || 69 || 12 || 17.4 || 2 || 2.9 || 55 || 79.7

ITF || 182 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 182 || 100

ITG || 31 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 31 || 100

ITH || 29 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 29 || 100

Total || 1639 || 338 || 20.6 || 226 || 13.8 || 1075 || 65.6

Table 6.5: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

Over 52% of GWBs are assessed at good quantitative status, according to Italy’s reporting; however, the status is unknown for almost 32% (see the table below). No information was reported for ITG or ITH (See also section 10). The breakdown by region is similar to that for the chemical status of GWBs.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

ITA || 123 || 95 || 77.2 || 17 || 13.8 || 11 || 8.9

ITB || 141 || 81 || 57.4 || 35 || 24.8 || 25 || 17.7

ITC || 186 || 106 || 57 || 75 || 40.3 || 5 || 2.7

ITD || 11 || 7 || 63.6 || 4 || 36.4 || 0 || 0

ITE || 133 || 43 || 32.3 || 45 || 33.8 || 45 || 33.8

ITF || 139 || 27 || 19.4 || 17 || 12.2 || 95 || 68.3

Total || 733 || 359 || 49 || 193 || 26.3 || 181 || 24.7

Table 6.6: Chemical status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

ITA || 123 || 68 || 55.3 || 2 || 1.6 || 53 || 43.1

ITB || 141 || 89 || 63.1 || 27 || 19.1 || 25 || 17.7

ITC || 186 || 131 || 70.4 || 50 || 26.9 || 5 || 2.7

ITD || 11 || 8 || 72.7 || 3 || 27.3 || 0 || 0

ITE || 133 || 59 || 44.4 || 20 || 15 || 54 || 40.6

ITF || 139 || 31 || 22.3 || 13 || 9.4 || 95 || 68.3

Total || 733 || 386 || 52.7 || 115 || 15.7 || 232 || 31.7

Table 6.7: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

In total, only 8.3% of Italy’s SWBs were assessed as being of good status in 2009; according to the information reported to WISE the number of good status is expected to increase to 10.1% in 2015. As seen in the previous tables, however, the status of most SWBs was unknown, and no information was reported for ITG or ITH.

For groundwater bodies, almost 37% were assessed as being of good status in 2009, and the share is expected to rise to almost 55% in 2015 (See the table below; these figures do not include ITG and ITH.) In ITB, the share of GWBs of good status is expected to rise from 48% to 80%; in ITE, from almost 25% to over 40%.

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

ITA || 1966 || 68 || 3.5 || 77 || 3.9 || 0.5 || || || || || || || || || 34 || 4 || 0 || 0

ITB || 2038 || 349 || 17.1 || 466 || 22.9 || 5.7 || || || || || || || || || 25 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITC || 1396 || 247 || 17.7 || 256 || 18.3 || 0.6 || || || || || || || || || 36 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITD || 55 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 3.6 || 3.6 || 55 || || || || 55 || || || || 49 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITE || 567 || 39 || 6.9 || 48 || 8.5 || 1.6 || || || || || || || || || 8 || 5 || 0 || 0

ITF || 1178 || 16 || 1.4 || 21 || 1.8 || 0.4 || || || || || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITG || 1030 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITH || 384 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 8614 || 719 || 8.3 || 870 || 10.1 || 1.8 || || || || || || || || || 20 || 1 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[29]

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

ITA || 1479 || 595 || 40.2 || 627 || 42.4 || 2.2 || || || || || 22.2 || 0.9 || 0 || 0

ITB || 1595 || 516 || 32.4 || 651 || 40.8 || 8.5 || || || || || 16.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITC || 1008 || 627 || 62.2 || 645 || 64.0 || 1.8 || || || || || 24.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITD || 44 || 25 || 56.8 || 28 || 63.6 || 6.8 || 44 || 100 || 44 || 100 || 36.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITE || 476 || 92 || 19.3 || 175 || 36.8 || 17.4 || || || || || 8.8 || 2.1 || 0 || 0

ITF || 785 || 17 || 2.2 || 24 || 3.1 || 0.9 || || || || || 0.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITG || 999 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITH || 34 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 6420 || 1872 || 29.2 || 2150 || 33.5 || 4.3 || || || || || 13.9 || 0.4 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[30]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

ITA || 1479 || 136 || 9.2 || 143 || 9.7 || 0.5 || || || || || 7.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITB || 1595 || 505 || 31.7 || 512 || 32.1 || 0.4 || || || || || 9.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITC || 1008 || 333 || 33.0 || 334 || 33.1 || 0.1 || || || || || 16.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITD || 44 || 2 || 4.5 || 3 || 6.8 || 2.3 || || || || || 36.40 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITE || 476 || 161 || 33.8 || 178 || 37.4 || 3.6 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITF || 785 || 46 || 5.9 || 52 || 6.6 || 0.8 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITG || 999 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITH || 34 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 6420 || 1183 || 18.4 || 1222 || 19.0 || 0.6 || || || || || 7.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[31]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

ITA || 123 || 95 || 77.2 || 103 || 83.7 || 6.5 || || || || || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITB || 141 || 81 || 57.4 || 113 || 80.1 || 22.7 || 102 || || 140 || || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITC || 186 || 106 || 57.0 || 142 || 76.3 || 19.4 || || || || || 22 || 2 || 0 || 2

ITD || 11 || 7 || 63.6 || 7 || 63.6 || 0 || 11 || 100 || 11 || 100 || 36 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITE || 133 || 43 || 32.3 || 65 || 48.9 || 16.5 || || || || || 18 || 4 || 0 || 0

ITF || 139 || 27 || 19.4 || 31 || 22.3 || 2.9 || || || || || 9 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITG || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITH || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 733 || 359 || 49.0 || 461 || 62.9 || 13.9 || || || || || 13 || 1 || 0 || 1

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[32]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

ITA || 123 || 68 || 55.3 || 70 || 56.9 || 1.6 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITB || 141 || 89 || 63.1 || 116 || 82.3 || 19.1 || 122 || || 140 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3

ITC || 186 || 131 || 70.4 || 155 || 83.3 || 12.9 || || || || || 14 || 14 || 0 || 7

ITD || 11 || 8 || 72.7 || 8 || 72.7 || 0 || 4 || || || || 27 || 27 || 0 || 0

ITE || 133 || 59 || 44.4 || 63 || 47.4 || 3.0 || || || || || 12 || 12 || 0 || 0

ITF || 139 || 31 || 22.3 || 33 || 23.7 || 1.4 || || || || || 8 || 8 || 0 || 0

ITG || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITH || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 733 || 386 || 52.7 || 445 || 60.7 || 8.0 || || || || || 8 || 8 || 0 || 2

Table 6.12: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[33]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

ITA || 487 || 81 || 16.6 || 86 || 17.7 || 1.1 || || || || || 19.3 || 3.9 || 0 || 0

ITB || 441 || 80 || 18.1 || 115 || 26.1 || 7.9 || 102 || || 140 || || 55.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITC || 388 || 93 || 24.0 || 112 || 28.9 || 4.9 || || || || || 63.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITD || 11 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 100 || 11 || 100 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITE || 69 || 1 || 1.4 || 15 || 21.7 || 20.3 || || || || || 0 || 2.9 || 0 || 0

ITF || 182 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITG || 31 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITH || 29 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1638 || 255 || 15.6 || 328 || 20.0 || 4.4 || || || || || 36.4 || 1.3 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[34]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

ITA || 487 || 99 || 20.3 || 101 || 20.7 || 0.4 || || || || || 5.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITB || 441 || 109 || 24.7 || 111 || 25.2 || 0.5 || || || || || 23.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITC || 388 || 118 || 30.4 || 118 || 30.4 || 0 || || || || || 27.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITD || 11 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 27.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITE || 69 || 12 || 17.4 || 14 || 20.3 || 2.9 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITF || 182 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITG || 31 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

ITH || 29 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1638 || 338 || 20.6 || 344 || 21.0 || 0.4 || || || || || 14.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.14: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[35]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

 

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters 7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

Ministerial Decree No. 56 of 2009 sets out the overall approach for the assessment of ecological status of all water categories. The Decree calls for the use of all biological quality elements, and it also identifies BQEs related to specific physico-chemical impacts, as well as the use of the one-out-all-out principle in the assessment of ecological status. A subsequent, 2010 Decree (DM 260/2010) provides further information, for example on the BQEs most sensitive to major pressures; this was issued, however, after the completion of the RBMPs.

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

The information provided in the RBMPs and WISE on the application of methods is often incomplete. For example, ITB reports the use of supporting QEs in both surveillance and operational monitoring. Information was not found on whether the most sensitive biological quality elements were selected for operational monitoring to assess ecological status. Information was not found on issues such as confidence, precision or uncertainty related to assessment. In general, the system in Italy appears to have been in transition at the time of the RBMPs.

The RBMPs refer to the 2009 Decree; however, most state that its approach is in the process of implementation. According to the national environment agency, some regions had adopted the system by 2008.[36] Nonetheless, many RBMPs refer instead to the use of indices established under previous Italian legislation to determine ecological status: in particular, the SECA (Stato ecologico dei corsi d’acqua, ecological status of waterways), mainly for river water bodies, which uses benthic macro-invertebrates as well as physico-chemical elements; for lakes, the SEL (stato ecologico dei laghi, ecological status of lakes) uses chlorophyll and physico-chemical elements.[37] Moreover, the RBMPs do not refer to the Official Intercalibration Decision (30 October 2008), according to which Italy had intercalibrated benthic invertebrates in rivers and phytoplankton in lakes and coastal waters. It appears that some regions introduced the new approach set out in the 2009 Decree, while others continued to use older methods: as a result, methods appear to have varied within RBDs.

The 2009 decree refers to detailed methods developed by ISPRA (Istituto Superiore per la Ricerca e la Protezione Ambientale, Higher Institute for Environmental Protection and Research); the RBMPs do not, however, identify specific methods used. On this basis, the biological assessment methods are considered to have been under development at the time of the RBMPs. This represents a step forward compared to the situation in 2007, when no information was reported for Italy (see the table below).

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

ITA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITB || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITC || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITD || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITF || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITG || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ITH || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 7.2.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

7.3 River basin specific pollutants

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)

ITA || || ||

ITB || || ||

ITC || || Ammonium || 6.99% of GWBs

ITC || 7440-38-2 || Arsenic || 5.91% of GWBs

ITC || 205-99-2 || Benzo(b)fluoranthene || 0.15% of SWBs

ITC || || Benzo(g.h.i)perylene || 0.38% of SWBs

ITC || || Brominated diphenylether || 0.31% of SWBs

ITC || 7440-43-9 || Cadmium || 0.54% of GWBs

ITC || || Chloride || 9.68% of GWBs

ITC || || Conductivity || 5.38% of GWBs

ITC || 206-44-0 || Fluoranthene || 0.08% of SWBs

ITC || 193-39-5 || Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene || 0.38% of SWBs

ITC || 7439-92-1 || Lead || 2.15% of GWBs; 0.08% of SWBs

ITC || 7439-97-6 || Mercury || 3.23% of GWBs; 1.23% of SWBs

ITC || || Nitrates || 19.35% of GWBs

ITC || || Pesticides || 1.08% of GWBs

ITC || || Sulphate || 3.76% of GWBs

ITC || 127-18-4 || Tetrachloroethylene || 3.76% of GWBs

ITC || || Tributylin compounds || 0.15% of SWBs

ITC || 79-01-6 || Trichloroethylene || 1.08% of GWBs

ITD || || ||

ITE || || ||

ITF || || ||

ITG || || ||

ITH || || ||

Table 7.3.1: River basin specific pollutants causing failure of status

Source: RBMPs

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

In 2007, the Commission noted that ‘Italy reported unclear data’ for HMWBs and AWBs.[38] In the reporting for the RBMPs, the number of designated HMWBs/AWBs is provided for 7 of the 8 river basin districts. In total 734 HMWBs and 699 AWBs have been designated.

Information on methodologies to designate HMWBs/AWBs varies across RBMPs and also within. The indications in Italian legislation are brief,[39] and national guidance has not been developed on this subject. Several plans refer to the use of the CIS Guidance document N°4. For ITA, the approach for designation is described separately and with varying detail for each region and autonomous province in the RBD, though a clear stepwise approach is not provided.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

Information was not found in the RBMPs regarding the methodology for defining GEP, though several plans mentioned work underway at national level. It appears that some plans provisionally defined GEP with reference to GES. Since the RBMPs were published, Italian legislation has set out an approach for GEP of reservoirs based on the analysis of phytoplankton, similar to the approach for natural lakes.[40]

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

Although the definition used for GEP is not clear, Italy has reported assessment results for HMWBs and AWBs in several river basin districts.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters

Ministerial Decree no. 56/2009 sets out the substances and standards listed in Annex I of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQSD). The Decree calls for the consideration of background concentrations as well as bioavailability factors of metals, and for the monitoring of biota and sediments (it sets EQSs for sediment). It also presents an approach for monitoring in mixing zones.

As noted above, the approach set out in DM 56/2009 was in the process of being introduced at the time of the RBMPs. While the plans cite this piece of legislation, many also refer to prior Italian legislation. For example, the RBMP for ITB refers to the list of EQS set in Ministerial Decree 367 of 2003: this list includes the substances subsequently found in Annex I of the EQSD, and others as well.

As a result of the transition underway, it is not always clear which substances were monitored and used for the determined of good chemical status; moreover, monitoring programmes are by and large carried out at regional level, and as a result there are differences in approach across and within RBDs. Information recently provided by Italy refers, in fact, to the creation of working groups in several RBDs to tackle common monitoring and classification isssues.

Nor is it clear the extent to which the other provisions of the new legislation were implemented, though several RBMPs, such as those for ITG and ITH, specifically refer to the monitoring of biota. 

A few of the RBMPs – in particular ITA, ITB and ITC – provided information on specific substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status (see the Table below).

Substance || ITA || ITB || ITC || ITD || ITE || ITF* || ITG* || ITH*

Cadmium || ü || ü || || || ü || || ||

Nickel || || ü || ü || ü || || || ||

Diuron || || ü || || || || || ||

Atrazine || || ü || || || || || ||

1,2-Dichloroethane || || ü || || || || || ||

Dichloroethane || || ü || || || || || ||

Flouranthene || || ü || ü || || || || ||

Benzo(b)fluoranthene || || ü || ü || || || || ||

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene || || ü || ü || || || || ||

Lead || ü || ü || ü || || ü || || ||

Brominated diphenylether || || || ü || || || || ||

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene || || || ü || || || || ||

Tributyltin compounds || || || ü || || || || ||

Mercury || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ||

Alachlor || ü || ü || || || || || ||

Chlorpyriphos || ü || || || || || || ||

Pentachlorophenol || ü || || || || || || ||

Table 9.1: Substances responsible for exceedances

* No data found for ITF, ITG, ITH

Source: RBMPs

10. Assessment of groundwater status

Several RBMPs provide an overview of key pressures and risks for groundwater status. The information is very general and often on a district-wide level.

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

National Legislative Decree no. 30 of 2009, transposing Directive 2006/118/EC, sets out a clear approach for determining groundwater quantitative status. It refers, for example, to all the criteria in Annex V of the Directive, thus addressing the impacts of abstractions as well as possible damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems.

The RBMPs cite this 2009 decree – however, it appears that its provisions were still being introduced. For example, the RBMP for ITB only makes clear reference to one of the criteria in Annex V for good quantitative status, the long-term average rate of abstraction. The RBMP for ITE refers both to this and to impacts on the status of surface waters.

Thus, it does not appear that all criteria were considered in the RBMPs: for example, the plans do not refer to the consideration of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

National Legislative Decree no. 30 of 2009 also sets out the approach for assessing groundwater chemical status. It establishes threshold values for all the substances listed in Annex II Part B of Directive 2006/118/EC. It calls, for example, for the consideration of associated surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems in the assessment process. The 2009 decree also provides an approach for determining chemical status when threshold values are exceeded at some but not all monitoring points; a method for considering trend assessments and trend reversals; and also a method for addressing background concentrations.

While the RBMPs cite the decree, by and large they do not establish whether its methods were used in monitoring of GWBs or in their status assessment: for many RBDs the original plans and the reporting to WISE provide few details on methods.

10.3 Protected areas

Information reported in WISE on the status of groundwater drinking protected areas is fragmentary. In ITA, 687 out of 776 such areas have good status; however, in ITB, only 4 such areas are reported (1 is of good status).

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

ITA || 687 || ||

ITB || 1 || || 1

ITF || 1 || ||

Total || 689 || 0 || 1

Table 10.3.1: Number and status of groundwater drinking water protected areas.

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

The information found in the RBMPs on the environmental objectives and exemptions for water bodies is fragmentary.

Based on the information for SWBs, it appears that information is complete only for ITD (Serchio). Information on objectives was not found for three RBMPs. Four of Italy’s eight RBMPs refer to the use of Art. 4.4 exemptions; only for ITA, however, are other types of exemptions cited – in this case, Art. 4.5.

RBD || Total no. of SWBs || Percent of SWBs at good status || SWB exemptions (percent of all SWBs)

Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027 || Art. 4.4 || Art. 4.5 || Art. 4.6 || Art. 4.7

ITA || 1966 || 34 || 57 || 75 || 75 || 34 || 4 || ||

ITB || 2038 || || || || || 25 || || ||

ITC || 1396 || 52 || || || || 36 || || ||

ITD || 55 || 44 || 51 || 100 || 100 || 49 || || ||

ITE || 567 || 29 || || || || 8 || 5 || ||

ITF || 1178 || || || || || || || ||

ITG || 1030 || || 72 || || || || || ||

ITH || 384 || || || || || || || ||

Table 11.1: Objectives and exemptions for surface water bodies

Source: WISE

For groundwater bodies as well, information appears to be incomplete (see the table below). In four of Italy’s RBDs, no exemptions have been identified for either SWBs or GWBs.

RBD || Total no. of GWBs || Percentage of GWBs at good status || GWB exemptions (percentage of all GWBs)

Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027 || Art. 4.4 || Art. 4.5 || Art. 4.6 || Art. 4.7

ITA || 123 || 55 || || || || 10 || || ||

ITB || 141 || 63 || 82 || 86 || 99 || 2 || || || 3

ITC || 186 || 97 || || || || 14 || 14 || || 7

ITD || 11 || 0 || 64 || 100 || || 36 || 27 || ||

ITE || 133 || 39 || || || || || || ||

ITF || 139 || 22 || || || || || || ||

ITG || || || || || || || || ||

ITH || || || || || || || || ||

Table 11.2:  Objectives and exemptions for groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

Further differences are seen in data at regional level. In fact, no exemptions were identified for SWBs in 8 regions as well as the 2 autonomous provinces; no exemptions for GWBs were identified in 8 regions and 1 autonomous province. In many cases, these are regions where status assessments are not complete.

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

Protected areas for drinking water, shellfish, bathing water and Natura 2000 sites have been designated in most of the RBDs.

For drinking water areas, Italian legislation sets more stringent planning requirements in the vicinity of such areas (D.Lgs 152/2006, Art. 94) and additional monitoring requirements (DM 56/2006); in addition, the regions are to classify surface water bodies for drinking water and provide treatment in accordance with the classification (D.Lgs 152/2006, annex).

For shellfish areas, additional objectives are set in D.Lgs 152/2006: an annex reproduces the annexes of the EU Shellfish Directive which suggests that the additional objectives are incorporated into the RBMPs.. For bathing water, Italy has set additional objectives through its transposition of the Bathing Water Directive. Information was not found in the RBMPs on additional objectives for Natura 2000 sites. 

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

In total, exemptions have been reported for 1838 water bodies in Italy, about 21% of the total. Most exemptions are under Art. 4.4 (extension of the deadline for meeting good status), and less than 10% under Art. 4.5 (lower objective). No exemptions under Art. 4.6 or 4.7 were reported. Moreover, no exemptions under the Groundwater Directive were reported.

Under Art. 4.4, technical infeasibility is cited for a great majority of the exemptions; disproportionate costs are cited for about half. Under Art. 4.5, disproportionate costs are cited for most of the cases, and technical infeasibility for about half.

Many surface and groundwater bodies in Italy have not been assessed, however (see section 6, above), including all of the water bodies in ITG and ITH. Only one RBMP provides information on the methodology for determining disproportionate costs: ITB presents a case study.

RBD || Global[41]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

ITA || 622 || 78 || 30 || 42 || 14 || -

ITB || 501 || 0 || 314 || 0 || 6 || -

ITC || 499 || 0 || 452 || 0 || 0 || -

ITD || 27 || 0 || 27 || 0 || 0 || -

ITE || 46 || 26 || 4 || 12 || 0 || -

ITF || 4 || 1 || 1 || 10 || 0 || -

ITG || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

ITH || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

Total || 1699 || 105 || 828 || 55 || 20 || -

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[42] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

All of the RBMPs include a Programme of Measures (PoM). These Programmes identify individual measures and classify them in terms of priority areas of action. For example, the priorities for ITG include balancing water resources and demand and strengthening flood protection. The RBMPs do not indicate that the status assessments of surface water and groundwater bodies were used to identify their Programmes of Measures.

It appears that many measures listed in the RBMPs are drawn from previous plans, such as the regional Water Protection Plans. This is clearly shown in the PoM for ITA, which lists the plans that are the original sources of the measures. For ITB, the PoM distinguishes between measures from previous plans and new measures. As these prior plans addressed EU water legislation, in many cases they provide basic measures for the RBMPs.

A few RBMPs provide cost information on the plans: for ITB, these are listed in terms of measures identified in previous plans and new measures (each category is estimated at slightly above 5 billion Euro). Total costs are provided for ITE (about 1.5 billion Euro) and ITF (under 100 million Euro).  For ITG, the RBMP states that costs will be determined in the near future. Information on financing is available for only a few plans: for ITB, for example, total available financing is indicated – and is less than the total cost of the measures.

In terms of geographic scope, many measures presented in the RBMPs have a basin-wide scope; it should be noted, however, that the RBMPs for the most part identify regional authorities as those responsible for the measures.

Some RBMPs, such as the ITE, also note measures at sub-basin level and, in a few cases, water body level. For ITB, a series of sub-basin reports were prepared. Some of these, such as the report for the Crostolo River basin, list measures that include individual investments, for example in UWWT plants, related to specific water bodies.

The RBMP for ITA refers to bilateral coordination on the Programme of Measures on shared catchments with Austria, Slovenia and Switzerland. Similar information was not found for ITB or ITC, however.

A few RBMPs provide a timetable for the measures. For ITF, measures are divided into short-term actions to 2013, medium-term actions to 2015, and long-term actions for the next cycle. Two RBMPs indicate that the measures are not fully defined. For ITA, the RBMP reports that from 2010-2013, the plan will be updated with new assessment results; it is not clear how this will influence implementation of the measures; in ITD, the measures are described as ‘approximate’, to be updated with further monitoring results.

According to information recently provided by Italy, ‘operational programmes’ have been under preparation, and these are to elaborate information not provided in the current PoMs. 

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

All RBMPs refer to agriculture as a significant pressure due to diffuse pollution and abstractions. The WISE Summary for ITC, for example, indicates that diffuse pollution from agriculture is a significant pressure for 27% of the surface water bodies, and the sector’s abstractions are a significant pressure for 23% of groundwater bodies. In contrast, point source pollution and hydromorphological pressures from agriculture are cited in only some RBMPs: for ITC, ITG and ITH, for example, it appears that agricultural point sources have not been identified as an important pressure.

The extent of the sector’s involvement in the preparation of the RBMPs varies. Several RBMPs mention consultation of farmers’ associations in the stakeholder process; in ITB, one thematic meeting for the plan covered agriculture. 

Measures || ITA || ITB || ITC || ITD || ITE || ITF || ITG || ITH

Technical measures || || || || || || || ||

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü || || || || ü ||

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü || || ü || || || ü || ||

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ü || ü || ü || || || ü || ü || ü

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü

Measures against soil erosion || || || || || || || ü ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Technical measures for water saving in agriculture || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Economic instruments || || || || || || || ||

Compensation for land cover || || || || || || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || || || || || ü || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || ü || || ü || ü || || ü || ü ||

Nutrient trading || || || || || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || || || || || || ||

Non-technical measures || || || || || || || ||

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || || ü || || || || || || ü

Institutional changes || || ü || || || ü || || ü ||

Codes of agricultural practice || ü || ü || ü || || || || ü ||

Farm advice and training || ü || || || || || || ||

Raising awareness of farmers || || || ü || || || || ||

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || || ü || ü || ü || || ü || ü ||

Certification schemes || ü || || ü || || || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || ü || || || || ü || ü ||

Specific action plans/programmes || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü

Land use planning || || || || || || || || ü

Technical standards || || || || || || || ||

Specific projects related to agriculture || ü || ü || || || || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || ü || || ü || ü || || || ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

The Programmes of Measures identify a broad range of measures to address pressures arising from agriculture. In particular, many technical measures are identified. Six PoMs have measures to promote low-input agriculture. Seven PoMs refer to hydromorphological measures: examples include the definition of minimum flow regimes and of water management policies for droughts (ITH). All the PoMs refer to multi-objective measures, though these vary greatly, from the requalification of drainage canals for ecological improvement (ITC) to the creation of buffer zones (ITG and others). All of the PoMs include measures for water savings in agriculture, highlighting the importance of this sector’s abstractions. (Other measures may also influence water use in agriculture, such as those for minimum flows, noted under hydromorphological measures.)

For economic instruments, only the PoM for ITF refers to co-operative measures. Five PoMs refer to water pricing measures for the agriculture sector.

A range of non-technical measures are cited in the PoMs: in six cases, greater controls are mentioned (often specifically related to abstractions). Six PoMs refer to specific action plans and programmes. These vary greatly: for ITF, examples include management plans for periods of water crisis and reform of irrigation systems.

Little information is provided on costs or financing for agricultural measures, though several RBMPs – for example ITH and ITG – mention the use of the Rural Development Fund.

No substantial information regarding the scope of the measures or the timing of the implementation could be found.

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

All the Italian RBMPs include measures related to hydromorphology. The links between these measures and the water use or pressure they address are mostly described in broad terms; links are not specified for all measures. In ITC, for example, measures address residual flow from water supply and storage, in particular irrigation, and modifications to the substrate of rivers for gravel extraction. Measures in ITG refer to several types of uses and pressures, including dams and other constructions, related to hydropower and water supply and storage, as well as bank reinforcement and channelisation for flood protection.

In at least two RBMPs, some measures are directed at both natural water bodies and HMWBs/AWBs: this is the case, for example, for buffer zones in ITB. In ITC, a measure will develop management plans for reservoirs.

Five RBMPs refer to measures for habitat restoration (see table below). In addition, five refer to measures for sediment/debris management: in most cases, this refers to management of gravel extraction.

All the RBMPs refer to measures for ecological flow regimes – in particular, to implementing, refining or enforcing minimum flow rules in response to national requirements. National guidelines on minimum flows – notably a 2004 ministerial decree – include among the criteria the maintenance of physical, physico-chemical and biological conditions.[43] National legislation or guidance was not found, however, on other issues related to hydromorphology.

Measures || ITA || ITB || ITC || ITD || ITE || ITF || ITG || ITH

Fish ladders || || ü || || ü || || || ||

Bypass channels || || || || || || || ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || ||

Sediment/debris management || || ü || ü || ü || || || ü || ü

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || || ü || || || || || || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || || ü || || || || || ||

Lowering of river banks || || || || || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü || || || || ü || ü || ||

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || || || || || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || || || || || || || ||

Construction of retention basins || || || || || || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || || || ü || || || || ü ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || ü || || || || || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || || || ü || || || || ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

Many measures related to groundwater target specific pressures, such as over-exploitation, and many refer to the sectors driving these pressures: abstraction for irrigation, for example, is frequently cited. However, the measures for the most part are at RBD or sub-basin level and not related to specific water bodies; detailed links between risks, impacts, pressures and measures are not provided.

Most RBMPs include both basic and supplementary measures to address over-exploitation of groundwater.[44] Among the basic measures, the RBMP for ITA foresees changes in the tariffs of water use and studies on aquifer recharge and rainwater harvesting; several RBMPs, such as ITC and ITF, have measures to strengthen the quantitative monitoring of groundwater; and ITC also refers to the implementation of regional water conservation plans. Moreover, a number of RBDs will undertake studies on groundwater resources.

Supplementary measures include limits to abstractions in ITA.

· ITA, ITB, ITC and ITF have measures to promote water conservation in agriculture;

· Several RBMPs, including ITB, ITC and ITH, have measures to strengthen controls on abstractions;

· A number of RBMPs have measures to improve their database of abstractions.

A range of measures are included regarding chemical status. Basic measures that are cited include: aquifer vulnerability mapping to curtail pollution from agricultural sources; identification and zoning of areas vulnerable to nitrates; identification of aquifer protection zones; hazardous substances training for farmers. The supplementary measures vary: in ITB, this includes the reduction of the discharge of hazardous substances and the strengthening of controls on existing wells to reduce risks of pollution in deep aquifers.

Co-ordination with neighbouring Member States is seen in ITA, where one measure refers to the development of common monitoring of trans-boundary GWBs. (Trans-boundary GWBs are not found in ITB or ITC.)

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

Only a couple of RBMPs provide information for an inventory of the sources of chemical pollution: for ITA, there is a list of UWWT plants and industrial facilities that are major point sources; for ITB, an inventory of UWWT plants is provided. For ITG, a study of potential dangerous substances affecting the RBD was undertaken, via an inventory of industrial facilities as well as current and past waste management sites.

Other RBMPs indicate the total load of major pollutants from key sectors but do not provide detailed inventories.

A variety of measures are identified in the RBMPs to address chemical pollution:

· Measures to address contaminated sites are identified in ITA and ITB;

· Some RBMPs, including ITC and ITE, contain measures to strengthen UWWT plants;

· A few, including ITE and ITH, have measures to reduce point and diffuse source pollution from agriculture;

· A number of plans, such as ITF and ITH refer to improving information systems;

· ITA includes measures specifically addressed at the chemical industry (in particular on the Lagoon of Venice).

Only ITC, however, lists substance-specific measures (directed at 16 substances).

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

Italy has defined water services in national legislation (D.Lgs 152/2006, Art. 74(oo)): ‘any services that furnish families, public bodies or any economic activities with: extraction, embankment, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters or groundwater; 2) structures for the collection and treatment of waste waters, which are subsequently discharged in surface waters’. The definition is broad as it covers households as well as all types of economic activities (thus both industry and agriculture) and it includes embankment and storage of water.

National legislation calls for the implementation of the principle of cost recovery for water services by 2010, with prices that provide adequate incentives for efficient water use and that take into account environmental and resource costs (D.Lgs 152/2006, Art. 119); economic analysis should include investment costs (D.Lgs 152/2006, including its Annex 10). However, as noted in the RBMP for ITC, the transition from previous approaches – in which pricing mainly covered operating costs – was still underway when the RBMPs were in preparation.

There is no information on the calculation and inclusion to the cost recovery calculation of environmental and resource costs.

Information provided on existing cost recovery levels varies. The RBMP for ITB presents a detailed methodology and calculations for contribution to cost recovery by agriculture, industry and households, based on case studies. These calculations are made for both operating and capital costs. In this RBD, it appears that prices set for households and agriculture by and large cover operating costs for water supply (and, for households, wastewater treatment). Industry covers its own costs for water supply and wastewater treatment. Other RBMPs provide less information; many do not provide any, though several (such as ITA) describe methodologies to be used in further work.

According to information recently provided by Italy, legislation now in preparation will advance the implementation of the cost recovery principles set out in the WFD and D.Lgs 152/2006. This legislation will also designate a national body to oversee prices set by water services.

Despite the above mentioned national legislation requirements for the implementation of pricing policy to provide adequate incentives for efficient water use, the implementation of incentive pricing is not explained in RBMPs.

Information on the application of flexibility provisions or provisions of art. 9(4) of the WFD , as well as on international cooperation regarding the implementation of Art. 9 were not found.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

Most RBMPs provide for additional measures in protected areas. In particular, many refer to Natura 2000 sites: for example, ITB and ITC both have measures for the preparation of site management plans; ITG refers to the establishment of these sites, and ITH to improved information on them. One RBMP, for ITG, has a measure to improve monitoring of bathing water.

Most the RBMPs refer to the establishment of safeguard areas for drinking water collection areas. In addition, the RBMP for ITC indicates that regions are adopting specific legislation for these areas.

The RBMPs do not, however, identify the specific water bodies where these additional measures are to be applied.

Even when additional objectives coming from the Shellfish Directive have been incorporated to meet national legislative decrees, no specific information on additional measures in Shellfish PAs is given in the RBMPs.

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts and flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Droughts have affected Italy in recent years: in the summer of 2003, for example, essentially the whole country faced drought conditions. Several RBMPs, including ITA (Eastern Alps) and ITG (Sicily) acknowledge the importance of droughts. Water scarcity affects many parts of Italy’s river basins: for example, many RBMPs note that groundwater abstractions in certain areas exceed the sustainable recharge rate.

A few RBMPs present data on drought trends. One example is ITG (Sardinia), where the RBMP contains a section on drought management that presents historical data, such as on the water levels of reservoirs.

All the RBMPs identify measures to address water scarcity and drought (though not all refer identify the measures as responses to these issues). These include:

· Measures to improve water efficiency in agriculture are seen in most RBMPs;

· The re-use of treated wastewater, in particular in agriculture, is also identified in most RBMPs;

· A few RBMPs, such as those for ITA and ITG, include measures to reduce losses in urban distribution networks;

· Improved water metering and changes to water pricing are noted in most RBMPs;

· Measures to improve water governance are also common;

· A few RBMPs, such as ITE, include the development of Drought Management Plans;

· ITE also gives high importance to water transfer schemes, and these are also indicated in ITF; in ITG, improvements to reservoirs and water networks are cited.

Information was not found on international aspects of droughts and water scarcity, or on international co-ordination.

According to information recently provided by Italy, further work is underway to address water scarcity and droughts: in ITB and ITD, for example, Piani di bilancio idrico (Water balance plans) are in preparation.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

The RBMPs by and large make few references to floods and flood risk management, though many mention the Floods Directive.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

All the RBMPs refer to climate change impacts, though most do so in very general terms. For ITB, the RBMP notes impacts on the Alps and on coastal zones. ITC describes the expected effect of IPCC forecasts for the RBD. For ITD and ITF, climate change is addressed in the SEAs of the plans. ITE mentions climate change as a future pressure on water availability across the RBD.

Two RBMPs include measures related to climate change: for example, ITB refers to measures to address agricultural water use as well as integrating climate change scenarios into river basin management planning.

Climate check of the Programmes of Measures was not performed.

A national strategy for climate change adaptation was not in place when the RBMPs were in preparation; however, preparatory steps have recently been taken to establish one.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning, as set out in the WFD, should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and, as a result, that interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· The transition of the RBD authorities from a provisional to a permanent system should be completed and it should be ensured that these cover the entire area of the relevant RBD.

· Methods are effectively coordinated between the regions at the level of the RBD in order to achieve water management at the river basin level instead of management according to administrative boundaries.

· Monitoring is an important part of river basin planning and affects the quality and effectiveness of subsequent steps. The current monitoring gaps for BQEs, supporting quality elements and priority substances should be addressed.

· Quantitative aspects for surface and groundwater should be properly taken into account during the monitoring and assessment phases.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, and where there are exceedances how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.

· The plans should state clearly which priority substances have been measured where, and in which matrix, and monitoring should be extended where necessary to ensure that the chemical status of all water bodies can be assessed. The assessment should be based on the EQS in the EQSD, including the biota EQS for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene unless EQS for water that provide an equivalent level of protection have been derived.  Trend monitoring in sediment or biota for at least the substances specified in EQSD Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.

· The high percentage of water bodies that have an unknown status prevents effective planning and comparability with other Member States. WFD compliant assessment methods should be used taking into account the work on intercalibration.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· The absence of objectives in some RBDs is problematic and should be addressed.

· The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans.

· It is unclear whether there are new physical modifications planned in RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so the approach to achieve the objectives is clear and the ambition in the PoM is transparent. All the relevant information on basic and supplementary measures should be included in the summary of the PoM to ensure transparency on the planned actions for the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in the WFD.

· Many measures in the Programmes of Measures originate from other existing plans and no clear link between measures and status assessment is made. In order to address this, the gaps in the steps leading to the Programme of Measures such as monitoring and status classification should be addressed. This is important in order to implement measures where they are needed to reach the WFD objectives.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resource in most Italian RBDs, both from point and diffuse source pollution from livestock raising, as well as abstractions, hydro-morphological pressures and diffuse source pollution for crops. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farming community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately advised and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

· In order to function as a framework document for water management it is important that all additional measures to reach additional objectives for protected areas are included in the Programmes of Measures.

[1]     European Commission - http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/italy/index_en.htm

[2]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[3]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[5]     Sources: Web sites of the provisional RBD Authorities; web site of the state/regions council.

[6]     In particular, Legislative Decree (D.Lgs) no. 152 of 1999.

[7]     Notably, in Sardinia (ITG) and Sicily (ITH), both Piani di Tutela and RBMPs are prepared, even though these two RBDs each correspond to one region.

[8]     Published in the Gazzetta ufficiale on 30 May 2009. The Decree amends annexes to Legislative Decree 152 of 2006.

[9]     DM 260/2010 was published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale in published Feb. 2011.

[10]    Italy has 20 regions; in the region of Trentino-Alto Adige, however, the two autonomous provinces of Trento and Bolzano/Bozen carry out regional functions for water management.

[11]    Law 13 of 27 February 2009.

[12]    The river basins of ‘national interest’ were set up under legislation prior to the transposition of the WFD in D.Lgs 152/2006.

[13]    For the other four RBDs: for ITB, the Po River Basin Authority (an existing river basin of ‘national interest’) prepared the RBMP; the Po River Basin Authority and the forthcoming RBD authority cover the same territory. For ITD, Italy’s smallest RBD, the existing pilot authority covers the whole basin. For ITG and ITH – the islands of Sardinia and Sicily – the regions are designated as the provisional authorities, and their territory coincides with the new RBDs.

[14]    Article 65(4) of Legislative Decree No. 152/2006.

[15]    Based mainly on a review of Legislative Decree No. 152/2006.

[16]    Article 66(7) of Legislative Decree No. 152/2006.

[17] Commission vs. Italy (Case C85/07, ruling of 18.12.2007)

[18]    In particular in Ministerial Decree 131 of 2008, amending Legislative Decree No. 152/2006. In listing reference documents, this Decree cites work by the French Ministry of the Environment on hydro-ecoregions, as Italy appears to have applied a similar approach for the typology of SWBs.

[19]    Found in Ministerial Decree 56 of 2009, amending Legislative Decree No. 152/2006.

[20]    Based on the list of types provided in the appendix to Ministerial Decree 260 of 2010.

[21]    Ministerial Decree 131 of 2008, section C.3.

[22]    DM 131/2008.

[23]    Comparatively few areas were reported for ITF (southern Appenines) and ITH (Sicily), suggesting that the designation process was not completed in these RBDs at the time the RBMPs were prepared.

[24]    This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[25]    Ministerial Decree 56 of 2009.

[26]    The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[27]    Piano di gestione del distretto idrografico del fiume Po, relazione generale, pp. 89-95, 2010

[28]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[29]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[30]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[31]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[32]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[33]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[34]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[35]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[36]    APAT, Environmental Yearbook 2008: Ch. 4 Water Quality, April 2009. 

[37]    SECA is based on two indices, IBE (indice biotico esteso, extended biotic index), which uses benthic macro-invertebrates; and LIM (livello di inquinamento da macrodescrittori, level of pollution from macro-descriptors), based on dissolved O2, BOD5, COD, NH4, NO3, total P and Escherichia Coli). SEL uses transparency, Chlorophyll A, total P and dissolved O. 

[38]    Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2007) 362final.

[39]    DM 131/2008, section B4.

[40]    DM 260/2010, A.4.2.1.

[41] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[42]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

[43]    A requirement for minimum flows is found in Legislative decree No. 152 of 1999. Guidelines are found in DM no. 268 of 2004.

[44]    The exceptions are ITD, which does not have basic measures for this topic; ITF does not have supplementary measures; and ITG has measures but does not distinguish between the two categories.

1.  general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Lithuania’s area equals 65 000 km². The population of Lithuania was 3.2 million as of the beginning of 2011.[1]

Lithuania has 758 rivers, more than 2 800 lakes and 99 km of the Baltic Sea coastline, which are mostly devoted to recreation and nature preservation. Forests cover just over 30% of the country.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || Countries sharing RBD

LT1100 || Nemunas || 48385 (including coastal and transitional waters) || BY, LV, PL (relatively small part), RU

LT3400 || Lielupė || 8948 || LV

LT2300 || Venta || 6276 || LV

LT4500 || Dauguva || 1875 || BY, LV

Table 1.1: Overview of Lithuania’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[2]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/lt/eu/wfdart13

All four RBDs in Lithuania are international, shared with Latvia, Poland, Belarus and the Russian Federation and some degree of co-ordination is on-going. A small part of the mainly Polish RBD Pregolya is managed under the Nemunas RBD.

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

3

km² || %

Daugava/Sapadnaja Dwina || LT4500 || BY, LV || 1862 || 2.2

Lielupe || LT3400 || LV || 8951 || 50.3

Nemunas/Nieman/Neman/Nyoman || LT1100 || BY, LV, PL, RU || 50048 || 51.1

Pregolya || LT1100 || PL || 83 || 0.6

Venta || LT2300 || LV || 5185 || 44.3

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Lithuania[3]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

The Nemunas RBMP and PoM were adopted by Government Order No 1098 of 21 July 2010. The Lielupe, Venta and Dauguva RBMPs and PoMs were adopted by Government Orders No 1618, No 1617 and No 1616 of 17 November 2010. The RBMPs were reported to the Commission in two stages, whereby the last 3 RBMPs were reported in November 2010. Updates were provided to WISE until January 2011 and in January 2012.

Reported plans and data are available on EIONET: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/lt/eu/wfdart13.

2.1  Key strengths of the RBMP

Generally, the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) are of good quality. The RBMPs are developed clearly according to the elements provided in Annex VII to the WFD. The Programme of Measures includes all groups of measures as indicated in Annex VI to the WFD. All major information is also provided according to sub-basins.

The characterisation of the RBDs is very clear. There is overall good availability of methods to assess the ecological status. The measures proposed for addressing hydromorphological pressures are clear and extensive. Various monitoring programmes are defined clearly, except for dangerous substances related monitoring. Agricultural pollution is one of the most important pressures and great attention is devoted to this source of pollution. The affordability of each supplementary measure is assessed. The information about costs is described in a constructive manner, the use of exemptions is transparent and provides the necessary information.

Public participation during the development of the RBMPs was extensive, e.g. with active involvement of relevant stakeholders. However, it is not clear how public views have been taken on board in the final RBMP, i.e. what the impact of such comments on the Plans was.

2.2 Key weaknesses of the RBMP

The PoMs have not been coordinated within the international RBDs, especially with the third countries (Russia and Belarus). The major gap is related to the absence of an international RBMP, which should be produced together with Latvia.

The assessment methods for the classification of ecological status have not yet been developed for all water body types and all biological quality elements. The RBMPs contain a lot of information on the ecological status assessment and groundwater related issues. However, the methodologies used are not described in detail. There is a lack of information regarding dangerous substances (stipulated by unclear legislation and the lack of monitoring on these substances). The chemical status classification is based on insufficient monitoring.

The assessment of chemical status was based on maximum allowable concentrations (MAC) only, and does not include an assessment of exceedances of annual averages (AA).

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

Lithuania proceeded with the adoption of the RBMP for Nemunas according to the timelines of the Directive, and adopted the subsequent three RBMPs with a delay of just under one year.

Consultation as required by Article 14 of the WFD took place as follows:

RBD || Timetable || Work programme || Statement on consultation || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Final RBMP

Due dates || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009

LT1100 || 12/12/2005 || 12/12/2005 || 12/12/2005 || 27/11/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 22/12/2009

LT3400 || 12/12/2005 || 12/12/2005 || 12/12/2005 || 27/11/2007 || 01/07/2009 || 30/09/2010

LT2300 || 12/12/2005 || 12/12/2005 || 12/12/2005 || 27/11/2007 || 01/07/2009 || 30/09/2010

LT4500 || 12/12/2005 || 12/12/2005 || 12/12/2005 || 27/11/2007 || 01/07/2009 || 30/09/2010

Table 3.1.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: WISE

3.2 Administrative arrangements 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Ministry of Environment, has overall responsibility for the administration of all the four RBDs. The EPA is responsible for: delineation of RBDs; delineation of water bodies (including heavily modified and artificial water bodies); collection of information for the Register of Protected Areas and management of the Register; assessment of human pressures on lakes and rivers; assessment of the status, establishment of a system for the classification and definition of objectives for surface water bodies; monitoring of surface waters (the EPA is responsible for the preparation of a monitoring programme, co-ordination of monitoring and complex chemical analysis); public consultation and reporting to the European Commission. Responsibilities for the implementation of the water policy are shared between the Ministry of Environment (MoE) and institutions subordinated to the MoE.

The main responsibilities of the institutions are outlined below:

1. The Ministry of Environment is responsible for organising economic analysis, economic assessment of proposed measures and development of measures related to cost recovery for water services. The MoE coordinates the activities of subordinated institutions to ensure the implementation of river basin management. The MoE is also responsible for drafting and coordinating international agreements in the field of management of international river basin districts.

2. The Lithuanian Geological Survey (LGS) has overall responsibility for the implementation of WFD tasks related to groundwater. The LGS is responsible for monitoring, characterisation, pressure analysis, classification of the status of groundwater bodies, delineation of water bodies at risk of not reaching good status, and establishing objectives for groundwater bodies.

4. The State Service for Protected Areas (SSPA) is responsible for the collection of data on protected areas (including areas designated for protection of birds and habitats), assessment of the status of protected areas, development of measures in protected areas and submission of the abovementioned information to the EPA.

5. The Lithuanian Hydrometeorological Service (LHS) is responsible for hydrological monitoring of rivers and lakes, assessment of the quantitative status and human pressure on surface water bodies, development of proposals for objectives of water bodies and delineation of water bodies at risk with regard to the quantitative status.

6. The Regional Environmental Protection Departments (REPDs) are responsible for the collection of monitoring data for surface waters, issue of permits and control of water abstractions and wastewater discharges (including priority substances), collection of information for RBD analysis at local level, identification of problems and enforcement of RBMPs and PoMs.

Other state institutions have the responsibility to provide information needed for the development of RBMPs and PoMs.

Figure 3.2.1: Organogram of the major institutions involved in the implementation of the WFD.

Source: RBMP

All RBD Management Plans (RBMPs) follow the same national implementation approach; there are no methodological and approach differences among the RBDs.

3.3 RBMPs structure, completeness and legal status

The RBMPs are developed clearly according to the elements provided in Annex VII to the WFD. The Programme of Measures also includes all groups of measures as indicated in Annex VI to the WFD. All major information is provided also according to sub-basins. No sub-plans or supporting documents were reported in addition to the RBMPs, but documentation refer to are available on the Competent Authority’s webpage.

The Government adopts the RBMPs with a resolution as the adopting act. The RBMPs and PoM are planning documents. In the hierarchy of legal acts they fall under regulations. They are approved by legally binding resolutions of the Government and they cannot contradict existing legislation. Practically, the RBMPs and PoM are legally binding documents. The public institutions and municipalities are liable for failure to implement timely programmes related to protection of environment, e.g. failure to implement timely the RBMP or PoM.         

There is a relationship between the RBMPs and individual decisions, through there is an obligation to take the RBMP into account in the decision making process. The legislation only sets out general obligations for the compatibility of individual decisions with the environmental objectives set out in the RBMP. This is ensured through the assessment of effect of draft individual decisions, programs, contracts, negotiating positions, in accordance with the Methodology for Effect Assessment of Draft Decisions (Government Resolution No. 194 of 7 February 2007). The effect assessment of draft individual decisions covers inter alia an assessment of how a proposed individual decision will affect water, ecosystems, nature, etc. This implies that proposed individual decisions, programs, contracts and negotiating positions must also be compatible with the RBMPs and PoM. However, there is no explicit provision requiring that the existing permit/concession must be reviewed in line with the environmental objectives. [4] 

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

The Government of the Republic of Lithuania formed a Co-ordination council of the Dauguva, Lielupė, Nemunas and Venta RBDs, which was made up of both representatives of public authorities (ministries and municipalities) and stakeholder representatives. Key sectors were involved, such as fishermen, geological enterprises, environmental non-governmental organisations, industrialists, chambers of commerce, industry and crafts, water suppliers association, agriculture, green movement, management and hydraulic engineers and the Water Problem Council at the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences.

Moreover, draft legal acts on the Plans and Programmes, according to the Lithuanian legal procedure, were submitted to the information system of draft legislation, where each economic operator may view proposed legal acts and submit comments and proposals thereto. Sittings and seminars were held, and the updated RBMPs and the updated PoMs were posted on the website of the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as on the website specifically designed to promote the River Basin Management Plans and the Programmes of Measures.

For wide dissemination of the draft River Basin Management Plans, an interactive map and a video called “How we are taking care of our waters” were developed, providing visual information about the status of the water bodies and the reasons behind it. Finally, a newsletter was created and disseminated to the public. It can also be found on the EPA website.

It is not clear from the RBMPs what the impact of the consultation was on the final RBMPs. Lithuanian authorities have clarified that comments received during the harmonisation process of the RBMPs and the PoMs (with the state authorities, the public and other stakeholders) were considered and taken into account where possible. The RBMPs include specific sections on how the comments were taken into account.

3.5 International co-operation and co-ordination

All RBDs in Lithuania are international; however, international RBMPs are not adopted. Although there is some degree of co-operation with Russia and Belarus, it doesn't cover all relevant aspects. Co-ordination of some RBMP elements with Latvia has occurred, but a joint RBMP has not been elaborated. Moreover, although a description of international co-operation (which is said to be the same as for all RBDs) is present in one RBMP, it is missing in three out of the four RBMPs (the international RBDs with Latvia).

As indicated in the Nemunas RBMP, while implementing the provisions of the WFD on the co-ordination of actions in managing transboundary water bodies with the neighbouring countries, Lithuania initiated the preparation of an agreement between the governments of the Russian Federation, Belarus and Lithuania, and the European Commission on co-operation in the use and protection of water bodies within the Nemunas River Basin District. A draft agreement has been drawn up but has not been signed yet. 

Co-operation in the field of protection of the environment (including water bodies) with Belarus and the Russian Federation has been developed for a number of years on the basis of co-operation agreements signed by the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania with the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Republic of Belarus and with the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation. In addition, a working group for the monitoring of transboundary surface water bodies and groundwater bodies under the Commission on Environmental Protection of the Board on Long-Term Co-operation of Lithuanian-Russian Regional and Local Authorities has been set up to address issues related to the monitoring of water bodies and the identification of pollution sources.

The Nemunas international RBD is shared with two EU Member States, Poland and Latvia, and two non-EU countries, Belarus and the Russian Federation (Kaliningrad oblast). The part of the RBD in Poland constitutes only 287 km2 (the upstream reaches of the rivers with no significant pressures), and the part of the RBD in Latvia constitutes only 100 km2 (the upstream reaches of the rivers with no significant pressures).

Agreements on inter-institutional co-operation have been signed with the Kaliningrad Region of the Russian Federation and with Belarus on co-operation in the field of monitoring and exchange of data on the status of transboundary surface water bodies (signed on 21 October 2003) and a Technical Protocol between the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus on co-operation in the field of monitoring and exchange of data on the status of transboundary surface water bodies was signed on 10 April 2008.

An intergovernmental commission on transfrontier co-operation between Lithuania and Latvia was set up following the Agreement on Transfrontier Co-operation between the Government of the Republic of Lithuania and the Government of the Republic of Latvia signed on 10 September 1999. Co-operation with Latvia seeking to create a joint River Basin District Management Plan will continue on the basis of this agreement and pursuant to the Technical Protocol of Co-operation in the Management of International River Basin Districts, signed between the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania and the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Latvia in 2003.

Co-operation with Poland with regard to the issues of water protection is ensured through the commission of co-operation of Poland and Lithuania. It was established on the basis of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Lithuania and the Government of the Republic of Poland on Co-operation on the Issues of the Use of International Waters. One of the objectives of the working groups of the commission is to cooperate in the development and implementation of the River Basin District Management Plan in international waters.

Because the area of the Nemunas basin in Poland occupies only about 2 per cent of the entire area of the Nemunas RBD, and the results of water quality monitoring showed that the ecological status of the rivers along the Polish border were “extremely good” or “good”, there were no measures foreseen for this part of the basin.

3.6 Integration with other sectors

During the preparation of the RBMPs, all related sectoral plans (transportation, hydro energy, water tourism etc.) were analysed and used. The measures foreseen in those plans were considered as basic measures and their impact on water status was defined as much as possible. 

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

There are all four water categories in the Nemunas RBD and two water categories in the Lielupė, Venta and Dauguva RBDs. The water bodies within the Nemunas River Basin District are assigned to the following categories: rivers, lakes, transitional waters (the Curonian Lagoon and the plume of the Curonian Lagoon in the Baltic Sea) and coastal waters of the Baltic Sea. In addition, artificial and heavily modified water bodies are distinguished. The Lielupė, Venta and Dauguva RBDs have river and lake water categories.

All surface water categories were further differentiated according to the type, taking into account the variety of the natural characteristics of surface waters and the resulting differences in the aquatic communities.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

Five river types were identified, which differ by the characteristics of their aquatic communities. Three main types of lakes were identified, and the major factor that determines the most significant differences between the communities of aquatic organisms (fish and macrophytes) is the average depth of lakes. Transitional waters (within the Nemunas RBD) are divided into three types on the basis of salinity, wave exposure and the average structure of the substrate. The Lithuanian coastal waters of the Baltic Sea are divided into two types, using the average structure of the substrate as an optional factor.

The surface water typology for rivers and lakes has been tested against biological data.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

LT1100 || 5 || 3 || 3 || 2

LT2300 || 5 || 3 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 5 || 3 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 5 || 3 || 0 || 0

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

There are reference conditions established for each of the surface water types, but not for all biological quality elements required by the WFD. Also, for coastal and transitional waters, only preliminary results are available. The existing data were used to establish reference conditions for the rivers and lakes. For rivers and lakes a spatially based methods was used, for coastal and transitional waters a combination of modelling and spatial methods was used (assessment of existing historical data).

In rivers, the values of reference conditions for biological elements were established only for the parameters for fish and benthic invertebrate fauna (no reference conditions were established for the macrophyte and phytobenthos parameters due to a lack of data). The values of parameters indicative of physico-chemical quality elements characterising the quality of water, which ensure reference conditions for biological elements, were established as well. Reference conditions for rivers were also characterised in accordance with the hydromorphological and physico-chemical status parameters. In lakes, the values of parameters for reference conditions for biological elements were specified only for the parameter for phytoplankton; meanwhile, the reference values established for parameters for other biological elements are only preliminary ones, with the parameters currently being tested. The values of parameters for reference conditions will be specified when more data are available. Values of some of physico-chemical elements and hydro-morphological parameters ensuring high status of phytoplankton were established. Reference conditions for biological quality elements, as well as for supporting hydromorphological and physico-chemical parameters in the lakes, were established.

In transitional waters, quality elements characterising reference conditions were established taking into account all national monitoring data collected during the period from 1992 through 2007, historical data provided in literature and modelling results. Only preliminary values of reference conditions were established for the parameters for certain biological elements (e.g. total biomass of phytoplankton); the parameters are currently being tested.

Reference conditions in coastal waters were established for some parameters characterising phytoplankton, macroalgae and benthic invertebrates. Only preliminary values were established for certain biological elements (e.g. total biomass of phytoplankton); the parameters are currently being tested.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

Small streams with catchment area less than the size threshold set in the WFD (less than 10 km2) are not assigned to river types. The ecosystems in these water bodies are not stable as small streams are very sensitive to natural hydrodynamic fluctuations (e.g. dry periods). Small streams (catchment area less than 50 km2) are not included in the monitoring programme. However, it is believed that the measures applied at RBD sub-basin level will also ensure good status in these rivers and streams. Streams receiving wastewater discharges (catchment area less than 50 km2) are regarded as point pollution source and are subject to monitoring. Small lakes (surface area less than 0.5 km2) are not assigned to any of the lake types. There are no minimum size criteria for transitional and coastal waters.

No specific background document or national/regional guidance document has been developed for the typology of water bodies.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

LT1100 || 584 || 17 || 275 || 2 || 4 || 129 || 2 || 57 || 12 || 4621

LT2300 || 104 || 15 || 20 || 2 || 0 || || 0 || || 1 || 6276

LT3400 || 124 || 18 || 17 || 3 || 0 || || 0 || || 5 || 1789

LT4500 || 20 || 14 || 32 || 4 || 0 || || 0 || || 2 || 938

Total || 832 || 17 || 344 || 2 || 4 || || 2 || || 20 || 3627

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

All most important sources of pollution are identified and their pollution loads quantified.  Either numerical tools and/or expert judgement were used to identify significant pressures for all categories, and numerical threshold criteria were given for most pressures, otherwise qualitative. The monitoring data and the MIKE BASIN model were used to assess the impacts of point and diffuse pollution sources on the rivers, as well as to calculate the pollutant concentrations in the main rivers and to identify the input of individual pollution sources into the pollution of the rivers. The assessment of the quality of the lakes and ponds and of the impacts thereon by different pollution sources was carried out on the basis of the mathematical modelling results using an empirical GIS spread-sheet. The MIKE BASIN modelling results were also used for assessing pollution loads transported by the rivers into the Curonian Lagoon.

Analysis of pollution sources and the assessment of their impact have revealed the following key factors which affect the ecological status of the water bodies in all the four RBDs: 1) diffuse pollution, the main driver of which is agricultural pollution loads; 2) point pollution, which consists of loads from dischargers of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), storm water (surface) runoff, and industrial wastewater in towns and settlements; 3) transboundary pollution coming from the neighbouring countries.

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LT1100 || 450 || 51.96 || 50 || 5.77 || 169 || 19.52 || 3 || 0.35 || 28 || 3.23 || 195 || 22.52 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 53 || 6.12

LT2300 || 99 || 79.84 || 3 || 2.42 || 14 || 11.29 || 2 || 1.61 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 5.65

LT3400 || 28 || 19.86 || 14 || 9.93 || 106 || 75.18 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 4.26

LT4500 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 577 || 51.02 || 67 || 5.92 || 289 || 25.55 || 5 || 0.44 || 28 || 2.48 || 195 || 17.24 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 66 || 5.84

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Diffuse agricultural pollution is one of the most important and significant factors affecting the quality of the water bodies in the Nemunas and Lielupė RBDs. Diffuse agricultural pollution with nitrate nitrogen is one of the major sources of pollution.

The point source pressure was regarded as significant if the following concentrations were exceeded in a receiving water body: 3.3 mg/l BOD7, 0.2 mg/l ammonium nitrogen, 2.3 mg/l nitrate nitrogen and 0.14 mg/l total phosphorus. According to the RBMPs, the problems of the quality of the water bodies as a result of point pollution significantly decreased during the last few years due to the continuously improved operation of the WWTP. In many cases, stretches where the water quality parameters still exceed the threshold values for good ecological status are rather limited. A significant impact on the main rivers is still exerted by the WWTP of larger cities, meanwhile pollution by the WWTP located in smaller towns and settlements is rather low and its impact is limited to the location of the WWTP in question. The largest amounts of wastewater enter the water bodies from large agglomerations (where the pollution loads exceed more than 2 000 p.e). Dischargers in such agglomerations emit about 70 % of the total wastewater volume and approximately 60% of the pollution load.

Chemical pollution by hazardous substances was examined based on the data of the water quality monitoring carried out in 2005-2008[5]. Some rivers are adversely affected by pollution from hazardous substances. The exact sources of pollution with hazardous substances cannot be identified yet due to a lack of data and, consequently, it is difficult to identify polluted river stretches and their length. However, it has been identified that pollution is coming from the wastewaters discharged from larger cities located near the sites where exceedances were observed. Some hazardous substances were detected in the transboundary rivers at the border with Belarus (the river Neris) and thus it was assumed that the entire stretch of the river flowing in the territory of Lithuania was adversely affected by significant pollution. The concentrations of the regulated hazardous substances in the Neris may exceed the established MAC as a result of transboundary pollution. Further work is said to be on-going on the identification of the origin of the hazardous substances.

In addition to the impacts of pollution loads, morphological changes of water bodies were also analysed. The largest impact on the ecological status of the rivers is exerted by the straightening of their beds. Also, a typical impact of hydropower plants(HPPs) constructed on the river beds is the frequent fluctuations of the water level in the river stretches below the hydropower plant. The impact of the HPP is considered insignificant (i.e. the river stretch below the HPP is not assigned to a risk category) only if the installed discharge is lower than the minimum multi-annual discharge of the river, if there are modern turbines that are capable of adapting to any flow regime and that do not inflict damage on fish (in such case only a short river stretch is subject to a significant impact), and if the operational regime of the HPP does not significantly affect the hydrological and hydro-morphological river conditions.

Pressures and impacts in transitional and coastal waters. Analysis of the pollution loads that directly enter the Curonian Lagoon and the Baltic Sea from point pollution sources has revealed that the largest amounts come from Klaipeda city. The overall status of transitional and coastal waters is determined by diffuse pollution from the basin, mostly the inflow of excessive nitrogen and phosphorus with the river waters, mainly the Nemunas. The load transported to the Curonian Lagoon by the rivers includes both pollution generated in Lithuania and transboundary pollution. As modelling shows, transboundary pollution may account roughly for 60 % of the total load of BOD7, 42 % of ammonium nitrogen, 28 % of nitrate nitrogen, and about 50 % of the load of total phosphorus transported by all the rivers to the Curonian Lagoon. The greatest risk for the environment of transitional and coastal waters is posed by air pollution, illegal, deliberate and accidental spills of oil and other dangerous substances, dumping of waste, as well as arrivals of new species with ballast waters or from ship hulls.

The risk of navigation accidents and, consequently, pollution with oil and other harmful substances in the Baltic Sea is very high and seems to be growing due to an increasing amount of freight (especially oil) transported by sea, although not all accidents are necessarily related to spills of polluting substances. 

The main source of secondary pollution is the bottom sediments. A preliminary assessment of the average concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in the surface bottom sediments indicates that the amount of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in the potentially re-suspended sediments in the northern and central parts of the lagoon are about 22 000 and around 6 500 tonnes respectively, thus accounting for more than 75 % of total ammonium and nitrate nitrogen transported by the rivers every year; meanwhile, the said amount of total phosphorus is more than three times larger than the transported amount of total phosphorus. There is little information about the liability of these substances and exchange between the bottom sediments and the water column; therefore, no grounded forecasts regarding a decrease of secondary pollution can be made.

The average annual concentrations of oil hydrocarbons in the bottom sediments have a tendency to increase as from 2002. The concentrations of copper and cadmium in the bottom sediments in the dumping zone in 2004-2007 were much higher than those on the sandy coast. The concentrations of nickel showed a decreasing trend in 2006-2007 and were close to the norms of Soil Pollution Class I. The concentrations of mercury, which is on the list of priority hazardous substances, decreased as from 1995 and were about four times lower in 2006.

The multi-annual data of monitoring of the environment of the Būtinge oil terminal show that no impacts of chemical pollution on the diversity and abundance of the benthic fauna were recorded; however, genotoxic effects of certain types of the benthic fauna have been observed.

4.5 Protected areas

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

LT1100 || 1037 || 70 || 62 || 20 || || 326 || 157 || 807 || 1 || || 1

LT2300 || 180 || 9 || 8 || 3 || || 42 || 8 || 99 || 1 || || 1

LT3400 || 76 || 16 || 9 || 5 || || 36 || 19 || 74 || 1 || || 1

LT4500 || 12 || 4 || 9 || 3 || || 23 || 1 || 25 || 1 || || 1

Total || 1305 || 99 || 88 || 31 || || 427 || 185 || 1005 || 4 || || 4

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[6]

Source: WISE

Lithuania has established and applies action programmes in the whole of its territory and therefore, in accordance to article 3.5 of the Nitrates Directive 1991/676/EEC, Lithuania is exempted from designating specific vulnerable zones.

5. Monitoring 5.1 General description of the monitoring network

Figure 5.1.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Monitoring is carried out in accordance with the National Environmental Monitoring Programme. The monitoring programmes of the lakes, transitional and coastal waters provided in the RBMPs are practically the same as those submitted to the European Commission in 2007, following Article 8 of the Water Framework Directive. Whilst there has been a decrease of river monitoring stations, an operational groundwater monitoring programme has now been reported.

It was not clear from the RBMPs if the monitoring programme reported was used for the preparation of the RBMPs, or if the announced new monitoring programme to be introduced from 2011 was reported. Lithuanian authorities have confirmed that the reported data on monitoring networks refer to the previous system and the status of water bodies was assessed based on the monitoring results of the programme operational until 2011. Further information was also provided on the new monitoring programme, such as that changes relate to improved comparability of the data, slight changes to monitored locations, more analyses of priority hazardous substances and priority substances in transitional and coastal waters, monitoring of sediment and biota. 

Lithuania did not report detailed information to WISE on which quality elements where monitored in the different water categories, therefore the overview table on quality elements has not been included.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

LT1100 || 110 || 190 || 187 || 89 || 0 || 25 || 0 || 6 || 185 || 1738 || 60

LT2300 || 8 || 21 || 1 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 19 || 280 || 5

LT3400 || 8 || 95 || 0 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 25 || 344 || 8

LT4500 || 2 || 3 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 140 || 3

Total by type of site || 128 || 309 || 188 || 101 || 0 || 25 || 0 || 6 || 240 || 2502 || 76

Total number of monitoring sites[7] || 468 || 345 || 25 || 6 || 2754

Table 5.1.1: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.2 Monitoring of surface waters

A surveillance monitoring programme in rivers and lakes also includes monitoring at reference sites. In transitional and coastal waters only operational monitoring is performed, as all water bodies are at risk. Taking into account the monitoring site and the importance of information in respect of the entire river basin district, surveillance monitoring has been subdivided into two types: intensive monitoring (conducted every year) and extensive (conducted twice during the implementation of the programme of measures in an RBD). However, although it is called an operational programme, almost all quality elements are covered.

In rivers all the relevant quality elements are monitored. However, in lakes, transitional and coastal waters not all quality elements are monitored. The following table outlines the quality elements that are not monitored, with justifications in some cases.

Water category || Biological || Physico-chemical || Hydromorphological

Rivers || || Salinity, not monitored in rivers but it is not relevant for Lithuanian conditions ||

Lakes || Phytobenthos a || ||

Transitional || Phytobenthos Macroalgae, Angiosperms || Salinity (not relevant for Lithuanian conditions) || Tidal regime (not relevant for Lithuanian conditions)

Coastal waters || Macroalgae, Angiosperms, || || Tidal regime (not relevant for Lithuanian conditions)

Table 5.2.1: List of quality elements not monitored by water category

Source: RBMPs

Operational monitoring is undertaken in water bodies of which the current ecological status or ecological potential is lower than good. A description of the biological parameters used in the operational monitoring programme in the rivers and lakes is provided in the background document on the assessment of surface waters. In the rivers, benthic invertebrates, fish and phytobenthos were monitored at all sites. In the lakes, phytoplankton, macrophytes, fish and benthic invertebrates were monitored at all sites. In the transitional waters, phytoplankton, macrophytes, fish, benthic invertebrates and other BQE (zooplankton) were monitored, depending on the location of the site (the transitional waters cover the fresh water lagoon and part of the Baltic Sea). In the coastal waters, phytoplankton, macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and other BQE (zooplankton) were monitored at all sites. Biological QEs are selected to indicate organic pollution, nutrient enrichment and altered habitats. Statistical analysis was carried out to assess how the BQEs correlated with the concentrations of nutrients and BOD.

Investigative monitoring is undertaken when the reason for the failure of a parameter indicative of a quality element to conform to the good status requirements has not been identified, or when the extent or impact of accidental pollution needs to be identified.

There is very limited information on the monitoring of chemical pollutants in the RBMPs. Although there are obligations to monitor all priority substances, the current knowledge on priority substances is quite scarce and basically limited to the monitoring data collected during a few projects (based on a single measurement) and the monitoring carried out by the EPA. Monitoring of metals and other specific pollutants is only recommended in river places where exceedances of the MAC of these substances have been recorded. The frequency of monitoring of priority substances and of other pollutants in rivers is 12 times per year in the intensive surveillance and operational monitoring stations. The frequency in lakes is 9 times per year, 10 times per year in transitional waters and 4 times per year in coastal waters.

Some monitoring of priority substances is carried out in sediments as well. C10-13-chloroalkanes, brominated diphenylether and pentabromodiphenylether have not been analysed because of the lack of analysis methods. Further information on chemical monitoring is available for the 2011-2012 period, but not referred to in this assessment which applies to the 2009 RBMPs.

No grouping is used for the lakes, transitional and coastal waters for the purpose of monitoring.

Transboundary co-operation on the implementation of monitoring of the cross-border rivers and lakes as well as on the exchange of the monitoring data is carried out in all four RBDs, pursuant to bilateral agreements signed with the neighbouring countries, i.e. Latvia, Poland, Belarus and Kaliningrad Region of the Russian Federation. The monitoring programmes of the transitional and coastal waters have been harmonised at regional level (HELCOM). Lithuania and the Russian Federation drafted a joint monitoring programme for the Baltic Sea and the Curonian Lagoon in 2004, which was updated in 2006.

5.3 Monitoring of groundwater

The quantitative groundwater monitoring network in Lithuania consists of 76 observation wells. Measurements of the groundwater level and temperature are performed daily. The measurements are collected twice a year and processed by the Geological Survey. The majority of groundwater quantitative monitoring stations are installed in shallow aquifers (60 wells), which are sensitive to the change in meteorological conditions.

Chemical surveillance (national) monitoring of groundwater is conducted by the Geological Survey of Lithuania according to annually approved plans. Such specific chemical components as organic compounds and pesticides, with generally very low concentrations are monitored once in five years, and trace elements are monitored twice a year in wells where these components are likely to be detected.  Chemical analysis of collected samples deals with general chemical indicators (total hardness, permanganate and bichromate index), main cations and anions, nutrients and trace elements. The data obtained characterises the chemical status and quality of groundwater formed under different natural conditions and anthropogenic loads.

Chemical operational monitoring of groundwater is performed by economic entities: groundwater users (well-fields, extracting > 100 m3/d)) and enterprises engaged in economic activities which are on the list of potential polluters. Monitoring is conducted in order to establish the amount of pollutants discharged, assess the impacts of the economic activity on the natural environment, and ensure preventing and limiting such pollution. In the group of potential polluters, monitoring is conducted in the environment of petrol stations and storages of oil products. Every economic entity should develop a monitoring programme for a period of five years. The Programme is approved by the Lithuanian Geological Survey.

Information on transboundary monitoring of groundwater is included in the RBMPs as regards EU Member states, although no information is provided on such activities with third countries. Lithuanian authorities have provided further information clarifying that bilateral agreements have been developed and are being implemented.

The Geological Survey produces annual reports on groundwater monitoring. The latest publication in the Lithuanian language “Groundwater monitoring in Lithuania in 2005-2010” can be found at: http://www.lgt.lt/old/uploads/1315485147_monitoringas_online.pdf .

5.4 Monitoring of protected areas

A drinking water monitoring programme is in place. In Lithuania, all well-fields abstracting more than 10 m3/day must report the abstracted amount, and those abstracting more than 100 m3/day are subject to the monitoring of the quantity and quality of groundwater resources. Groundwater monitoring wells have been installed in some protection zones.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

LT1100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 98 || 0 || 172 || 607 || 0 || 607 || 269

LT2300 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 0 || 9 || 71 || 0 || 71 || 38

LT3400 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 0 || 10 || 125 || 0 || 125 || 45

LT4500 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 0 || 7 || 41 || 0 || 41 || 7

Total || 0 || 0 || 0 || 117 || 0 || 198 || 844 || 0 || 844 || 359

Table 5.4.1: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas.

Note : Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level. Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

LT1100 || 765 || 214 || 28.0 || 193 || 25.2 || 318 || 41.6 || 35 || 4.6 || 5 || 0.7 || 0 || 0

LT2300 || 99 || 16 || 16.2 || 31 || 31.3 || 50 || 50.5 || 2 || 2.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 101 || 0 || 0 || 14 || 13.9 || 67 || 66.3 || 18 || 17.8 || 2 || 2.0 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 50 || 29 || 58.0 || 12 || 24.0 || 8 || 16.0 || 1 || 2.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1015 || 259 || 25.5 || 250 || 24.6 || 443 || 43.6 || 56 || 5.5 || 7 || 0.7 || 0 || 0

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

LT1100 || 101 || 17 || 16.8 || 23 || 22.8 || 41 || 40.6 || 19 || 18.8 || 1 || 1.0 || 0 || 0

LT2300 || 25 || 7 || 28.0 || 9 || 36.0 || 6 || 24.0 || 3 || 12.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 40 || 3 || 7.5 || 1 || 2.5 || 22 || 55.0 || 12 || 30.0 || 2 || 5.0 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 2 || 1 || 50.0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 168 || 28 || 16.7 || 34 || 20.2 || 69 || 41.1 || 34 || 20.2 || 3 || 1.8 || 0 || 0

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LT1100 || 765 || 756 || 98.8 || 9 || 1.2 || 0 || 0

LT2300 || 99 || 97 || 98.0 || 2 || 2.0 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 101 || 101 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 50 || 49 || 98.0 || 1 || 2.0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1015 || 1003 || 98.8 || 12 || 1.2 || 0 || 0

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LT1100 || 101 || 99 || 98.0 || 2 || 2.0 || 0 || 0

LT2300 || 25 || 25 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 40 || 40 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 168 || 166 || 98.8 || 2 || 0.2 || 0 || 0

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LT1100 || 12 || 12 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT2300 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 5 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 20 || 20 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LT1100 || 12 || 12 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT2300 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 5 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 20 || 20 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

The analysis of present and future groundwater consumption indicates only a minor increase in abstraction for the year 2015. It is therefore expected that the quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies in 2015 will remain good.

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LT1100 || 866 || 447 || 51.6 || 507 || 58.5 || 6.9 || || || || || 866 || || 866 || || 41 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT2300 || 124 || 62 || 50.0 || 70 || 56.5 || 6.5 || 95 || || || || 124 || || 124 || || 44 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 141 || 18 || 12.8 || 60 || 4206 || 29.8 || 82 || || || || 141 || || 141 || || 57 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 52 || 42 || 80.8 || 42 || 80.8 || 0.0 || 48 || || || || 52 || || 52 || || 19 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1183 || 569 || 48.1 || 679 || 57.4 || 9.3 || || || || || || || || || 43 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[8]

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LT1100 || 765 || 407 || 53.2 || 447 || 58.4 || 5.2 || || || || || 41.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT2300 || 99 || 47 || 47.5 || 53 || 53.5 || 6.1 || || || || || 47.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 101 || 14 || 13.9 || 38 || 37.6 || 23.8 || || || || || 62.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 50 || 41 || 82.0 || 41 || 82.0 || 0 || || || || || 20.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1015 || 509 || 50.2 || 579 || 57.0 || 6.8 || || || || || 43.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[9]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LT1100 || 765 || 756 || 98.8 || 756 || 98.8 || 0 || || || || || 1.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT2300 || 99 || 97 || 98.0 || 97 || 98.0 || 0 || || || || || 2.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 101 || 101 || 100 || 101 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 50 || 49 || 98.0 || 49 || 98.0 || 0 || || || || || 2.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1015 || 1003 || 0.1 || 1003 || 0.1 || 0 || || || || || 1.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[10]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LT1100 || 12 || 12 || 100 || 12 || 100 || 0 || 12 || || 12 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT2300 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 1 || || 2 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 5 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 5 || || 5 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 2 || || 2 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 20 || 20 || 100 || 20 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[11]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LT1100 || 12 || 12 || 100 || 12 || 100 || 0 || 12 || || 12 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT2300 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 1 || || 1 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 5 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 5 || || 5 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 2 || || 2 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 20 || 20 || 100 || 20 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[12]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LT1100 || 101 || 40 || 39.6 || 60 || 59.4 || 19.8 || || || || || 40.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT2300 || 25 || 16 || 64.0 || 18 || 72.0 || 8.0 || || || || || 28.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 40 || 4 || 10.0 || 22 || 55.0 || 45.0 || || || || || 45.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 168 || 62 || 36.9 || 102 || 60.7 || 23.8 || || || || || 39.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[13]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LT1100 || 101 || 99 || 98.0 || 99 || 98.0 || 0 || || || || || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT2300 || 25 || 25 || 100 || 25 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT3400 || 40 || 40 || 100 || 40 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LT4500 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 168 || 166 || 98.8 || 166 || 98.8 || 0 || || || || || 1.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021and 2027[14]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of the ecological status of surface waters

A national approach is used to assess the ecological status of surface waters in Lithuania. There are no significant differences in water bodies that belong to different RBDs.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

The assessment methods for the classification of the ecological status are not yet fully developed for all biological quality elements. Compared with the situation in 2007 (described in the conclusions of the 2009 WFD implementation report), an additional method has been fully developed, only for fish in the rivers. For the rest of BQE, there are no fully developed methods, since they do not cover all groups of metrics. There are no assessment methods for macrophytes and phytobentos. Fully developed methods (for benthic invertebrates and fish in rivers) are able to detect all major pressures, while the rest of the methods, which are incomplete, address mainly eutrophication (in lakes, transitional and coastal waters).

In support of the biological assessment, standards have been set for physico-chemical elements describing general water quality parameters (nutrient conditions in all categories of water bodies, oxygenation and organic matter in the rivers, and water transparency in the coastal waters). Standards are set only for those physico-chemical elements, which significantly correlate with BQE. For hydromorphological elements, standards are set only to describe reference conditions, but deviations from those are also considered in the ecological status classification (special classification rules are in place). For specific pollutants, standards are not set due to the lack of national data for the establishment of clear relationships with BQE. 

The definition of the overall ecological status, which is based on a comparison of results of the assessment of the biological elements status and the status according to physico-chemical and hydromorphological elements, does not fully comply with the one-out-all-out principle. A small deviation of only one metric of a biological or physico-chemical element from the status boundary is allowed, considering a possible uncertainty in the assessment (or an error in the assessment, e.g. due to climatic factors or natural variability). If a deviation is greater, the "one-out-all-out" rule is applied. Deviations are not allowed for metrics of biological elements in water bodies where hydro-morphological conditions do not correspond to high status ("one-out-all-out" principle). Depending on scenarios of coincidence or disagreement of status assessment results based on metrics of different quality elements, the final status class assessment has different confidence (three categories). Such rules are supposed to reduce the possible impact of uncertainty on the definition of the overall status.

Ecological status assessment methods are developed for all national surface water body types; however, they do not meet all the criteria indicated in the WFD.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

LT1100 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LT2300 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

LT3400 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

LT4500 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

Common intercalibration types cover all water body types identified in Lithuania. The class boundaries of BQE (for which the assessment methods were developed) are only partly consistent with the intercalibrated class boundaries of the COM Intercalibration Decision 2008. The boundaries for benthic fauna in the rivers and chlorophyll a in the coastal waters are less stringent, while the boundaries for chlorophyll a in the lakes are more stringent than the intercalibrated boundaries. The boundaries for fish fauna in the rivers and for benthic invertebrates in the lakes (the latter method still not officially adopted in Lithuania) were intercalibrated in 2011.

Lithuania has not yet intercalibrated BQE, for which national assessment methods have not yet been developed/adopted (macrophytes, phytobenthos).

The legal act Order No. D1-256[15] adopted in 2005 was used for the assessment of the ecological status.

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

To assess the ecological status of the monitoring sites, not all relevant quality elements were used. Only those quality elements (or single parameters of the quality elements) were used for which classification systems had been developed and standards had been set. The biological quality elements include: chlorophyll α (all except rivers), the maximum depth of occurrence of angiosperms and macroalgae (transitional and coastal waters), the average number of benthic invertebrate species (transitional and coastal waters), the abundance and taxonomic composition of benthic invertebrates (only rivers), the abundance of gobies (transitional waters), the community structure, and the abundance and taxonomic composition of fish fauna (only rivers).

The physico-chemical elements are: the nutrient conditions (all water bodies), oxygenation (rivers) and transparency (coastal waters). Hydromorphological elements were used in the status assessment of the rivers and lakes. The main reason for exceedance of the ecological status reported in all RBMPs is nutrient pollution from point and diffuse sources. Among 1015 natural WBs, 274 WBs (27%) do not meet good status due to this kind of pressure. Another major pressure is hydromorphological alterations (only for rivers). The biological quality elements that were used for the status assessment in the operational monitoring sites of respective water body categories are sensitive enough to detect these pressures. However, phytobenthos, an element most sensitive to nutrient pollution, has not been used in the assessment (since the method is not developed / adopted). Information on confidence for the ecological status results has been provided in three categories (high, medium and low).

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)

LT1100 || || BOD7 ||

LT1100 || || NH4-N ||

LT1100 || || NO3-N ||

LT1100 || || Total Phosphorus ||

LT1100 || || Total N ||

LT2300 || || NH4–N ||

LT2300 || || NO3–N ||

LT2300 || || Total Phosphorus ||

LT3400 || || BOD7 ||

LT3400 || || NH4–N ||

LT3400 || || Total Phosphorus ||

LT3400 || || NO3–N ||

LT4500 || || ||

Table 7.2.1: River basin specific pollutants causing failure of status

Source: RBMPs

For specific pollutants, standards are not set due to the lack of national data for the establishment of clear relationships with BQE. It is concluded that specific pollutants have not been used to assess ecological status. 

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial water bodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

According to the data presented in Article 5, analysis on the provisional identification of HMWBs and AWBs, Lithuania has provisionally identified ~7% WBs as heavily modified and less than 1% as artificial ones. In the RBMPs, 13.8% of all WBs (163 WBs) are indicated as heavily modified, and 0.4% (5 WBs) as artificial. In total, 168 water bodies (14.2%) have been designated as HMWB and AWB. Compared to the provisional identification, the percentage of HMWBs and AWBs among all WBs has increased nearly twice. The RBMPs specify the water use for which the water body was designated as HMWB and describe the kind of physical modifications.

The HMWB designation process consisted of identifying and describing substantial changes resulting in ecological alterations (pre-designation); characterising the users benefiting from the changes; identifying measures to restore the status; describing and testing the impacts of the measures on the users and on the wider environment; identifying potential alternative means and testing their technical, economic and environmental feasibility; and the final designation of HMWBs. The designation process completely follows the stepwise approach of the CIS Guidance No 4.

No information is given on the uncertainties or further plans for improving the methodology.

The legal act Order No. D1-256[16] adopted 2005 was used for the designation of HMWBs.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

GEP was defined for all HMWBs and AWBs using the mitigation measures (Prague) approach. GEP (and Maximum Ecological Potential) was defined only for those quality elements that are used to assess the ecological status of the most resembling water body types (for which the assessment methods are developed/standards are set). To define the GEP, all necessary steps were applied in the majority of cases: mitigation measures that do not have any adverse effect were identified, MEP and GEP were defined, and mitigation measures needed to support the achievement of GEP were identified. The definition of GEP for biological quality elements is supported by the results of monitoring and scientific investigations, i.e. it is clear how it has been defined. However, good ecological potential (and MEP) of BQE for some specific HMWBs was defined by expert judgement (Klaipeda strait and Nemunas lowland). Mitigation measures are foreseen for all HMWBs, wherever such measures are possible.

No background document or national/regional guidance document on the methodology of setting GEP were reported.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWBs and AWBs

Based on the ecological potential assessment results[17], among 163 HMWBs that were designed in the RBDs, the ecological potential of 15.3% of the HMWBs was classified as maximum, 20.2% as good, 41.7% as moderate, 20.9% as poor and 1.8% as bad. In total, GEP is currently not achieved in 64.4% of the HMWBs. GEP is not achieved in 67% of the HMWBs in the river category, 59.3% in the lake category, and in heavily modified transitional waters (100%). Among five AWBs designed in the RBDs, GEP is already achieved in 80% of them.

Since the same quality elements were used to assess the ecological potential of the HMWBs and AWBs as those used to assess the ecological status of resembling natural water body types, the reliability of the assessment results is the same as that for the natural water body types.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters

Instead of assessing chemical status on the basis of exceedances of the Annual Average Environmental quality standards, the Lithuanian authorities assessed the chemical status of rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters on the basis of the national Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAC) of priority hazardous substances and priority substances, which were in force at the time of the assessment. The majority of the priority hazardous substances and priority substances included in the list of substances in Directive 2008/105/EC were analysed and their concentrations were assessed during the preparation of the RBMPs. National MACs were applied not to the assessment of maximum, but average annual concentrations. According to the procedure then in force, the same MACs were applied both to inland surface waters and to transitional and coastal waters.

The MACs were applied solely to the water environment, since the environmental quality standards for the bottom sediments and the biota standards were not defined.

The Wastewater Management Regulation was amended several times. The last amendment was made by the Order of the Minister of Environment No D1-261 of 30 March 2011 (enforced from 3 April 2011). The previous versions did not comply fully with Directive 2008/105/EC. The current version of the Wastewater Management Regulation fully complies with Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC.

Certain specific pollutants (alpha-endosulfan and heavy metals) that are not included in the list of Directive 2008/105/EC have national MAC. Thus, while drafting the RBMPs, the chemical status rather than the environmental status of water bodies was assessed. Lithuania has limited scientific capacity to define the criteria of the ecological status for specific pollutants; therefore, it is expected that during the preparation of the second RBMPs the information concerning the impact of specific pollutants on the ecological status of water bodies available in other EU Member States will be used.

The River Basin Management Plans have identified the following substances that prevent the achievement of good chemical status of water bodies:

CAS number || Substance || Water category || Number of water bodies || % of the total number of water bodies in the water category

7439-92-1 || Lead and its compounds || Rivers || 2 || 0.27

67-66-3 || Trichloromethane || Rivers || 2 || 0.27

117-81-7 || Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) || Rivers || 11 || 1.51

117-81-7 || Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) || Transitional || 1 || 25

|| Tributyltin compounds || Rivers || 4 || 0.55

|| Tributyltin compounds || Transitional || 1 || 25

72-20-8 || Endrin || Rivers || 2 || 0.27

Table 9.1: Substances responsible for causing failure of good chemical status

Source: WISE

The RBMPs do not provide specific information whether mixing zones are used for the assessment of the chemical status.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

Statistical analysis of long-term groundwater monitoring data and mathematical modelling were used as a basis for the assessment. Maps of the groundwater level and the quality in all river basin districts have been drawn up and a quantitative assessment (using mathematical modelling) of the interaction between shallow groundwater and surface water as well as the impacts of groundwater affected by diffuse and point pollution on surface waters has been carried out. Maps that illustrate the extent of contamination of shallow groundwater with a specific polluting substance in a certain place were compiled using maps of anthropogenic loads and assessing the average concentrations of parameters in different types of land use. The most significant impact of diffuse pollution on shallow groundwater is observed in urbanised territories and areas of intensive agriculture. Although sources of point pollution occur in all groundwater bodies, their impact on groundwater is usually of local significance.

Potential current and prospective impacts of groundwater abstraction on surface water bodies were also assessed with the help of mathematical modelling. It was established that groundwater abstraction does has no adverse impact on the surface water bodies. The modelling results also showed that groundwater abstraction in the neighbouring countries (Russia, Latvia and Belarus) had no negative impact on the status of the groundwater bodies in Lithuania either.

10.1 Existing risks and status information

There is no sufficient information on upward trends of pollutants related to groundwater abstraction and hence no groundwater bodies at risk were delineated.

Based on monitoring data, five problematic groundwater bodies (potentially at risk) have been identified in Lithuania. High concentrations of two indicators – sulphates and chlorides – in groundwater bodies are of natural origin and there is no sufficient data on any upward trends of deterioration in the water quality as a result of groundwater abstraction. More frequent groundwater monitoring is needed in problematic groundwater bodies for the observation of significant and sustained upward trends of sulphates and chlorides.

There are five groundwater basins that are potentially at risk because the chemical composition of the drinking water at the water extraction points located in these basins does not meet the requirements of the drinking water standards. This is the result of natural causes, i.e. the inflow of saline water from the underlying aquifers. A higher threshold value for the concentration of sulphates and chlorides is set in these groundwater basins. As it has not been clearly established so far that the water quality is deteriorating due to human activities, it has been proposed to perform additional extended monitoring of the problematic territories and to clarify the impact of groundwater exploitation on the changing water quality in the next planning period (2010–2015). In case there is evidence that the changing tendencies are the result of human activities, the starting point for any trend reversal will be the measurement of chloride and sulphate values, corresponding to the set threshold value by 100%.

10.2 Groundwater quantitative status

A potential current and prospective impact of groundwater abstraction on surface water bodies was also assessed with the help of mathematical modelling. It was found that groundwater abstraction could not have any adverse impact on the surface water bodies. The modelling results also showed that groundwater abstraction in the neighbouring countries (Russia, Latvia and Belarus) had no negative impact on the status of the groundwater bodies in Lithuania either.

The abstraction of groundwater in Lithuania constitutes 1.6–30% of the amount of the approved groundwater yield. Only a minor increase in abstraction is forecasted in 2015; therefore, the quantitative status of the groundwater bodies is deemed to be good.

Mathematical modelling was used for the assessment of the impacts of exploitation of confined aquifers on the protected sites of NATURA 2000 directly connected with the shallow groundwater aquifers (bogs, wetlands and peatlands). The simulated decrease of the groundwater level as a result of the forecasted groundwater abstraction in 2015 is lower than seasonal fluctuations of the water table. Consequently, groundwater abstraction is considered not having any significant impact on the status of NATURA 2000 sites.

Mathematical modelling of all groundwater bodies was used for the assessment of the balance between recharge and abstraction.

10.3 Groundwater chemical status

Based on monitoring data, five problematic groundwater bodies (potentially at risk) have been identified in Lithuania. High concentrations of two indicators – sulphates and chlorides – in groundwater bodies, that does not meet the requirements of the drinking water standards, are of natural origin i.e. the inflow of saline water from the underlying aquifers. There is no sufficient data on any upward trends of deterioration in the water quality as a result of groundwater abstraction.

Threshold values were established reaching 500 mg/l for sulphate and 350 mg/l for chloride in these groundwater bodies considering natural background levels. As it has not been clearly established so far that the water quality is deteriorating due to human activities, it has been proposed to perform additional extended monitoring of the problematic territories and to clarify the impact of groundwater exploitation on the changing water quality in the next planning period (2010–2015).

There is no information on transboundary relations of sulphates and chlorides in groundwater.

Statistical analysis of long-term monitoring data was used for the assessment of TV exceedances.

A trend assessment was performed based on statistical analysis of long-term monitoring data. As there are no clear upward sustained trends, trend reversals were not yet performed. Trend reversal methodologies were not established.

10.4 Protected areas

All GWBs that are used for abstraction must have drinking water protection areas established.  By the end of 2011, 1753 waterworks of fresh and mineral groundwater had been registered. According to the Lithuania Hygiene Standard, sanitary protection zones (SPZ) were delineated or calculated for 873 well-fields.

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

LT1100 || || || 1037

LT2300 || || || 180

LT3400 || || || 76

LT4500 || || || 12

Total || 0 || 0 || 1305

Table 10.4.1: Status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

Total number of water bodies and percentage of water bodies that will achieve the objectives by 2015, 2021 or 2027:

Surface water bodies || RW || LW || TW || CW || SW

Number of natural surface water bodies reported in RBMP || 705 || 255 || 3 || 2 || 965

Number of heavily modified plus artificial surface water bodies reported in RBMP || 107 || 58 || 1 || 0 || 166

Number of all surface water bodies of good ecological status/potential or better now (2009) || 340 || 233 || 0 || 0 || 573

Number of all surface water bodies of good ecological status/potential or better in 2015 || 445 || 234 || 0 || 0 || 679

Number of all surface water bodies of good ecological status/potential or better in 2021 || 556 || 323 || 0 || 0 || 879

Number of all surface water bodies of good ecological status/potential or better in 2027 || 832 || 345 || 4 || 2 || 1183

Number of surface water bodies of good chemical status now || 820 || 344 || 3 || 2 || 1169

Number of surface water bodies of good chemical status 2015 || 124 || 328 || 0 || 2 || 454

Number of surface water bodies of good chemical status 2021 || 124 || 328 || 0 || 2 || 454

Number of surface water bodies of good chemical status 2027 || 832 || 345 || 4 || 2 || 1183

Number of surface water bodies to which exemptions under Article 4.4 apply || 404 || 101 || 4 || 2 || 511

Table 11.1: Objectives of surface water bodies

Source: WISE and RBMPs

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

There are drinking water protected areas, but no additional objectives have been established. The most important water protection objective for the groundwater well-fields is good quantitative and qualitative (chemical) status of the well-fields:

· Where the status is good, it must be maintained;

· Where the status is lower than good, measures should be introduced to improve the status; and

· Where the status is critically going down, such a process should be stopped.

Taking into account the actual status of groundwater in Lithuania and its assessments carried out, two criteria groups are recommended for evaluating the quality status of polluted shallow and relatively clean confined groundwater.

No shellfish protected areas have been designated.

The objective for the bathing waters is to comply with the requirements of the Bathing Water Directive. No additional objectives have been established.

The Natura 2000 sites are integrated in the national protected areas system.

11.2 Exemptions according to Articles 4(4) and 4(5)

There are exemptions according to Article 4(4) (delayed achievement of the objectives) and there is an assessment of the main impacts causing exemptions at water body level.

In order to evaluate disproportionate costs, a methodology was chosen based on affordability, i.e. the ability of national, municipal and private entities to pay for the achievement of the objectives regarding water protection. It was assessed whether the costs for the implementation of the proposed supplementary measures exceeded the ability to pay of those entities (operating in the public and private sector) which could be financially affected by those measures, and whether this would represent an unfair financial burden.

There are over 30% of straightened water bodies in Lithuania. At this stage of the planning, due to insufficient information regarding the impact of river straightening on the ecological status and the considerable financial costs required for the renaturalisation of rivers, it was decided to run a trial project of the first stage of planning by renaturalising river strips and, eventually, if it proved itself effective, to apply it in all other straightened water bodies. Therefore, the principle of disproportionality was used together with the technical infeasibility reasons.

The costs of implementing the measure for the improvement of the hydromorphological status and other measures were compared to the state and/or municipal expenses for environmental protection, in order to assess the level of costs that would be required for the implementation of additional measures and to make an adequate decision on the possibility of applying the measures until 2015. The impact of implementing supplementary measures in the agricultural sector was compared to the income of three categories of farmers.

The costs of renaturalisation were calculated for each sub-basin, based on the number of km to be renaturalisation and the unit price for renaturalisation of one km. The administrative costs were calculated for control of the implementation of agricultural measures in all sub-basins and in all Regional Environmental Protection Departments. The administrative costs for control of agricultural measures were compared to the existing load of responsible persons and a potential increase of the administrative load.

The costs of basic measures and supplementary measures are calculated separately. The disproportionality reasons, together with the technical and, especially, the acceptability reasons, are used only for renaturalisation related to the supplementary measures. The basic measures are not excluded when the affordability of households to pay for water services is calculated. It is important to note that the implementation of no single supplementary measure has been postponed or facilitated due to the affordability of households to pay. In other cases, the basic measures do not influence the disproportionality (affordability) calculations.

The implementation costs of the basic directives in the water sector are not included in the postponement justification. The costs of the water sector management, according to the Water Framework Directive, and the costs that would also be incurred in the implementation of this Directive are clearly distinguished in the RBMPs and in the programmes of measures.

The required extension for achieving good ecological status in the water bodies in Lithuania due to the technical infeasibility is mainly related to two reasons: more time is required or there is insufficient information on the problem and/or its cause and hence no solution can be proposed.

It has been established that the concentrations of nitrate nitrogen generated in a number of water bodies in the category of the rivers within the Nemunas RBD due to pressures from diffuse pollution are much higher than the criteria set for good ecological status/potential. The application of the basic measures to reduce agricultural pollution proposed for the entire country would not be sufficient in certain areas and even more additional measures will be required. With a view to reducing the nitrogen concentrations in such water bodies to the required level, artificial wetlands/sedimentation ponds or similar measures would be needed as such measures allow capturing nitrogen in drainage water and have been recognised as very efficient ones in various literary sources. However, these measures which demand large investments have never been applied in Lithuania before; hence, pilot projects are proposed to ascertain whether the measures are sufficiently efficient, as well as to get to know practical aspects of their implementation and to postpone investments for a later period.

It is proposed to postpone the achievement of water protection objectives in water bodies where there is uncertainty about the status assessment results until more data verifying the status of such water bodies and enabling identification of significant pollution sources are obtained. River stretches affected by hydropower plants are designated as water bodies at risk. However, in many cases there is no data which would verify a negative impact of hydromorphological alterations on the status of water bodies.

There are also natural conditions, which prevent the attainment of water protection objectives. Due to the impacts of diffuse pollution, some water bodies at risk (especially the lakes and ponds) will not be able to achieve good ecological status and good ecological potential during the first cycle of the implementation of the Plan. Even if the pollutant input to the water bodies is stopped, good ecological status/potential may be unattained due to re-suspension of pollutants accumulated in the bottom sediments. Self-cleaning processes in standing waters and low-drainage water bodies are much slower than in ecosystems of flowing water bodies. Self-restoration of more inert biological quality elements, such as macrophytes and fish, is an especially slow process. Also, phosphorus amounts in an ecosystem of transitional and coastal waters are largely depending on secondary pollution (from the bottom sediments) which can be managed only in a limited way. The most important factor determining the ecological status of the coastal waters is the level of eutrophication typical of the Baltic Sea.

Analysis of all the RBDs has established the following uncertainties: uncertainty about the status of water bodies in the category of rivers; uncertainty about impacts of certain risk factors on water bodies in the category of rivers; uncertainty about the ecological status in lakes and good ecological potential in ponds and about the reasons of poor status.

RBD || Global[18]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

LT1100 || 120 || 0 || 195 || 0 || 44 || -

LT2300 || 17 || 0 || 36 || 0 || 4 || -

LT3400 || 28 || 0 || 61 || 0 || 4 || -

LT4500 || 4 || 0 || 5 || 0 || 1 || -

Total || 169 || 0 || 297 || 0 || 53 || -

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

Article 4(6) is not applied.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

Article 4(7) is not applied.

11.5 Exemptions to the Groundwater Directive

No exemptions to the Groundwater Directive exist.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 of the WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are only required to become operational by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

Therefore It does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[19] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

Ecological and chemical status assessment was the basis for the planning of the PoMs. The Programmes of Measures were adopted by the Government of Lithuania. As there is no international RBMP, the measures were not coordinated with other MS and third countries.

The PoMs provides a list of measures to be implemented, the geographical area where the measure should be implemented, the responsible institutions, deadlines and funds required, as well as the source of funds. There are various measures required: national, local and water body related. The following institutions are responsible for the implementation of the programmes of measures:

· Ministry of Environment (point pollution reduction, diffuse pollution reduction, improvement of hydro morphological status, improvement of status of transitional and coastal waters, strengthening of control of the use of hazardous substances and identification of their sources, public awareness raising and training of interested parties),

· Environmental Protection Agency (diffuse pollution reduction, strengthening of control of the use of hazardous substances and identification of their sources, identification of the origin and sources of the negative impact on water bodies),

· Lithuanian Geological Survey (improvement of monitoring of groundwater),

· Ministry of Agriculture (diffuse pollution reduction, public awareness raising and training of interested parties),

· Fisheries Service under the Ministry of Agriculture (improvement of hydro morphological status),

· Ministry of Energy (improvement of hydro morphological status),

· Ministry of Transport and Communications (improvement of status of transitional and coastal waters),

· Regional Environmental Protection Departments (identification of the origin and sources of the negative impact on water bodies), and

· Municipalities (point pollution reduction, improvement of the status of transitional and coastal waters).

Investment, operation and maintenance, as well as administrative costs have been clearly identified, and there is a clear financial commitment (in the Government Order) to implement the measures foreseen in the first cycle of the Programme of Measures.

In the PoMs in general, costs are provided for the basic and supplementary measures. Moreover, the costs for supplementary measures are those which are planned to be implemented until 2015 and the rest which is to be implemented later.

Summary of costs for supplementary measures of all four PoMs by 2015:

Group of measures || Investment / lump-sum costs, € million || Operational /  yearly costs, € million

Basic measures || 700 || 26

Supplementary || 13 || 10

Total || 713 || 36

Table 12.1.1: Summary of costs of measures.

Source: RBMPs

In the overall PoMs, basic measures make the largest part, but the most of the analysis deals with the supplementary measures (analysis such as affordability, impact on the state budget or households, farmers, etc.). The investment costs for the supplementary measures for the maximum scenario are equal to € 36.2 million; the investment costs for the scenario until 2015 are € 13 million. The running costs (the most part here is for supplementary agricultural measures, as these are annual in most cases) for the maximum scenario are € 5.8 million/year; for the scenario until 2015 costs are equal to € 5.7 million/year.

There are basic measures that are being implemented for the development of nature management plans according to the Habitats and Birds Directives. Some funds need to be spent for a few studies, related to the coastal and inland waters; in particular, for the identification of pollution sources in a few lakes and rivers and for a pilot wetland project.

Most of the measures in the PoM are related to specific water bodies: for example, modernisation of wastewater treatment plants in concrete settlements or fish migration improvement measures (fish passes) at concrete river sites. The PoMs contain also national measures, related to some legal requirements (for example, drafting of a regulation on additional monitoring at water intake sites). Some measures should be implemented in the regions by the staff of the Regional Environmental Protection Departments (for example, control of the implementation of supplementary agricultural measures).

The investment costs for the mitigation of hydromorphological alterations by remeandering the streams and upgrading old hydropower plants through the installation of new “fish-friendly” turbines are foreseen for the subsequent planning cycles (2015-2027) and are estimated to be € 42 million (mainly for remeandering of the streams).

All measures approved by the Government Order should be implemented by 2015.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Diffuse pollution from agriculture exerts a significant pressure on the quality of surface water. The hydromorphological modifications due to agriculture are also significant. Nitrates in organic pollution are indicated as significant pressures leading to less than good status of water bodies.

Modification of fertiliser application, change to low input farming, hydromorphological and multi-objective measures have been selected as technical measures. Non-technical measures, planned in the RBMPs are the following: implementation and enforcement of older EU legislation (amendment of regulations related to the fertilisation practices), setting up or redefining codes of good agricultural practice, advice and training, as well as awareness raising. Pilot project on wetlands is foreseen for the first planning cycle. Depending on the results of the pilot project, additional measures in the following RBMP development cycles may be approved.

However, measures were not discussed with farmers specifically. Farmers were consulted in the initial phase of RBMP development.

The scope of the application of measures for agriculture is provided in all RBMPs. There are measures foreseen on national scale and for specific types of farms, e.g. there are special requirements for the farms having less than 10 livestock units and those having more than 150 ha of agricultural land. 

Costs of measures have been detailed and financial commitment is indicated in the Government Order, adopted in 2010. Moreover, Rural Development Programme is to be changed according to the measures planned in the RBMP.

Measures || LT1100 || LT2300 || LT3400 || LT4500

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || || || ||

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ü || || ü ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || || ||

Measures against soil erosion || || || ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü || ü || ü || ü

Technical measures for water saving || || || ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || || ||

Nutrient trading || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü || ü || ü || ü

Institutional changes || || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || ü || ü || ü || ü

Farm advice and training || ü || ü || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü || ü || ü || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || || || ||

Certification schemes || || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || ü || ü || ü || ü

Specific action plans/programmes || || || ||

Land use planning || || || ||

Technical standards || || || ||

Specific projects related to agriculture || || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || || || ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

Land drainage, hydropower, flood protection, navigation and deepening are the major pressures related to hydromorphology. There are measures to tackle almost all these pressures foreseen in the RBMPs. Fish ladders, removal of barriers, setting minimum ecological flow requirements, operational modifications for hydropeaking, remeandering of former straightened river stretches and investigative monitoring by HPPs and change of turbines of certain HPPs are planned in the PoMs.

An assessment of expected effects was made for some measures. Other effects (for example from the remeandering of the rivers) are not clear and thus only pilot studies are foreseen in the first planning cycle.

There are separate chapters on measures for HMWB in the Programmes of Measures. There is also an Order of the Minister on the approval of the list of dams where installations for fish migration are required and of the list of the remains of former dams where barriers for fish migration are to be removed. It is also planned to remeander one river, to which HMWB status is assigned (supplementary measure).

Construction and use of waterworks for any sector is subject to a number of measures regulating the regime of water levels, environmental flow, water accounting, management of erosion processes, and fish protection. Improvement of the ecological status/potential is considered in agriculture (especially the Lithuanian Rural Development Programme 2007-2013), Natura 2000 protected areas, coastal zone management and hydropower production planning activities.

Measures || LT1100 || LT2300 || LT3400 || LT4500

Fish ladders || ü || ü || ü ||

Bypass channels || ü || ü || ü ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || ü || ü ||

Sediment/debris management || || || ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || || || ||

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || ü || ü || ü ||

Lowering of river banks || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || || || ||

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || || || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || ü || ü || ü || ü

Inundation of flood plains || ü || || ü ||

Construction of retention basins || || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || ü || || ü || ü

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

The basic measures related to quantitative status are presented in the Law on Drinking Water. There are no supplementary measures foreseen for the quantitative status.

The basic measures of legal nature to prevent and limit inputs of pollution are described in the Law on Drinking Water and in several by-laws, they cover e.g. discharge permits regulated by the Procedure for the Inventory of Discharges of Hazardous Substances into Groundwater and Collection of Information. No supplementary measures to prevent and limit inputs of pollution are foreseen.

As regards specific measures in GWBs with exceedances, additional monitoring of the significant and sustained upward trends in the well fields of five problematic groundwater bodies is planned.

No international co-ordination measures are planned yet. Meetings of experts and exchange of monitoring information between Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Belarus and Russia are organised on a regular basis.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

There is an inventory of sources of pollution; however, some sources of pollution with priority substances and non-priority specific pollutants cannot be identified yet due to the lack of data. The inventory covers priority substances and certain other pollutants, non-priority specific pollutants, deoxygenating substances and nutrients.

The following information on the discharge of priority substances, certain other pollutants and non-priority specific pollutants is provided in the inventory: name of the substance and CAS number, number of outlets, amounts discharged, sub-basin and name of the river receiving the pollutants (as presented in the background document to the RBMPs). The data on point source discharge of nutrients and deoxygenating substances are aggregated to the following categories: agglomerations with a p.e. of more than 2000 p.e., other settlements and rural areas, industrial dischargers, surface (storm water) runoff, other dischargers (mainly emitting untreated household waste water). The data are provided on the sub-basin level.

In general, the knowledge on pollution of surface waters by priority substances and non-priority specific pollutants is rather limited, as there is no sufficient monitoring for this. The measures foreseen in the RBMP reflect the situation: develop recommendations for wastewater treatment plants on the assessment of wastewater toxicity; prepare recommendations for IPPC holders; and state institutions issuing those permits on the inventory of hazardous substances.

There are measures planned specifically for phosphorus.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

All major water services, such as abstraction of surface water (mainly for cooling purposes) and groundwater, distribution of groundwater, wastewater collection and treatment, use of surface water for hydro-electric power production, navigation, etc. are described in the RBMPs. Self-abstraction, however, is not analysed.

At least households, industry and agriculture are defined as water uses, making reference to the impact of water uses on the water status or pressure and impact analysis. Cost recovery is calculated for all defined water services.

The financial costs and subsidies are included into the cost recovery calculation as well as the environmental and resource costs. The environmental and resource costs are internalised, i.e. included in the water tariff via taxes on state natural resources and pollution charges.

The polluter-pays principle is taken into account in the recovery of the costs of water services, by including the resource costs and the environmental costs and through the inclusion of an adequate contribution of the different water uses into the calculation of cost recovery of water services.

The Methodology for the Pricing of Drinking Water Supply and Wastewater Management Services approved by the National Control Commission for Prices and Energy defines the principles for setting the tariffs taking into account the principle of cost recovery.

The tariffs for water supply and wastewater treatment in Lithuania are calculated to ensure full recovery of water use costs for households and industry. Cost recovery is assessed for three sectors: public water supply and wastewater treatment, industry and agriculture:

· For the water supply and wastewater treatment sector the revenue from the tariffs was compared to the expenditure for water supply and wastewater collection and treatment. Calculations were made for each sub-basin and the whole RBD.

· For industry (with its own water supply and/or wastewater treatment) the potential subsidy schemes were checked and a conclusion was made that practically no subsidies from the EU or the Environmental Investment Fund had been provided.

· For agriculture a different method was used: the costs calculated for the supplementary measures in total were compared to the costs required to achieve good ecological status after 2015 (for measures that will not be implemented by 2015 because of technical or other reasons), i.e. the cost of diffuse pollution "remediation" measures was used.

The water pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently. All water consumption is metered.

No flexibility in applying the cost recovery principle is implemented.

No international co-operation in the application of Article 9 has been conducted.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

No additional measures are identified as needed and planned in the protected areas and no additional objectives are set for the areas of drinking water in Lithuania.

13. water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management and Climate change adaptation 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity issues are not relevant for Lithuania due to the geographic location and the climatic conditions of the country. Extensive drainage systems have been constructed in Lithuania to increase the productivity of soil. Water is not used for irrigation in the country. During the last couple of decades, summer droughts were registered in 1992, 1994, 2002 and 2006.

Seeking to establish the impact of climate change on water bodies, a thorough analysis was carried out. It involved investigating changes in the climate indicators until 2020, trends in the changes of droughts, forecasts for the leakage of water bodies until 2020 and assessing the impact of climate change on lakes. Upon completion of the analysis, it was concluded that there would not be any significant climate changes until 2020 that could affect the achievement of the objectives of water protection in the water bodies.

The assessment was based on climate change models (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) 2007). A preliminary forecast of irrigation conditions in individual months during the period from May through August showed that dry months could be expected in 20 to 25 % of cases. Meanwhile very dry months (severe droughts) can occur once in 3 to 4 years. There is a lack of data to maintain that droughts in Lithuania will have a significant impact on the water flow of rivers.

No measures have been identified to address water scarcity and droughts. International co-ordination with respect to water scarcity and droughts is not relevant for the country.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods are not identified as a significant pressure / water management issue in Lithuania; therefore flood protection is not mentioned in respect to the designation of HMWB, 4.6 & 4.7 article justification. Flood control measures are briefly described in the RBMPs with reference to the Programme on Preparation for Floods and Response to Flood Consequences for 2007-2015. The aforementioned programme establishes measures to ensure the operation of the existing polder system employing organisational and technical measures. Implementation of the natural water retention measures, construction of new dykes/flood protection dams, etc. is not foreseen in the RBMPs.

The chapter on climate change in the RBMPs indicates that by 2020 spring floods will be less intensive than they are now due to climate change, because of an increase of summer flows and decreased accumulation of snow as a result of shorter and less cold winters.

A Floods Directive related study is carried out in Lithuania and will be coordinated with the RBMPs.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

There is a separate chapter on climate change in the RBMPs. The results of the analysis show that climate change during the period analysed (until 2020) will not have significant effect on achievement of the objectives set for water bodies. It is understood that the PoM does not need to be adjusted as the impact of the climate change will have no significant effect on efficiency of the measures.  The PoMs do not provide any specific climate change adaptation measures.

Lithuania has adopted the National Strategy for Implementation of the UN Convention on Climate Change.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, that interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps. Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and the delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· Lithuania needs to further enhance the coordination with other EU Member States as well as third countries with which it shares the RBDs, and ensure that international RBMPs are prepared at least with other EU Member States, while endeavouring to prepare international RBMPs involving third countries.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status.  It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.  

· Monitoring, method development and assessment of ecological status for transitional and coastal waters needs to be continued, together with the detailed further steps that will be identified through the next phase of the inter-calibration process. Good monitoring programmes that can pick up pressures will ultimately lead to more targeted cost-effective programmes of measures. It is furthermore not clear if the monitoring programme reported in the RBMPs is the programme used for these RBMPs, so more transparent information is needed in the RBMPs on the monitoring programmes.

 

· A large number of exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be transparent. The high number of exemptions applied in these first RBMPs is a cause of concern. Lithuania  should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainties.

· It is unclear whether there are new physical modifications planned in RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· The approach to assessing chemical status needs to be reconsidered, since there is a misunderstanding of the role of Annual Average (AA) concentrations, and Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MACs). Monitoring of priority substances needs to be enhanced.

· Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived. Where it helps to achieve the necessary analytical sensitivity, priority substances whose concentrations are difficult to measure in water should where possible be monitored in sediment or biota so that they can be included in the chemical status assessment. The trend monitoring in sediment or biota for several substances as specified in Directive 2008/105/EC Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.

· Quite a lot of effort has gone into understanding diffuse pollution from agriculture. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that farmers knows the rules and the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture or for households. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs shall be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

[1]     Ref Eurostat (2011)

[2]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[3]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[4]     Pressures and Measures Study, Task 1 Governance.

[5]     Taking into account the outputs of the study Identification of substances hazardous for the aquatic environment in Lithuania carried out in 2006.

[6]     This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[7]     The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[8]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[9]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[10]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[11]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[12]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[13]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[14]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[15]    Order No. D1-256 of the Minister of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania of 23 May 2005 (Official Gazette, 2005, No. 69-2481) on the “Description of the Types of Surface Water Bodies, the Description of the Indicators of Reference Conditions of the Quality Elements for Surface Waters, and the Description of the Criteria for the Identification of Artificial, Heavily Modified Water Bodies and Water Bodies at Risk”.

[16]    See previous footnote.

[17]    http://wfd.atkins.dk/report/WFD_aggregation_reports/SWB_STATUS_NATURAL

[18] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[19]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin Districts

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE

Belgium has a population of about 11 million[1] and has a total area of 30528 km2. The country consists of three regions: the Brussels-Capital Region, the Flemish Region and the Walloon Region.

Belgium has four river basin districts, of which the Meuse and Scheldt cover most of the Belgian territory. The Rhine and Seine river basins cover a much smaller part of Belgium. Because of the division of responsibilities among the different regions of the federal state of Belgium there are several plans for the same RBD within Belgium. All the Belgian river basins are shared with other MS and/or third countries:

· Scheldt: FR, NL

· Meuse: FR NL, LU, DE

· Rhine: DE, AT, FR, NL, LI (third country), CH (Third country)

· Seine: FR

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || Countries sharing RBD

BESchelde_VL || Scheldt/L'Escaut || 12026 || FR, NL

BEEscaut_Schelde_BR || 162 || FR, NL

BEEscaut_RW || 3745 || FR, NL

BENoordzee_FED || 1428 || FR, NL

BEMaas_VL || Meuse/Maas || 1601 || DE, FR, LU, NL

BEMeuse_RW || 12255 || DE, FR, LU, NL

BERhin_RW || Rhin (Rhine) || 767 || AT, CH, DE, FR, LI, NL

BESeine_RW || Seine || 80 || FR

Table 1.1: Overview of Belgium’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[2]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/be/eu/wfdart13

The three larger international river basins on the Belgian territory (Scheldt/L'Escaut, Maas/Meuse and the Rhine) are all in co-operation category 1, that is there are international RBMPs, international agreements and an international co-operation body.

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

1

km² || %

Scheldt || BESchelde_VL || FR, NL || 11.991 || 32.9

BEEscaut_Schelde_BR || FR, NL || 161 || 0.4

BEEscaut_RW || FR, NL || 3.770 || 10.4

BENoordzee_FED || FR, NL || ||

Meuse || BEMaas_VL || DE, FR, LU, NL || 1.596 || 4.6

BEMeuse_RW || DE, FR, LU, NL || 12.300 || 35.8

Rhine || BERhin_RW || AT, CH, DE, FR, LI, NL || 750 || 0.4

Seine || BESeine_RW || FR || ||

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Belgium[3].

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

Only the two RBMPs of the Flemish Region and the Federal plan on the coastal waters have been adopted and reported. The draft RBMPs for the Walloon region are under consultation between 11/6/2012 and 18/1/2013. Consultation took place in the Brussels Capital Region   between 28/2/2011 and 28/8/2011[4], and the Brussels authorities notified the Commission of the adoption of the RBMP in July 2012. No report has yet been published, and the RBMP has not been assessed.

RBD || RBMP Date of Adoption || RBMP Date of Reporting

BBEscaut_RW || Not yet adopted || Not yet reported

BBEscaut_Schelde_BR || 12 July 2012 (5 September 2012 published in Belgian Official Journal) || Not yet reported

BEMaas_VL || 8 October 2010 (1.11.2011 published in Belgian Official Journal) || 8 October 2010

BEMeuse_RW || Not yet adopted || Not yet reported

BENoordzee_FED || 7 December 2009 (12 February 2010 published in Belgian Official Journal) || 29 January 2010

BRRhin_RW || Not yet adopted || Not yet reported

BESchelde_VL || 8 October 2012 (11 January 2011 published in Belgian Official Journal) || 8 October.2010

BESeine_RW || Not yet adopted || Not yet reported

Table 2.1: Adoption and reporting to the Commission of Belgium's RBMPs

Source: RBMPs

Only the plans of Flanders and the Coastal Waters (competence of the Federal Government) had been adopted and reported to the Commission by the time of the drafting of this report. Therefore, this Member State annex only contains an assessment of those plans. The RBMP for the Region of Brussels was only adopted in July 2012, and the Commission has not yet carried out the assessment of that plan.

The Commission has not yet received the RBMPs of Wallonia. In April 2011, the Commission decided to take Belgium to the European Court of Justice (Case C‑366/11) for failing to adopt and report its RBMPs to the European Commission. The ruling of the Court of Justice was published on 24 May 2012, whereby it is established that Belgium has failed to comply with its obligations as required by the WFD Articles 13(2),(3) and (6), Article 14(1c) and Article 15(1).

2.1 Key strengths and weaknesses (Flemish and Coastal Waters RBMPs) 2.1.1 Main strengths

· The public consultation has been carried out in transparent way. Information on how the given comments have been used to change the plan is provided in the plans.

· In the Flemish RBMPs, information sheets include information on the different measures and cost-effectiveness has been used to prioritize the measures. In the Coastal Waters plan, there is a complete list of basic and supplementary measures needed for the achievement of the environmental objectives.

· The ecological and chemical status assessment methods have been developed for all water categories.

· In Flanders, there is work foreseen with test areas to assess the effectiveness of supplementary measures in order to have a better knowledge basis for the selection of supplementary measures on for the next RBMPs.

2.1.2 Main weaknesses

· In both Flanders and Coastal Waters RBMPs, most measures are defined very general without a timeline of implementation or committed financial resources and there is generally a lack of a clear link with the status assessment.

· Considering the important number of heavily modified water bodies (HMWBs) in the Flemish region, the designation of HMWBs should more clearly follow the provisions of the Article 4(3) of the WFD.

· The Flemish assessment methods for defining good ecological potential are quite complex and should be described in the RBMP in a clearer way.

· It should be made clearer that the designated coastal water body in the Flemish RBMP was not further considered in the RBMP due to a change of the category of the water body.

3. Governance 3.1 RBMP timelines

The Flemish RBMPs were reported to the EEA Central Data Repository (CDR) on 10.08.2010. The federal plan of the North Sea was submitted on 29 January 2010 on paper to the Commission and in WISE on 20 May 2011.

RBD || Timetable || Work programme || Statement on consultation || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Final RBMP

Due dates || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009

BESchelde_VL || 22/11/2006 || 22/11/2006 || 22/11/2006 || 22/11/2006 || 16/12/2008 || 08/10/2010

BEEscaut_Schelde_BR || - || - || - || - || - || -

BEEscaut_RW || - || - || - || - || - || -

BENoordzee_FED || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2008 || || 22/12/2008 || 12/02/2010

BEMaas_VL || 22/11/2006 || 22/11/2006 || 22/11/2006 || 22/11/2006 || 16/12/2008 || 08/10/2010

BEMeuse_RW || - || - || - || - || - || -

BERhin_RW || - || - || - || - || - || -

BESeine_RW || - || - || - || - || - || -

Table 3.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: WISE

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

Belgium is a federal state with responsibilities for water management at the regional level and at the federal level. The federal and regional responsibilities are exclusive and equivalent with no hierarchy between the standards issued by each group. The regions are responsible in their territory for environment and water policy (including technical regulations regarding drinking water quality), land development, nature conservation and public works and transport. The Federal Government has responsibility for, amongst other things, the economic aspects of drinking water provision (i.e. the establishment of maximum prices and the approval of price increases) in the entire Belgian territory and has environmental responsibilities for coastal and territorial waters (from the lowest low-waterline). Because of these different responsibilities, there are several river basin management plans even within the same river basin district. To deal with this, co-ordination is carried out at national and international level, while the plans are developed at the regional level (except for the Federal plan on coastal waters) and therefore a mainly regional approach to river basin planning is used.

International co-ordination with neighbouring countries and the relevant Belgian actors (federal state and regions) is carried out in the International Scheldt Commission and the International Meuse Commission. (Treaties of Ghent, 3 December 2002).

Regular and systematic internal Belgian co-ordination takes place in the Co-ordination Committee for International Environmental Policy (CCIEP) (Co-operation agreement of 5 April 1995 between the Federal State, the Flemish Region, the Walloon Region and the Brussels Capital Region). The CCIEP is, according to the agreement, inter alia competent for "consultations in order to arrive at co-ordinated implementation of the recommendations and decisions of international organisations". The Water Steering Group of this Committee is the consultative body responsible for the necessary co-ordination of the execution of the WFD between the different competent authorities in Belgium. The regions must consult each other regarding water bodies that extend over more than one region and within the SG Water. The formal and official steps are determined for establishing the river basin management plans in order to arrive at a co-ordinated position. There can however not be an exchange of competences through the co-operation agreement which means that the co-ordination and co-operation carried out does not guarantee the timely reporting by other competent authorities within the MS.

For the Flemish Region the competent authority is the Co-ordination Committee on Integrated Water Policy (CIW). This committee has, according to the Flemish Decree on Integrated Water Policy, the following task:

The CIW is responsible for the preparation, control and the follow up of the integrated water policy at the level of the Flemish Region. It watches over the uniform approach to the management of the basin and has the task to carry out the decisions of the Flemish government in the field of integrated water policy.

The CIW has an important role in the planning and execution of water policy at the river basin level. The CIW is designated as the competent authority for the implementation of the WFD and the FD. Among its responsibilities are the preparation of the RBMPs for the Flemish Region, reporting to the European Commission on WFD implementation, organizing the public consultation of the RBMPs, preparing the methodology and guidance for the development of the RBMPs and aligning the RBMPs with the Flemish Water Policy Note.

The CIW consists of the executive management of the administrations and entities with an important role in water policy. In the RBMP, the members of the CIW are considered as "water managers".

For the organisation and planning of integrated water management, the decree on Integrated Water Policy distinguishes 4 levels:

· The River Basin District (Scheldt and Meuse) with the river basin management plans;

· The Flemish region (river basins Scheldt, Meuse, IJzer, Polders of Bruges) with the Water Policy Note;

· The sub-basin (11) with the river catchment management plans;

· Sub-sub-basin (103) with the sub-river catchment management plans.

The preparation, planning, control and follow-up are carried out at each of these levels. Within the CIW, specific structures have been put in place in order to carry out these tasks. The CIW oversees the functioning of the sub-basin structures, supports it and reviews possible contradictions between binding provisions of the management plans at the different levels.

Figure 3.1: Organogram of the Competent Authority for the Flemish Region: CIW and its member administrations and entities.

Source: BE-Flanders authorities

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

For the Flemish region[5], the RBMPs are planning documents approved by Governmental Decision. In the hierarchy of legal acts, on the one hand, it falls under laws and regulations (decrees) so cannot contradict other laws and regulations. On the other hand, it stands above water-related administrative decisions including sub-basin management plans. Besides, it applies only on the river basin scale and to specific regional entities and authorities. Hence plans cannot modify national level administrative decisions.

As regards the legal effect, legislation provides that authorities must take into account the established RBMPs in their decision-making. Authorities’ decisions must be motivated in this respect and must take into consideration relevant set objectives. This has been confirmed by a decision of the Belgian Constitutional Court which stated that authorities must take the relevant water management plans into consideration in evaluating a programme, measure or permit.[6] There is according to the legislation a relationship between the RBMPs and the individual permits, with a revision of permits if the environmental objectives are unlikely to  be achieved. The Decree stipulates that where it appears from monitoring data or other information that the environmental objectives for water bodies will not be met, the Flemish Government ensures that the relevant permits and authorisations are examined and subject to revision if necessary. The permitting authorities are bound by this.

Concerning international co-operation, the RBMP makes reference to the "management plan roof report" which includes the multi-lateral (between MS and regions) co-operation activities. In Annex 1.1 a short description of this plan is given together with a link to the website of the international commissions where the plan can be retrieved.

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

In Flanders, a campaign called "Vol van water" was used for the involvement of the public. Information on the draft RBMP was made available on the website of the campaign. Information on the public involvement was sent out through announcements in written press, radio and television. There was also a folder and a brochure available. The draft plans were available in town halls where it was possible to submit written remarks. The plan was accompanied by a manual that explained the consultation process, gave a summary of the different chapters and gave some illustrative questions for participation. It was even possible to give remarks online through the campaigns website. The CIW then submitted these remarks to a municipality and by this validated the remarks. For every sub-basin an information meeting was organized where questions on the plans could be formulated and formal remarks could be made. A workshop was organized with the three advisory bodies where they were given information and they could give their responses to the plans.

Also the international parts of the RBMPs have been under consultation and all the relevant competent authorities of other Member States have been contacted to participate. Information on the consultation processes in different Member States has been exchanged between the partners of the international river basins.

The impact of the public consultation on the plans is described in a consideration document[7]. There it is acknowledged that the received remarks have led to a substantial change of the draft plans within the legal provisions, both editorial and content-wise. The impact is described in that document. An annex to the document shows for each remark how it has been taken into account and if it has led to a change of the plan. Some of the adjustments are clarifications and refinements to the text or the information sheets of the measures; refinement and complementing of certain data; clarifications on the co-operation at the bi- and multilateral level and an optimisation of the scenarios. Some of the recommendations that have been included in the CIW working plan of 2010 are greater involvement of the civil society; better co-ordination between the different planning cycles; clearer linkage of measures to specific actions and the consideration of smaller water bodies to be included in the second RBMP.

The RBMP for the Coastal Waters also include a transparent explanation of the feedback received during the public consultation and whether and how this feedback was integrated in the final draft of the RBMP.

3.5 International cooperation and coordination

The two RBDs in the Flemish Region are both international. Agreements on the international co-ordination of the implementation of the WFD and the approach to other issues such as the protection against floods in the international river basins have been made in the treaties of Ghent in 2002. The international co-ordination is carried out in the International Scheldt Commission[8] and the International Meuse Commission[9].

For these two international river basins there are international plans that address the effects of the international co-ordination activities. These plans can be downloaded from the websites of the international commissions. The Flemish RBMPs do not address international co-ordination specifically.

In the Scheldt RBMP it is however mentioned that the standards and classes for physico-chemical parameters have been partly aligned with standard proposals in the Netherlands, France and the Walloon Region. Bilateral consultation and co-ordination is also taking place for issues such as environmental objectives, programme of measures, monitoring, chemical and ecological status and impacts. This is carried out between Member States or regions that share certain water bodies. This work is carried out both within and outside of the international Scheldt commission.

3.6 Integration with other sectors

In Annex 1.2 of the RBMP, other plans and programmes relevant to water management and water policy are mentioned together with a summary. Although several of these plans and programmes are mainly addressing water management issues, some have a much broader scope such as the spatial master plan for Flanders[10].

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

In the Flemish Region there are water bodies of all four water body categories (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters). The transitional water bodies have been delineated mainly on the basis of salinity.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

BEMaas_VL || 8 || 9 || 0 || 0

BESchelde_VL || 10 || 13 || 4 || 1

BENoordzee_FED || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1

Table 4.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

In Flanders, a surface water typology has been developed for all water categories, based on system B of the WFD. The RBMPs do not refer to validation of the typology using biological data or to the establishment of reference conditions.

According to recent information provided by Flanders, reference conditions are developed by experts for each BQE and water category. Since there are no reference conditions in Flanders, expert judgement, modelling and data from other member states have been used. These studies have been published in research papers and in some cases peer-reviewed journals. The results have been checked against those of the intercalibration exercise.[11]

In Flanders a total of 26 water body types are defined of which there are 10 river water body types, 12 lake water body types, 3 transitional water body types and 1 coastal water body type[12]. These types include, however, smaller water bodies that are not addressed in the RBMPs. Information on the water body types that are addressed in the RBMPs is given in the next table. It is mentioned in a separate document referred to in the RBMP, that the coastal water body in Flanders will change water body category to a transitional water body. It seems that this has been the reason to not address the coastal water body for monitoring, status assessment and measures. Information on this should have been mentioned more clearly in the RBMP. In the rest of this report, the coastal water body will not be mentioned explicitly since no further information on this has been found.

In the Coastal Waters, the typology of the Belgian coastal waters has been done with system B. The definition of the water type was done with an assessment of latitude, longitude salinity and tidal range. Furthermore, other factors such as substratum and current velocity have been taken into consideration for the differentiation of the different coastal water types in the Scheldt RBD.

|| Number of water body types || No. of water bodies || Average length/area

Rivers || 11 || 177 || 14 km

Lakes || 13 || 18 || 2.2 km2

Transitional waters || 4 || 6 || 7 km2

Coastal waters || 2 || 2 || 715 km2*

Table 4.2: Surface water body types for the two Flemish river basins[13].

Source: WISE

*This value applies to Belgian territorial waters (12 nautical miles)

4.3 Delineation of surface water and groundwater bodies

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

BEMaas_VL || 17 || 16 || 3 || 2 || 0 || || 0 || || 10 || 351

BESchelde_VL || 160 || 14 || 15 || 2 || 6 || 7 || 1 || 1 || 32 || 1360

BENoordzee_FED || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1428 || 0 || 0

Total || 177 || 14 || 18 || 2 || 6 || 7 || 2 || 1 || 42 || 1120

Table 4.3: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

A distinction is made between larger Flemish water bodies and smaller local water bodies. Although there are also environmental objectives for the latter, the plan states that these are not addressed in the plan. The limit for classification as a Flemish water body is 50 ha for lakes and a catchment area of 50 km2 for rivers.

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

Pressures are considered as significant if there is a risk of not achieving WFD objectives. The RBMP states that these pressures are related to the intensive use of land, demographic pressures, economic activities and pollution coming from other countries, regions and river basins. The most significant pressures on surface water are pollution from point and diffuse sources and hydro-morphological alterations. For groundwater the most significant pressures are pollution from point and diffuse sources and groundwater abstractions.

Several methodologies are used for defining significant pressures. For surface water pollution with nutrients and oxygen-binding substances an emission inventory, models and estimations are used for UWWT plants, industry and agriculture. For the significance of groundwater abstractions, permits are used.

For groundwater and sediment pollution, monitoring data are used. For some pressures thresholds are used in determining their significance. For point sources to surface water the size of the UWWT plant, the type of industry (IPPC or not) and the pollution loads coming from the industrial non-IPPC plants are used. For surface water abstraction there is a threshold of 500 000 m3 per year per water body. For groundwater point source pollution, the volume of groundwater that is polluted and exceeds the Flemish soil remediation standards without remedial action being taking is used as a threshold. No thresholds are given for diffuse pollution to either surface or groundwater or for groundwater abstraction. The pollution thresholds are also mainly related to nutrients and oxygen-binding substances. The significance of hydro-morphological pressures is determined by the designation as an artificial or heavily modified water body. Water bodies with heavily polluted sediments are also undergoing significant pressures. Monitoring data from stations at the border of the Flemish region have been used for determining water bodies that undergo pressures from incoming pollution loads[14].

Most information on thresholds is given in WISE. The RBMP gives information on several significant pressures and gives data on pollution loads and abstractions.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

BEMaas_VL || 0 || 0 || 4 || 20 || 20 || 100 || 1 || 5 || 12 || 60 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 15

BESchelde_VL || 0 || 0 || 83 || 45.6 || 182 || 100 || 13 || 7.14 || 151 || 82.97 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 50 || 27.47

BENoordzee_FED || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1 || 0.49 || 87 || 42.86 || 202 || 99.51 || 14 || 6.9 || 163 || 80.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 53 || 26.11

Table 4.4: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

For surface water pollution with nutrients and oxygen-binding substances (BOD, COD), households and agriculture are the most important contributors, with the former being the main polluter with COD, BOD and total phosphorous and the latter the main polluter with total nitrogen in the Scheldt river basin. Agriculture is the main polluter in the Meuse basin. Industry comes in third place, but has a significantly lower contribution. For heavy metals the main sources of pollution are diffuse, leaching from soils and building materials, atmospheric deposition, transport, leaching from Cu-containing paints on ships and the use of wood preservation products. The importance of the different sources depends on the heavy metal. Households and enterprises are also significant contributors, although their share has declined. Plant protection products and industrial pollutants also contribute to chemical pollution and are specifically related to the agricultural and industrial sectors. For diffuse pollution of groundwater, agriculture is contributing to both pollution with nutrients and pesticides, while the latter also comes from public services and households. The significant point source pollution is mainly caused by the non-ferrous metals industry.

In the Federal Coastal Waters RBMP, it is mentioned that data from the OSPAR Convention[15] have been used in the identification of relevant pressures and terrestrial sources of pollution.

The main point source pollution to the coastal waters used to be the discharge of wastewater and, to a lesser extent from industrial discharges. From the late nineties, the wastewater and the industrial discharges were all closed. However, there is still pollution that comes from other parts of Belgium.

The impacts of diffuse source pollution mainly relate to the pollutants present in the rivers and canals, and through horizontal transportation from neighbouring countries (France and the Netherlands). In particular, the diffuse pollution is due to specific pollutants (Cu, Zn), pesticides (Lindane) and nutrients. Hydromorphological pressures are also identified, in particular the impact of the disposal of dredge material and coastal protection activities. The navigation activities in the North Sea are also identified as an important pressure in the Belgian coastal waters, as well as the fisheries, the introduction of alien species, and the military uses of the coast.

4.5 Protected areas

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

BEMaas_VL || 29 || 1 || 2 || || || 10 || || || 1 || || 1

BESchelde_VL || 139 || 1 || 12 || || || 16 || || || 1 || 1 || 1

BENoordzee_FED || || || 3 || || || 1 || || 1 || || ||

Total || 168 || 2 || 17 || || || 27 || || 1 || 2 || 1 || 2

Table 4.5: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[16]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

Source: WISE

The following table indicates the quality elements monitored, as reported to WISE.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

BEMaas_VL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BESchelde_VL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BENoordzee_FED || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

BEMaas_VL || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

BESchelde_VL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BENoordzee_FED || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

It is not possible to compare the number of monitoring stations with the number that is included in the 2009 implementation report, since that number applies to the entire MS Belgium. This explains why for almost all water body categories more monitoring stations were reported in the 2009 implementation report. For lakes however more monitoring stations have been reported than in the 2009 implementation report (Surv 11 vs. 10, Op 51 vs. 36).

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

BEMaas_VL || 6 || 38 || 3 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 10 || 10

BESchelde_VL || 65 || 385 || 8 || 41 || 6 || 13 || 0 || 0 || 32 || 32 || 32

BENoordzee_FED || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 5 || || ||

Total by type of site || 71 || 423 || 11 || 51 || 6 || 13 || 4 || 5 || 42 || 42 || 42

Total number of monitoring sites[17] || 424 || 51 || 13 || 5 || 42

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

In Flanders, an overview of the parameters monitored and the monitoring frequency is given in the RBMPs and WISE. All relevant quality elements are monitored for rivers and lakes. For transitional water bodies one BQE, macroalgae, is missing. All the relevant priority substances and other specific pollutants except for pentabromodiphenylether, C10-13-chloralkanes and DEHP (di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate) were monitored in 2007. This is explained by Flanders by the lack of suitable analysis methods. According to recent information from Flanders polybromodiphenylethers are monitored in sediment and DEHP is monitored in surface water at the moment. There is also a sediment monitoring programme in place that monitors physico-chemistry, eco-toxicology and biology[18].

In the RBMP there is no information on how BQEs have been selected for operational monitoring. According to recent information received from Flanders no selection has been made since there are often several pressures at the same time and the knowledge of the ecological status was incomplete.

Not all the quality elements are monitored for all water bodies; however, no grouping of water bodies has been applied.

Regarding international co-operation, no information is found in the RBMPs. Some information on co-ordination of monitoring is given in the management roof reports that are made by the International Scheldt and Meuse Commissions.

In the Scheldt river basin there is a homogenous monitoring network where, at 14 monitoring points along the river Scheldt, 36 chemical and physico-chemical parameters are monitored every four weeks. Once a year a report is made that assesses the evolution of the chemical quality of the water. According to information from Flanders, this monitoring programme has been extended. In the context of the Scaldwin project there will be transboundary monitoring of sediment loads.

The monitoring network in the Coastal Waters is based on the existing monitoring of the OSPAR Convention, and has been adapted to the requirements of the WFD. There are a total of six monitoring sites. The biological quality elements (BQEs) that are being monitored are chlorophyll a and Phaeocystis for phytoplankton and macrobenthos. The relevant physico-chemical parameters are also claimed to be monitored.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

In Flanders, both surveillance and operational monitoring programmes have been established for groundwater covering both quantitative and chemical status. For the operational monitoring programme the RBMP mentions that risk parameters and risk zones are monitored through a water body specific selection of wells with measurements every 6 months, with the possibility for higher frequency measurements in problem areas. In the RBMP an overview of the monitoring frequencies is given.

No assessment of significant and sustained upward trends in pollutant concentrations for groundwater has been carried out. Recent information from Flanders explains that the setup of the monitoring networks allows for this analysis but that the groundwater monitoring networks for the WFD have only been fully operational since 2004 which is insufficient for such an analysis.

The RBMPs do not address the international co-ordination of groundwater monitoring. More information on this is found in the management plan roof reports. For the Scheldt river basin an example is given of a co-ordinated quantitative monitoring campaign for the groundwater body in the cross-boundary Carboniferous Limestone Aquifer shared by the Flemish Region (BEVL063), France (FRA015) and the Walloon Region (BE_Escaut_RWE060).

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

For protected areas in Flanders designated under the Habitats Directive the surface water monitoring network is linked to the surface water monitoring network for the WFD. All the biological quality elements are monitored in the surface waters of the Habitats Directive monitoring network. For protected nature reserves (not always located in designated Natura 2000 areas), monitoring for groundwater is included in the general groundwater monitoring programme.

For surface water monitoring in protected areas designated

· For the protection of economically significant aquatic species (Directive 2006/113/EC);

· As recreational waters, including areas designated as bathing waters under Directive 76/160/EEC;

· As vulnerable zones under Directive 91/676/EEC and areas designated as sensitive areas under Directive 91/271/EEC;

· Monitoring is carried out as requested by the respective Directives.

Monitoring of surface waters used for human consumption is not done according to the provisions of Annex V 1.3.5, since there are no discharges of priority substances or other substances in significant quantities. Rivers feeding into reservoirs are monitored according to Flemish legislation, the same applies to groundwater used for human consumption.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shell- fish || UWWT

BEMaas_VL || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

BESchelde_VL || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 9

BENoordzee_FED || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 9

Table 5.3: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas[19].

Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

BEMaas_VL || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 50 || 3 || 37.5 || 1 || 12.5 || 0 || 0

BESchelde_VL || 41 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 9.8 || 17 || 41.5 || 19 || 46.3 || 1 || 2.4

BENoordzee_FED || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 50 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 18 || 20 || 40 || 20 || 40 || 1 || 2

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

BEMaas_VL || 12 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 50 || 4 || 33.3 || 2 || 16.7 || 0 || 0

BESchelde_VL || 141 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 25 || 17.7 || 37 || 26.2 || 77 || 54.6 || 2 || 1.4

BENoordzee_FED || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 153 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 31 || 20.3 || 41 || 26.8 || 79 || 51.6 || 2 || 1.3

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

BEMaas_VL || 8 || 2 || 25.0 || 1 || 12.5 || 5 || 62.5

BESchelde_VL || 41 || 18 || 43.9 || 6 || 14.6 || 17 || 41.5

BENoordzee_FED || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0

Total || 50 || 20 || 40.0 || 8 || 16.0 || 22 || 44.0

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

BEMaas_VL || 12 || 2 || 16.7 || 3 || 25.0 || 7 || 58.3

BESchelde_VL || 141 || 27 || 19.1 || 46 || 32.6 || 68 || 48.2

BENoordzee_FED || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 153 || 29 || 19.0 || 49 || 32.0 || 75 || 49.0

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

BEMaas_VL || 4 || 40 || 6 || 60 || 0 || 0

BESchelde_VL || 7 || 21.9 || 25 || 78.1 || 0 || 0

BENoordzee_FED || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 11 || 26.2 || 31 || 73.8 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

BEMaas_VL || 9 || 90 || 1 || 10 || 0 || 0

BESchelde_VL || 19 || 59.4 || 13 || 40.6 || 0 || 0

BENoordzee_FED || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 28 || 66.7 || 14 || 33.3 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BEMaas_VL || 20 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 5 || 5 || || || || || || || || || 90 || 0 || 0 || 0

BESchelde_VL || 182 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || || || || || 97 || 0 || 0 || 0

BENoordzee_FED || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 100 || || || || || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 203 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 1 || 1 || || || || || || || || || 96 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[20]

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BEMaas_VL || 8 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 25.0 || 25.0 || || || || || 6 || 75.0 || 0 || 0

BESchelde_VL || 41 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 4.9 || 4.9 || || || || || 39 || 95.1 || 0 || 0

BENoordzee_FED || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 100 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 50 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 10.0 || 10.0 || || || || || 45 || 90.0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[21]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BEMaas_VL || 8 || 2 || 25.0 || 2 || 25.0 || 0 || || || || || 12.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

BESchelde_VL || 41 || 18 || 43.9 || 18 || 43.9 || 0 || || || || || 14.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

BENoordzee_FED || 1 || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 100 || 100 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 50 || 20 || 40.0 || 21 || 42.0 || 2.0 || || || || || 14.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[22]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BEMaas_VL || 10 || 4 || 40.0 || 4 || 4..0 || 0 || || || || || 60 || 0 || 0 || 0

BESchelde_VL || 32 || 7 || 21.9 || 7 || 21.9 || 0 || || || || || 78 || 0 || 0 || 0

BENoordzee_FED || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 42 || 11 || 26.2 || 11 || 26.2 || 0 || || || || || 74 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[23]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BEMaas_VL || 10 || 9 || 90.0 || 9 || 90.0 || 0 || || || || || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0

BESchelde_VL || 32 || 19 || 59.4 || 19 || 59.4 || 0 || || || || || 41 || 0 || 0 || 0

BENoordzee_FED || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 42 || 28 || 66.7 || 28 || 66.7 || 0 || || || || || 33 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[24]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BEMaas_VL || 12 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 25.0 || 25.0 || || || || || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0

BESchelde_VL || 141 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 96.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

BENoordzee_FED || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 153 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 2.0 || 2.0 || || || || || 96.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[25]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BEMaas_VL || 12 || 2 || 16.7 || 2 || 16.7 || 0 || || || || || 25.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

BESchelde_VL || 141 || 27 || 19.1 || 27 || 19.1 || 0 || || || || || 32.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

BENoordzee_FED || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 153 || 29 || 19.0 || 29 || 19.0 || 0 || || || || || 32.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[26]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

A regional approach to ecological status assessment has been used.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

In Flanders, assessment methods are used for all biological quality elements for rivers and lakes although not all biological quality elements (BQEs) are assessed for all types of rivers and lakes. In the RBMP no assessment methods are mentioned for transitional water bodies. More information on assessment methods is however found in a separate document[27] that is referred to in the RBMPs. There it is explained that because all transitional water bodies are either artificial or heavily modified only methods to assess the ecological potential are used since a method for assessing ecological status would not be applicable. There are ecological assessment methods, but these already take into account the hydro-morphological alterations since there are no natural transitional water bodies in Flanders. These methods are used for assessing status classes. These methods have not been developed for macroalgae because these do not or hardly thrive in the Flemish transitional waters and there is no evidence that the situation was much different in the past11. Angiosperms are evaluated by means of a salt marsh assessment method. The assessment methods for transitional water bodies have been reported in the 2009 implementation report for phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and fish. This can explain the misunderstanding on the definition of status assessment.

It is not clear from the RBMP if the biological assessment methods are able to detect major pressures. In WISE it is however explained that the no deterioration principle for the quality classes should be accompanied with a stand still principle for the human pressures.

Regarding the supporting elements for the biological assessment, class boundaries have been set for physico-chemical quality elements although it is not clear from the RBMP how these are related to the BQE classes. Recent information from Flanders states that the sensitivity of the BQEs to physico-chemical parameters has been taken into account and that these relations have been tested during the intercalibration exercise. For transitional water bodies salinity has not been considered as a supporting quality element since salinity has been a part of the typology of transitional water bodies[28]. For hydro-morphological quality elements monitoring is carried out, but it is unclear how this is related in support of the biological assessment. Recent information from Flanders explains that these elements are not relevant since no surface water body has a high status and hydro-morphological quality elements would be the only contribution to high status. It is however mentioned that results of hydro-morphological monitoring will be included in the next RBMP. EQS have been set for more than 100 specific pollutants including both priority and non-priority substances.

For the status assessment the one-out-all-out principle has been used and the results from the intercalibration exercise have been taken into account. No information has been given on confidence and precision for the biological assessment and also no grouping of water bodies has been done.

BQE || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional

Phytoplankton || Yes || Yes || Not reported in RBMP[29]

Macrophytes and Phytobenthos || Yes || Yes || Not relevant

Macroalgae and Angiosperms || Not relevant || Not relevant || No (Considered not relevant)

Benthic invertebrates || Yes || Yes || Not  reported in RBMP13

Fish || Yes || Yes || Not  reported in RBMP13

Table 7.1.1: Availability of data on BQEs in Flanders

Source: RBMPs

In the Coastal Waters assessment methods are used for Phytoplankton and Macroinvertebrates. The supporting physic-chemical QEs are nutrients (DIN and DIP) and oxygen. Salinity and pH, as well as hydromorphological parameters are also described, although not clear if included in assessment.

The one-out-all-out principle is used. 

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

In Flanders, not all relevant BQEs and supporting quality elements have been monitored yet for all water bodies. According to recent information from Flanders, an inventory phase has been carried out in the first monitoring cycle (2009-2012) in order to get a full picture of the ecological status of all biological quality elements, but because of this timing no information has been included in the RBMP. Hydro-morphological quality elements have been monitored but not used for ecological status assessment.

As confirmed by the Flemish authorities, Maps 5.3 and 5.4 of the RBMP[30] show that the BQE were decisive for the ecological status and not the supporting physico-chemical parameters. Information sheets for each of the surface water bodies are also available. The sheets on 'monitoring' contain monitoring results per water body.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

BEMaas_VL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

BESchelde_VL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - ||

BE_Nordzee_FED || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

Table 7.2: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

7.3 River basin specific pollutants

In the Flemish RBMPs, no information has been found on which river basin specific pollutants were responsible for exceedance of ecological status. Also information on uncertainty for the ecological status results is lacking. All the BQEs of the surveillance monitoring are also used for the operational monitoring. This has recently been explained by Flanders by the limited knowledge and experience in Flanders on the results of biological quality elements.

In the Coastal Waters, the assessment of ecological status has been based on the BQEs Phytoplankton and Macroinvertebrates, Nutrients and oxygen. River basin specific substances (Cu, Zn and PCBs) have been used for assessing chemical status.

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)

BEMaas_VL || || ||

BESchelde_VL || || ||

BE_Nordzee_FED || 7440-66-6 || Zinc and its compounds || 100

BE_Nordzee_FED || 7440-50-8 || Copper and its compounds || 100

BE_Nordzee_FED || 1336-36-3 || PCB || 100

Table 7.3: River basin specific pollutants

Source: WISE

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

Water category || HMWB Number (Percentage of category) || AWB Number (Percentage of category)

BESchelde_VL || BEMaas_VL || BE_Nordzee_FED || Total || BESchelde_VL || BEMaas_VL || BE_Nordzee_FED || Total

Rivers || 87 (54%) || 8 (47%) || 0 (0%) || 95 (54%) || 33 (21%) || 1 (6%) || 0 (0%) || 34 (19%)

Lakes || 1 (7%) || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%) || 1 (6%) || 14 (93%) || 3 (100%) || 0 (0%) || 17 (94%)

Transitional water || 3 (50%) || - || 0 (0%) || 3 (50%) || 3 (50%) || - || 0 (0%) || 3 (50%)

Coastal water || 0 (0%) || - || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%) || - || 0 (0%) || 0 (0%)

All water bodies || 91 (50%) || || || 99 (49%) || 50 (27%) || || 0 (0%) || 54 (27%)

Table 8.1: Number and percentage of HMWBs and AWBs.

Source: WISE

In the Flemish RBMPs a methodology is described to objectivise the detection of 'irreversible hydro-morphological alterations'. For the different uses, different criteria are used for the designation of a HMWB. Expert judgement is used and for some uses also thresholds are being applied. For navigation, all water bodies in certain navigation water body classes are designated as HMWBs. A table in the RBMP shows for each water body the uses that are responsible for the designation as a HMWB.

There is no extensive description of the physical modifications that have led to the designation of HMWB and the focus is more on the use that is causing the water body to be heavily modified. The RBMP mentions that the interpretation of the definition of HMWBs according to Flemish legislation is slightly different from the WFD. According to the Flemish legislation water bodies can be designated as HMWBs if taking away or mitigating the hydro‑morphological alterations would have negative effects on the environment, and activities of high societal importance. From this definition it can be derived that some aspects of the HMWB designation process[31] have not clearly been addressed such as the link between the modifications and the failure to achieve good ecological status, the identification of restoration measures to achieve good ecological status and the assessment of other means to achieve the beneficial objectives of the use. Although the situation in Flanders related to water bodies with hydro-morphological modifications, the several steps of the assessment process should still be carried out and reflected in the RBMP.

The only non-artificial lake has been designated as a HMWB because of its artificial water level management[32]. This information is however not included in the RBMP but in a separate study[33] that is not mentioned in the plan.

No HMWBs or AWBs have been designated in the RBMP for the Belgian Coastal Waters.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

In the Flemish RBMPs, GEP has been defined for all heavily modified and artificial water bodies. A different approach is used depending on the water body category. For transitional water bodies the heavily modified character has already been taken into account in the status assessment since all transitional water bodies are HMWBs or artificial water bodies. For lakes, lake-specific studies have been carried out for determining MEP and GEP. For rivers a generic approach has been carried out consisting of four steps. Pressures are identified and a possible change of water body type is evaluated. Depending on the hydro-morphological alterations the objectives for macrophytes can be changed. For fish and macro-invertebrates the share of the river that undergoes a certain hydro-morphological pressure and the share that shows no alterations are taken into account together with the current status of the river and the GES of the corresponding natural river type to calculate a GEP. This GEP, by definition, lies between the current status and the GES and thereby is an objective that leads to ecological improvement. Also for a selection of physico-chemical quality elements class boundaries can be adapted. Annex 3 of the RBMP contains tables with GEP-values for dissolved oxygen, sulphates, conductivity and chlorides and the biological quality elements.

Neither the reference-based approach nor the mitigation measures approach has been followed. From the RBMP it is not clear how mitigation measures have been handled. It is only mentioned that for some hydro-morphological alterations some mitigation measures are already assumed. More information on the methodologies is given in a background document[34]. This document also refers to the specific studies that have been carried out for determining the MEP/GEP for lakes and to a background document [35]with more information on the general approach to MEP/GEP definition.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

The substances and standards listed in Annex I of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQSD) are set out in the Flemish decree on Environmental Quality Standards[36] of 21 May 2010.

All EQSD substances have been considered for the assessment of the chemical status. Three of them were however not monitored (C10-13 Chloroalkanes, pentabromodiphenylether and Di(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate (DEHP)). From the RBMP it was not clear that the EQS for transitional water bodies had been applied, but recent information from Flanders has pointed out that these standards are included in the Flemish decree on EQS and that these have been used for the assessment of the chemical status of transitional water bodies. Although not clear from the RBMP, recent information from Flanders has shown that EQS for biota are developed for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene[37] although they have not been applied in the RBMP because the monitoring network had not been adjusted to this. EQS for sediment have been developed but they serve as target values and are not used for the assessment of chemical status.

Substance causing exceedance || Exceedances per RBD || Exceedances in Flanders

BESchelde_VL || BEMaas_VL || Number of water bodies || Percentage of total number of water bodies

Cadmium || 1 (0.5%) || 1 (5%) || 2 || 1

Mercury || 9 (4.9%) || || 9 || 4

Alachlor || 3 (1.6%) || || 3 || 1

Chlorpyriphos || 3 (1.6%) || 1 (5%) || 4 || 2

Chlorvenfinphos || 4 (2.2%) || || 4 || 2

Diuron || 18 (9.9%) || || 18 || 9

Endosulfan || 3 (1.6%) || || 3 || 1

Isoproturon || 4 (2.2%) || || 4 || 2

Hexachlorocyclohexane || 4 (2.2%) || || 4 || 2

Anthracene || 1 (0.5%) || || 1 || 0

Nonylphenol || 17 (9.3%) || || 17 || 8

Octylphenol || 1 (0.5%) || || 1 || 0

Fluoranthene || 9 (4.9%) || || 9 || 4

Pentachlorophenol || 4 (2.2%) || || 4 || 2

Benzo(a)pyrene || 4 (2.2%) || || 4 || 2

Benzo(b)fluoranthene || 16 (8.8%) || || 16 || 8

Benzo(k)fluoranthene || 16 (8.8%) || || 16 || 8

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene || 35 (19.2%) || 3 (15%) || 38 || 19

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene || 35 (19.2%) || 3 (15%) || 38 || 19

Tributyltin compounds || 14 (7.7%) || || 14 || 7

Table 9.1: Substances responsible for exceedances

Source: WISE

The main problems regarding chemical pollution in the Belgian Coastal Waters are the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and the TBT compounds. In the Coastal Waters, the exceedances of the EQS for Tributyltin compounds, Pentabromodiphenyl ether and Benzo(b)fluoranthene have led to bad chemical status of the coastal waters.

The chemical status assessment in the coastal waters includes all 41 priority substances according to the EU Directive 2008/105/EC, which entered into force on 13 January 2009. The chemical assessment is done as much as possible in water, although for 3 substances the assessment is done in biota.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

The Flemish RBMPs discuss the pressures on groundwater bodies. Of the 42 groundwater bodies in Flanders, 31 have a poor chemical status and 14 have a poor quantitative status. Because of the one-out-all-out principle, only 7 groundwater bodies achieve good status. There seems to be only information on the status and not on the risks.

Status || BESchelde_VL || BEMaas_VL || Total

Poor chemical status || 25 (78%) || 5 (50%) || 30 (71%)

Poor quantitative status || 13 (41%) || 1 (10%) || 14 (33%)

Good status || 7 (22%) || 4 (40%) || 11 (26%)

Table 10.1: Number and percentage of groundwater bodies and their status.

Source: WISE

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

A methodology for the water balance test for the assessment of groundwater quantitative status is given in the Flemish RBMP which includes the influence of climate change. The RBMP mentions the effects on associated surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems as two of the seven assessment criteria. There is however no further information found on the methodology used.

The only reason for groundwater bodies not achieving good quantitative status is 'exceedance of available groundwater resource by long-term annual average rate of abstraction that may result in a decrease of groundwater levels'.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

Only 'exceedances of one or more quality standards or threshold values' has been given as a reason for failure to achieve good chemical status. There has not been an assessment of significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. This is explained in recent information from Flanders by insufficient data and knowledge on these interactions and the degree of negative effects on these ecosystems.

The substances for which threshold values are established are based on the list included in Annex II Part B of the Groundwater Directive and then adapted to the risks at groundwater bodies (threshold values were not established for three listed substances while Threshold Values (TVs) were added for six others). It is unclear how exceedances of threshold values have been dealt with. Background concentrations have been considered for several parameters. International co-ordination of TVs were done in terms of information and experience exchange on methodologies.

No trend assessment or trend reversals have been carried out because groundwater monitoring networks in accordance to the WFD have only been fully operational since 2004[38].

10.3 Protected areas

Information is given in WISE on the number of groundwater drinking protected areas and their status.

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

BEMaas_VL || 22 || ||

BESchelde_VL || 112 || ||

Total || 134 || 0 || 0

Table 10.2: Status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions 11.1 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

In Flanders a very significant number of water bodies (96% of the total) have been exempted from achieving good status by 2015. In the Flemish RBMPs, there have only been exemptions under Article 4(4) extension of the deadline. It is mentioned that there is a lack of information in order to make use of Article 4(5), but that in the next RBMP this could be a possible option. To determine for which surface water bodies this exemption applies models and expert judgement are used. A Maximum Scenario is used, a scenario which comprises all the basic and supplementary measures for achieving good status in 2015. If modelling/expert judgement shows that it is not possible to meet good status by 2015 with this scenario then the exemption applies. For groundwater, 35 out of 42 water bodies have been exempted based on expert judgement and because of natural conditions (slow groundwater flows and geochemical processes). In WISE it is stated that a number of water bodies are exempted because of disproportionate costs. This explanation is however not used in the RBMP and according to recent information from Flanders, this reason has not been used on the water body level since this was not possible methodologically. The argument of 'disproportionality' is however used in the choice of a scenario for the programme of measures. Tables in the annexes of the RBMPs state for every water body the reason for exemption and on what this is based on (e.g. expert judgement, modelling).

In the RBMP for the Belgian Coastal Waters, the exemptions under Article 4(5) are also not used in this first planning cycle. The plan proposes the delay on the timeline for achieving the objectives under the provisions of Article 4(4). Furthermore, the methods for the assessment of chemical status will be reviewed in 2015 on the basis of additional monitoring data, which will allow for a more complete assessment.

RBD || Global[39]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

BEMaas_VL || 18 || 0 || 18 || 0 || 0 || -

BESchelde_VL || 177 || 0 || 177 || 0 || 0 || -

BE_Nordzee_FED || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

Total || 195 || 0 || 195 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 11.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.2 Additional objectives in protected areas

The RBMPs mention additional objectives for two categories of protected areas, surface water protected areas for drinking water and protected areas under the Habitat and Bird Directives and the Ramsar convention.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of WFD Article 4. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[40] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

There is one Programme of Measures (PoM) for the entire Flemish Region (comprising the Scheldt and Meuse river basins). The sub-basin management plans have been an important basis for the PoM and the PoM builds on these to meet the environmental objectives as required by the WFD. There is no clear link between the PoM and the status assessment. The kind of measures that should be included in the PoM is determined in the Flemish act on Integrated Water Policy. The different categories of measures include categories that are not compulsory according to the WFD (e.g. measures related to floods). Measures are defined at the regional (Flemish Region), the river basin level, sub-basin level and water body level although most measures are defined in a very general way and at the regional level. For some spearhead areas[41] more concrete measures are defined at the water body level. In these areas different supplementary measures are also tested, experience with these measures (e.g. effectiveness) can then be used in the next planning cycle to prioritize supplementary measures.

The PoM refers to measure information sheets[42] where for every measure information is given on several aspects such as implementation (e.g. state of implementation, experience, timing etc.), target group (e.g. which sector bears the costs, who takes the initiative etc.), information on costs, the expected environmental improvement, chance of success of measure taking into account boundary conditions, an environmental assessment and a climate check. Although these sheets can include a lot of information often several fields are not completed or only completed in a superficial manner.

There are three scenarios with measures, a basic scenario (only basic measures), a maximum scenario (all basic measures and all supplementary measures) and a phased scenario (all basic measures and some supplementary measures). For these scenarios an assessment of disproportionate costs is carried out. This assessment consists of two parts. The first part considers reasonableness where the costs and benefits of three scenarios of measures are assessed. Cost information is given in information sheets of the measures and benefits are derived from a willingness-to-pay study and studies. The second part considers feasibility and the costs and burdens for different sectors are assessed and compared with sector specific parameters. Thresholds are based on available income for households and on added value for industry and agriculture.

In order to select the supplementary measures in the phased scenario, the cost-effectiveness of the measures were assessed using an environmental cost model[43] or a grading scale. However, other aspects of the measures, as described in the information sheets, also played a role in the final selection.

Most measures are defined in very general terms and lack a clear financial commitment or a timeline of implementation. According to recent information from Flanders, a yearly evaluation will determine which additional financial resources can be used for the implementation of the supplementary measures. For the spearhead areas there are more clear commitments.

In the RBMP and PoM co-ordination of the PoM with other MS is not mentioned specifically. The RBMP refers to the management plan roof report that addresses the impact of the international co-ordination activities. In that plan some more information is found on the co-ordination of measures.

For the Scheldt RBD, some measures have been co-ordinated, such as a common warning and alarm system for the river basin to prevent and manage accidental pollution. An example of bilateral co-ordination is the work of the Flemish Region and the Netherlands on hydro-morphological and ecological aspects. As a part of the Scaldit project, a catalogue of the main implemented and planned measures in the different RBMPs of the Scheldt river basin was developed with information on the cost-effectiveness of these measures.

The PoM of the Coastal Waters RBMPs is very much dependent on the measures taken by other regions and Member States, and these are negotiated in the framework of the Scheldt Commission.

The legal basis for the actions to protect and restorethe Belgian Marine Environment are set in the 1999 law[44].

The plan for the Coastal Waters lists and defines in general terms the basic and supplementary measures that are being and will be applied in order to improve the ecological and chemical status of the water in the Belgian cost. There are supplementary measures specifically mentioned to be applied in those water bodies that are likely to fail in the achievement of the environmental objectives by 2015.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Agriculture is mentioned in the Flemish RBMPs as a quantitative pressure due to groundwater abstractions. It is also mentioned as a qualitative pressure on surface water (N, BOD, COD, P, pesticides and heavy metals) and on groundwater (diffuse pollution with pesticides and nutrients). According to recent information from Flanders point source pollution from agriculture figures in the calculation of the total pollution loads but this is not a significant pressure at the water body level. The RBMP mentions hydro-morphological pressures from agriculture although it is not quantified.

The Strategic Advice Council Agriculture and Fisheries (SALV[45]) has been consulted on the RBMP and the PoM and during the public consultation phase comments have been received mainly from farmer organisations. In the PoM it is stated that when measures are translated into more concrete actions and if these actions have a special impact on agricultural areas, an agricultural sensitivity analysis will be carried out. If there are significant impacts of certain actions/ projects on agriculture then an agricultural impact report is made. Farmers will be involved in this process.

Measures related to agriculture include different technical measures (e.g. on the reduction of fertiliser application, measures against soil erosion etc.). Several measures are related to permitting and licensing (e.g. an adapted permitting system for groundwater abstraction based on demand and availability of water) and also raising awareness- with farmers is addressed.

Most measures are defined in a general way and lack information on timing of implementation.

Some general information on costs of measures is given in the measure information sheets. The government is bearing some of the costs of the agricultural sector for these measures. For each of the three scenarios the costs and burdens (taking into account government subsidies) for the agricultural sector are compared. Related to financing, according to recent information from Flanders some basic measures contain elements from EU rural development policy and are financed through pillar 2 of the CAP. However, basic measures are mandatory and cannot be supported with rural development funds.

For supplementary measures co-financing by the EU is possible if they contain measures from the Flemish Rural Development Plan. Article 38 of the Rural Development Regulation is not included in the Flemish Rural Development programme and therefore has not been used in the RBMP.

Measures || BEMaas_VL || BESchelde_VL || BE_Nordzee_FED

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü ||

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü || ü ||

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ü || ü ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || || ||

Measures against soil erosion || ü || ü ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü || ü ||

Technical measures for water saving || ü || ü ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || ||

Nutrient trading || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || || ||

Institutional changes || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || || ||

Farm advice and training || || ||

Raising awareness of farmers || ü || ü ||

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || || || ü

Certification schemes || || || ü

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || || ||

Land use planning || ü || ü ||

Technical standards || ü || ü ||

Specific projects related to agriculture || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || ü || ü || ü

Table 12.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

In the PoM of the Flemish RBMPs, there is a group of measures related to hydromorphology. These measures also apply to HMWBs, which is important since in the Flemish Region a significant share of the water bodies is classified as HMWBs. There is no clear link between the uses, pressures and measures. In WISE it is mentioned that a measure is linked to a type of pressure but no details on the pressures are given. In the description of the measures the link between pressure and measure can be seen for some measures. For example there is a measure to lift fish migration barriers. This is a link between a pressure and a measure. For what uses the migration barriers are there is not stated (no detailed information given for the migration barriers). For other measures the link between uses and pressures is stated generally. For example the measure on structure restoration of river beds mentions in general that uses like agriculture, construction of living and industrial areas have resulted in pressures like straightening, bank reinforcement etc. No specific hydro-morphological measure is ascribed to lifting a pressure due to a use. In the information sheets of the measures, some information on expected effects is given. These are however general because of the general nature of the measures. For river continuity, priority maps (developed after the RBMP) for fish migration are used to improve certain bottlenecks by a specified time, so with a certain expected effect (measure 8A_012).

No measures have been taken in order to achieve an ecologically based flow regime or a minimum flow that is not ecologically based. According to recent information from Flanders, the Flemish Region does not yet have general water quantity objectives. More underpinning work is needed for this. For Special Protection Zones and water-rich areas there are water quantity objectives. Measures in groups 5B (quantity surface water) and group 4B (protected and water-rich areas) are contributing to achieve those objectives.

Measures || BEMaas_VL || BESchelde_VL || BE_Nordzee_FED

Fish ladders || || ||

Bypass channels || || ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || || ||

Sediment/debris management || || || ü

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || || ||

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || || ü ||

Lowering of river banks || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü || ü ||

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || || ||

Construction of retention basins || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || || ü ||

Table 12.2: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

In the Flemish RBMPs, most measures are defined very generally and the links between risks, impacts, pressures and measures are not clear. On a website called 'Geoloket[46]' groundwater information sheets are available that list all the measures that are applicable to a specific groundwater body. Information is given on the location, aquifer properties, land use, quantitative pressure, chemical pressure, environmental objectives, monitoring, status assessment, exemptions, functions and measures relevant to that groundwater body.

Both basic and supplementary measures are established to tackle over-exploitation. These measures include an adapted permitting and levy system depending on the quantitative status of the groundwater body. In relation to the chemical status, basic and supplementary measures are defined to prevent and limit inputs of pollution. Most of them are related to agriculture. Other measures are informing different sectors and the public on pesticide use and developing actions to reduce the use of pesticides by industry and the public, carrying out an adapted permitting policy for groundwater bodies with poor status and developing sanitation and management plans to prevent the spreading of pollutants by leaching of point sources.

Several measures focus on groundwater bodies with either a (potential) poor quantitative or qualitative status. Regarding groundwater quality there is a measure to assess the origin and evolution of pollutants in groundwater bodies with poor chemical status. Also in groundwater bodies with poor quantitative status the effect of over-abstraction on the water quality will be further assessed. An assessment method and trend analysis will be developed for the salinization problems in certain groundwater bodies.

The RBMP refers to the management plan roof report for the results of the multilateral co-ordination activities. This plan mentions that co-ordination has focused in particular on three cross-boundary aquifers. However, it is not so clear to what degree co-ordination of measures has been carried out. In the on-going Scaldwin project further steps are taken. Outputs of the project should contain a common numerical model of two transboundary groundwater bodies, two intention statements and a report and congress on transboundary groundwater management. The pursuing of a treaty on transboundary quantitative groundwater problems with France and the Netherlands within the International Scheldt Commission is defined as a supplementary measure.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

A description of the main sources of pollution is given for deoxygenating substances, nutrients, priority substances and non-priority specific pollutants. Both point and diffuse pollution is addressed and pollution trends are discussed in the Flemish RBMPs.

Basic and supplementary measures are defined to tackle chemical pollution. Some basic measures are related to awareness-raising, the permits for emissions, measures related to emissions of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), technical measures, and financial support to farmers for investments that will lead to a reduction in the pollution of surface water. The supplementary measures address different sectors such as industry, agriculture and WWTPs. Most of the measures are general and are not substance specific. According to recent information from Flanders an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances is currently being developed and will allow a clearer picture of the most important sources for every substance. It is the intention that this inventory will serve as a basis for defining more substance specific measures in the next RBMP.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

The broad definition of water services is defined in Belgian RBMPs, but the identification of water services for the purpose of Article 9 is limited to four water services (Public Drinking water Production and Distribution; Public Collection and Wastewater Treatment; Self-service Production and Supply; Self-service Wastewater Treatment) only.

Households, industry and agriculture have been defined as water uses in relation to cost recovery.

It is stated that different water uses (at least households, industry and agriculture) have to make an adequate contribution to cost recovery of water services. In fact cost recovery rates disaggregated into 3 types of water uses are calculated only for one water service – public waste water treatment. It has not been done for other water services because of problems in getting adequate data. Improvements in the calculations are anticipated, for example, in respect to knowledge on environmental and resource costs and determination of a fair contribution of user sectors in order to eliminate cross-subsidies.

According to the RBMP the different water users should pay a reasonable contribution to the recovery of the costs of the water services and this cost recovery has been based on the "polluter pays principle".

In practice environmental and resource costs are addressed to a very limited degree, mainly in respect to public waste water treatment (Self-service Production and Supply and Self-service Wastewater Treatment).

There are a lot of exemptions in the calculation of environmental and resource costs, and subsidies for different water services. This is not very transparent and raises doubts on the implementation of the "polluter pays principle".

There is limited information concerning incentive function of pricing policy with the exception of reported volumetric metering, and aquifer- and region-dependent groundwater abstraction fee.

Despite of mentioned subsidies there is no information on the implementation of flexibility provisions of the Article 9 and no justification of its application has been reported.

According to the information received from Flemish authorities, all above mentioned points of interest have led to the inclusion of supplementary measures in the PoM.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

The water bodies that lie in protected areas with stricter environmental objectives are identified in both the Flemish and the Coastal Waters RBMPs. For some protected areas it is mentioned that new objectives are being or will be developed. Measures related to these protected areas are defined under the measure category 1 that includes the current policy related to the execution of the directives relevant for the protected areas and measure category 4B that includes supplementary measures related to the protected areas for surface waters.

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts and flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

In the Flemish RBMPs, water scarcity and droughts have not been identified as significant pressures. It is mentioned that in times of exceptional droughts a shortage of water may arise. It is also mentioned that pressures on surface water quantity are caused by the effects of climate change on the one hand and by the abstraction of surface water on the other hand. Measures have been defined to deal with potential shortage of water (e.g. provisions in surface water abstraction permits that allow abstraction to be limited or suspended in periods of prolonged drought and low flows). It is also mentioned that due to climate change, drought may become more common in the future. All water-related measures have to take this into account.

There are no trend scenarios but data is given on water abstractions. No data is given on water availability. The effect of climate change on low flows is discussed in the RBMP. Several measures in the PoM are related to the issue of datasets and trend scenarios of water availability and demand. These measures aim to increase the knowledge on water use and water needs. It is mentioned that knowledge of the whole water cycle, water use and social and ecological water needs is needed for supporting management. In order to realise this in the Flemish Region there is a need for gathering information and knowledge on several issues.

Measures related to water scarcity and drought are spread over several groups of measures such as measures on cost-recovery and the polluter pays principle, measures for sustainable water use and measures related to the quantity of surface water and groundwater.

The results of the international co-ordination activities are described in the management plan roof reports. For the Scheldt RBMP, there is a chapter “co-ordination of activities for the prevention of the consequences of floods and periods of drought”.

Related to droughts there has been a discussion about challenges in order to come to a common vision. Work has been done to develop a common methodology for developing a balance between water supply and demand on the district scale. Information has been exchanged and a common analysis on surface water flows has been carried out and knowledge and experience has been exchanged. For groundwater, co-ordinated activities such as monitoring have been carried out for the cross-boundary Carboniferous Limestone Aquifer which has quantitative problems.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

In the Flemish RBMPs, floods have not been addressed as a significant water management issue, since it was considered not to be decisive for reaching the objectives of the WFD. However, in the PoM there is a group of measures dedicated to floods and flood protection has been used as a reason for HMWB designation. It is mentioned that there will probably be more floods as a result of climate change. Climate change is identified as causing pressures on water quantity.

The group of measures related to floods (group 6) contains several measures to reduce flood risk. These measures are distributed over the three steps of water retention,  water storage and water discharge (in order of priority). Measures related to water retention and storage include, for example, the safeguarding of potential water storage areas that are designated as residential or industrial from buildings and hard surfaces, creating new water retention capacity either by using natural floodplains or by artificial means such as dikes and water level management and the execution of measures from the 'Sigma-plan' which includes several types of measures such as the creation of wetlands, depoldering certain areas, enforcing quays etc. Local measures such as dikes and enforcement of embankments should protect public and industry. In order to improve water discharge, several measures are formulated such as dredging, weed removal, broadening of certain water bodies, pumping stations and other infrastructural works.

Integration of the flood risk management plans and the river basin management plans are also foreseen for the next cycle.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

The effects of climate change are discussed in the Flemish RBMPs in the context of precipitation, water scarcity and droughts and floods. In the chapter on pressure and impact analysis for water quantity the effect of climate change on rainfall is discussed. Climate change together with water abstraction is causing pressures on water quantity.

In the PoM it is mentioned that in the information sheets of the measures a climate check of the PoMs was done to see whether the measure contributes to climate adaptation and / or if the measure has a negative climate impact. It was carried out measure by measure and it had an influence on the selection of measures. The methodology and the nature of this influence however are not described.

General climate change measures are also included in PoMs. Some measures are defined concerning quantity changes in groundwater, taking climate change into account.

In the Coastal Waters RBMP, the issue of climate changed is referred to, in particular the likely raise of the level of the sea, the increase in the tidal range and the subsequent increased erosion in the coastal environment, and other effects on fisheries and on the coastal dynamics of sand and fresh water.

14. RECOMMENDATIONS

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· The RBMPs for the region of Wallonia should be urgently adopted. The public consultation in Wallonia will finish on 18 January 2013, and the plan should be adopted as soon as possible after this process is finalised.

· Given the lack of adoption of the plans in the Wallonia and recent adoption in Brussels capital, it is difficult to ensure that there is an effective coordination in the implementation of the WFD, including the setting of objectives and exemptions, and the definition of the necessary measures. The coordination between the different Belgian entities (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels and the Federal coastal waters) should be enhanced for the next cycle of RBMPs. The implementation of the Directive should be coordinated across the RBDs, to ensure the achievement of the environmental objectives established under Article 4, and in particular all programmes of measures need to be coordinated for the whole of the river basin district, including within a Member State.

· The process of designation of HMWBs in the Flemish region should be brought in line with the requirements of Article 4(3) WFD. In particular, the method used in Flanders should further analyse the link between the physical modifications and the failure to achieve good ecological status and develop an assessment of alternative means to achieve the beneficial objectives served by the use. This assessment should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This indeed needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· Very little improvement is expected in the water status by 2015 and the objectives for subsequent plans are not always clear. Objectives should be clearly indicated and transparent in order to be able to reach good status of waters in a reasonable timeframe.

· There have been a large number of exemptions applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans. In particular, a complete justification of technical feasibility and disproportionate costs should be included in the RBMPs.

· The high number of exemptions applied in these first RBMPs is a cause for concern. Flanders should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainties.

· It is unclear whether there are new physical modifications planned in RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be explained and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.  

· Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are not the only priority substances for which monitoring in a non-water matrix (biota in these three instances, with reference to the biota standards in the EQSD) is appropriate. Biota EQS should also be considered for the other substances where analysis in water is problematic. The requirement for trend monitoring in sediment or biota specified for several substances in Article 3(3) of the EQSD will also need to be reflected in the next RBMPs.

· On the assessment of groundwater status in the Flemish region, trend assessments should be carried out from the second cycle of RBMPs.

· Meaningful information regarding the scope, timing and funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so that the approach to achieve the objectives is clear. All the relevant information on basic and supplementary measures should be included in the summary of the PoM to ensure transparency of the planned actions for the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in the WFD.

· The baseline for water protection in the agriculture sector needs to be very clear, so that all farmers know the rules, and the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements. In particular, information on how the measures will be funded through the Rural Development programmes should be in the PoM.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resource in the Flemish RBDs. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic and mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance.

· There should be an advanced co-operation with the farmers' community. A correct balance between voluntary actions and mandatory measures and rules in agriculture based on a clear commitment at political level would be beneficial.

· As per Article 9 requirements, Flanders should present the calculation of contribution of different water uses disaggregated at least into households, industry and agriculture to cost recovery of water services. The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, as specified in the definition, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of  surface waters , and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are 'self‑services' for instance 'self-abstraction' for agriculture. The rates of cost recovery should be transparently presented by user sector, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered.

· Flanders should provide precise information concerning the incentive function of water pricing policy, especially in the respect of application of metering, volumetric charging or efficiency promoting tariffs within different water uses.

[1]     Statistics Belgium, Key figures 2011. http://statbel.fgov.be/en/binaries/Key%20figures2011_en_tcm327-148284.pdf

[2]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[3]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[4]     http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/map_mc/countries/belgium_en.htm

[5]     Please note the other regions have not been assessed. Source of information: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1: Governance and legal aspects).

[6]     Constitutional Court decision 32/2005 of 9 February 2005

[7]     Overwegingsdocument http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen/wat-vooraf-ging/Overwegingsdocument.pdf/view

[8]     http://www.isc-cie.org

[9]     http://www.cipm-icbm.be

[10]    Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen

[11]    More information can be found in the publication "Biological assessment of the natural, heavily modified and artificial surface water bodies in Flanders according to the European Water Framework Directive", available at www.vmm.be (information provided by Flanders)

[12]    RBMP 2.2.1.2

[13]    These numbers apply to the Flemish water bodies to which the RBMP applies and excludes smaller water bodies

[14] More information in the background document "Overzicht van de inkomende grensoverschrijdende vuilvrachten in Vlaanderen"

[15] http://www.ospar.org/

[16]    This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[17] The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[18]    Triade method

[19]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[20]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[21]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[22]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[23]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[24]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[25]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[26]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[27]    "Biological assessment of the natural, heavily modified and artificial surface water bodies in Flanders according to the European Water Framework Directive", available at www.vmm.be (information provided by Flanders)

[28]    Recent information provided by Flanders

[29] Assessment methods are available and used and have been reported in the 2009 implementation report, but these are not included in the RBMP

[30]    http://geoloket.vmm.be/krw_mkn/map.phtml (map), http://geoloket.vmm.be/krw_mkn/tabel_OWL.php (table)

[31]    Water Framework Directive Article4.3 and CIS Guidance document N°4

[32]    Recent information from Flanders

[33]    Louette, G., Van Wichelen, J., Packet, J., Warmoes, T. & Denys, L. (2008). Bepalen van het maximaal en het goed ecologisch potentieel, alsook de huidige toestand voor de zeventien Vlaamse (gewestelijke) waterlichamen die vergelijkbaar zijn met de categorie meren – tweede deel, partim Vinne. D/2008/3241/379. INBO.R.2008.50. Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, Brussel.

[34]    "Biological assessment of the natural, heavily modified and artificial surface water bodies in Flanders according to the European Water Framework Directive", available at www.vmm.be (information provided by Flanders)

[35]    Van Looy, K., Denys, L. & Schneiders, A. (2008). Methodiek vaststelling Maximaal en Goed Ecologisch Potentieel (MEP-GEP) voor sterk veranderde waterlopen. Rapporten van het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek 2008 (INBO.R.2008.06). Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, Brussel

[36]    Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot wijziging van het besluit van de Vlaamse Regering van 6 februari 1991 houdende vaststelling van het Vlaams reglement betreffende de milieuvergunning en van het besluit van de Vlaamse Regering van 1 juni 1995 houdende algemene en sectorale bepalingen inzake milieuhygiëne, voor wat betreft de milieukwaliteitsnormen voor oppervlaktewateren, waterbodems en grondwater, 21/05/2010, B.S. 09/07/2010

[37]    Annex II Article 4 of Flemish decree on EQS

[38]    Recent information by Flanders

[39] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status

[40]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

[41]    Speerpuntgebieden

[42]    Maatregelenformulieren. Available at http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen/maatregelenprogramma/documenten-maatregelenprogramma

[43]    Milieukostenmodel

[44] Loi du 20 janvier 1999 sur la protection du milieu marin dans les espaces marins sous juridiction de la Belgique (MB du 12 mars 1999)

[45]    Strategische Adviesraad voor Landbouw en Visserij

[46]    http://geoloket.vmm.be/krw_mkn/tabel_GWL.php

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Greece forms the southern extremity of the Balkan Peninsula in south-east Europe. Its territory has an area of 131 957 km² and includes more than 2 000 islands in the Aegean and Ionian seas of which only around 165 islands are inhabited. Greece has a population of 11.2 million.

Greece is a republic with an organisation based on the Constitution of 1975. The country is divided into 13 Administrative Regions.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || Countries sharing borders

GR01 || Western Peloponnese || 7232 || -

GR02 || Northern Peloponnese || 7426 || -

GR03 || Eastern Peloponnese || 8420 || -

GR04 || Western Sterea Ellada || 10432 || -

GR05 || Epirus || 10007 || AL

GR06 || Attica || 3139 || -

GR07 || Eastern Sterea Ellada || 12268 || -

GR08 || Thessalia || 13153 || -

GR09 || Western Macedonia || 13585 || AL, MK

GR10 || Central Macedonia || 10147 || MK

GR11 || Eastern Macedonia || 7308 || BG, MK

GR12 || Thrace || 11159 || BG, TR

GR13 || Crete || 8301 || -

GR14 || Aegean Islands || 9118 || -

Table 1.1: Overview of Greece’s River Basin Districts

Source: This information may be found in the general fiches for countries in http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm.

Four major rivers originate in neighbouring countries. The rivers Evros (GR12), Nestos (GR12) and Strymonas (GR11) originate in Bulgaria, while river Axios (GR10) originates in FYROM. These rivers provide an inflow of 34% of the total yearly runoff of Greece.

River Aoos (GR05) originates in Greece and discharges in Albania.

Lake Prespa (GR09) is on the border with Albania and FYROM.

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing borders || Co-ordination category

2 || 3 || 4

km² || % || km² || % || km² || %

Lake Prespa (Part of Drin/Drim Sub-basin) || GR09 || AL, MK || 291 || 33.0 || || || ||

Aoos/Vjosa || GR05 || AL || 2154 || 33.0 || || || ||

Mesta-Nestos || GR12 || BG || || || 2843 || 50.7 || ||

Struma-Strymonas || GR11 || BG || || || 7281 || 40.3 || ||

Maritsa-Evros_Meric || GR12 || BG, TR || || || || || 3340 || 6.0

Axios/Vardar || GR10 || MK, RU || || || || || 3212 || 13.5

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Greece[1]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

Greece has not reported RBMPs to the Commission

The Greek authorities have informally reported that the consultation process on the RBMPs for those 10 RBDs is expected to be finalised in October 2012 and the RBMPs are expected to be approved by November 2012.

The consultation for the RBMPs for the RBDs of Western Macedonia (GR09) and Central Macedonia (GR10) has started in the end of July 2012. For Crete (GR13) and the Aegean Islands (GR14) the consultation process is expected to start in November 2012.

Two court rulings have been issued against Greece by the European Court of Justice (ECJ):

· For failing to submit the reports required under Article 5 of the Directive, on Characterisation of the River Basin Districts, review of the environmental impacts of human activity and economic analysis of water use[2]. Greece has since complied and the cases are closed.

· On the failure to adopt and report River Basin Management Plans for all of their respective River Basin Districts[3].  

A preliminary ruling has been issued in case C-41/10 on the Acheloos in Greece.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

RBD || Consultation

GR01 || Consultations started 21 November 2011

GR02 || Consultations started 21 November 2011

GR03 || Consultations started 21 November 2011

GR04 || Consultations started 15 October 2011

GR05 || Consultations started 15 October 2011

GR06 || Consultations started 13 January 2012

GR07 || Consultations started 13 January 2012.

GR08 || Consultations started 15 October 2011

GR09 || Consultations started 30 July 2012

GR10 || Consultations started 30 July 2012

GR011 || Consultations started 18 November 2011

GR012 || Consultations started 18 November 2011

Table 3.1.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: http://wfd.ypeka.gr/

At the national level, the main competent authority is the Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Climate Change, through its Special Water Secretariat. The Presidential Decree 24/2010 OJ A 56/15.04.2010 established that the main competences of the Special Water Secretariat include:

· Coordination on water management issues

· Implementation of the Water Framework Directive

· Monitoring of water quality and quantity

· Management and reuse of wastewater

· Floods management

At decentralized level, Greece is managed by 7 Decentralized Administrations, 13 self-governed Regions, and 325 municipalities. The Decentralized Administrations are led by a General Secretary appointed by the Greek Government.

The RBMPs for the 14 RBDs were prepared by the Special Water Secretariat of the Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Climate Change (which replaced the Greek Central Water Authority (CWA)). This work was carried out on behalf of the former "Regional Water Directorates" with their authorisation since the “Regional Water Directorates” were the competent authorities at the Region and the River Basin level. The Regions were replaced by Decentralised Administrations in 2010, with the Law 3852/2010 (OJA Α/ 7-6-2010), known as “Kallikratis”. The RBMP and the PoM are to be approved by the Minister of the Environment.

As the RBMPs for the 14 RBDs were prepared by the Greek Central Water Agency CWA) and the Special Water Secretariat of the Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Climate Change, a national approach was followed.

To cope with the WFD requirements, Regional Water Directorates and Councils were established within each River Basin District or Water Region RBDs, with the responsibility of organising and coordinating water policy activities including water pricing and specific Water Programmes and Action Plans with specific measures for each RBD.

Greece has signed and ratified Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with several neighbouring countries, with an emphasis on cross-border pollution. The purpose of these memoranda, among others, is the transnational cooperation in areas of common interest, such as water pollution, sustainable coastal zone management, soil and air pollution, management of industrial and municipal waste, urban environmental management, the exchange of scientific, technical and legislative experience, organisation of educational seminars etc.

Memoranda include:

· Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperation for Sustainable Development and Environment between the (former) Ministry and the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning of Macedonia, signed in Skopje on 09.04.2004. This Memorandum has not been ratified by the Greek Parliament;

· Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Protection between the Greek Republic and the Republic of Bulgaria (Law 3367/2005 169/A/6-7-2005 Gazette);

· Agreement between the Government of the Greek Republic and the Government of the Republic of Albania to establish a permanent Commission on issues of Greek-Albanian border waters (Law 3405/2005 GG 264/25-10-2005); and

· On 14 May 2010, the Ministry of Environment of Turkey and the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change of Greece signed a Joint Declaration. The Joint Declaration focuses on the cooperation for the sustainable development of the Ebro River Basin, the protection of the marine environment, the protection of biodiversity and cooperation on climate change and adapting to its effects.

[1]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[2] Commission vs. Greece (Case C264/07, ruling of 31.1.2008)

[3] Commission vs. Greece (Case C‑297/11, ruling of 19.4.2012)

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

8.4.        Classification of ecological status

8.4.1.     WFD requirements related to Ecological Status

Ecological status is an expression of the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems associated with surface waters, classified in accordance with Annex V. Ecological status is the fundamentally new concept of the WFD, distinguishing the Directive from other water directives. The main objective of the WFD is that all surface waters should be in good or better ecological status by 2015 (Article 4 Environmental objectives). High, Good and Moderate ecological status is further described in the normative definitions in Annex V for biological and supporting quality elements within each surface water category (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters). The biological quality elements include phytoplankton, benthic flora, benthic invertebrate fauna and fish, while the supporting quality elements include general physico-chemical quality elements (e.g. nutrients, organic matter, oxygen, turbidity etc.), specific national pollutants and hydromorphological quality elements.

Each Member State is obliged to develop methods to assess ecological status for all biological quality elements. Assessment methods for the supporting quality elements must be linked to the biological quality elements according to the normative definitions given in Annex V. Methods should be developed for the full range of quality elements to allow detection of all pressures on surface water bodies and together provide a holistic picture of the ecological status of the aquatic environment. The ecological status of each water body is determined by the quality element having the lowest status class, according to the one-out-all-out principle. This principle is at the heart of integrated river basin management that addresses all pressures and impacts on aquatic environment. It ensures that the negative impact of the most dominant pressure on the most sensitive quality element is not averaged out and obscured by minor impacts of less severe pressures or by less sensitive quality elements responding to the same pressure. All water bodies that are currently in less than good ecological status must be restored to good or better ecological status through the programme of measures, without prejudice to the possible and proper application of exemptions.

To ensure comparable definitions of good ecological status across Europe, Member States are also obliged to intercalibrate the good ecological status class boundaries of their methods for each biological quality element in each water category with other Member States having common types of water bodies. Intercalibration is a distinct obligation at EU level in addition to the obligation to develop national ecological status methods, i.e. the lack of success of intercalibration does not exempt Member States from the obligation of developing assessment methods for all biological quality elements.

8.4.2.     Assessment of ecological status: main findings at EU level

Most Member States have a national, rather than a regional or RBD specific, approach to ecological status assessment. Some Member States have a regional approach where different assessment methods are developed for all or for some biological quality elements, e.g. in Spain: Catalonia versus other Spanish regions; in Belgium: the Flemish Region versus the Walloon Region; as well as the different parts of the UK: Scotland, England and Wales, Northern Ireland.

· Ecological status assessment methods, development and application

In most Member States, WFD-compliant assessment methods for the classification of ecological status were not fully developed for all biological quality elements (BQEs), in time for the first RBMPs, see table 8.4.1. The most common biological methods developed are phytoplankton (chlorophyll a) in lakes and benthic fauna in rivers. The BQEs that were least developed in rivers are phytoplankton and macrophytes, and in lakes phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish. Assessment methods show the most gaps for transitional waters (all BQEs) and for coastal waters, where particularly macroalgae and angiosperms were fully developed only in a few Member States.

Legend:

Table 8.4.1: Overview of Ecological status assessment methods for different biological quality elements, based on assessment of information reported in the first RBMPs. PP = Phytoplankton, MP = Macrophytes, PB = Phytobenthos, BI = Benthic invertebrates, FI = Fish, MA = Macroalgae, AG = Angiosperms. Colour legend given below table.

Source: WISE

There are several uncertainties in the overview of the level of development of BQE methods in each Member State presented in table 8.4.1. These uncertainties are related to availability and quality of information about the national methods, and to whether a national method for a BQE actually has been applied in the first RBMPs for all RBDs. There is also uncertainty related to inconsistent information in different sources of information (the RBMP, information reported in WISE, national classification guidance).

Still, the overall picture indicates that fully WFD-compliant assessment methods were not in place for all BQEs for the first RBMPs. Although some of the gaps can be scientifically justified, e.g. too high variability for certain BQEs relative to certain pressures or mix of pressures, others gaps may be caused by insufficient efforts in terms of monitoring, data analysis and metric development. Thus, in many Member States, the assessment of ecological status in this first cycle of RBMPs was based on pressure and impact data rather than on biological monitoring data for a large proportion of water bodies[1]. The confidence in the assessment of ecological status for those countries that have not developed methods is therefore low or unknown[2], and comparability with the assessments from other Member States questionable (see intercalibration section below).

Most of the biological assessment methods are able to detect nutrient and organic matter pressures from point and diffuse sources causing eutrophication and organic enrichment impacts. Hydromorphological pressures are less well captured by the biological assessment methods developed for the first RBMPs[3], and are thus less well assessed.

Figure 8.4.1:Percentage of biological assessment methods able to detect certain pressures

Source:RBMPs

Further development of national methods for biological quality elements has recently been done, after the adoption of the first RBMPs, supported by major EU research projects like REBECCA and WISER. However, the majority of national methods still address mainly eutrophication and organic enrichment impacts. Biological assessment methods addressing hydromorphological pressures are still lacking in many member states. On-going research projects (e.g. REFORM[4]) may provide a better basis for such methods to be developed and applied for the next RBMP cycle.

Standards have been set for some supporting physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements. However, most of the physico-chemical standards relate to nutrients and organic matter[5] and are in most cases not clearly linked to the good/moderate class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. If the programme of measures is based on nutrient standards that are too relaxed relative to the good/moderate boundaries for the biological quality elements, then good ecological status may not be achievable. Thus, further efforts are needed to adjust the nutrient standards to be coherent with the good/moderate boundaries for the biological quality elements for the next cycle of RBMPs.   Hydromorphological standards are less well developed than nutrient standards. Further developments are clearly needed, using available CEN standards for rivers and lakes habitat surveys, as well as new research results and good practice examples.

In terms of national specific pollutants, EQS values have been set for some national specific pollutants in many Member States, but it is not always transparent how these substances have been identified and whether the methodology used follows Annex V, section 1.2.6. There is a wide difference in the identification of river basin specific pollutants. Some Member States have identified dozens of substances whilst others only a handful of substances already regulated before the WFD (by Directive 76/464/EEC). In addition, the EQS set by the Member States vary widely from country to country for the same substance. For example, the EQS for 1,1,2-Trichloroethane range from 10 to 300 μg/l, and for the pesticide MCPA from 0.01 to 1.6 μg/l. This puts into question the comparability of the classification of ecological status. Moreover, generally very low exceedances of EQS values have been reported, and it is generally not transparent which river basin specific pollutants are responsible for exceeding good ecological status, and in which water bodies.

The one-out-all-out principle has been applied to derive the overall ecological status by almost all Member States, sometimes excluding highly uncertain quality elements. In Finland, an alternative procedure was used which is based on a weight-of-evidence approach. This approach combines information from all the monitored QEs by using average status class after down-weighting or excluding highly uncertain QEs. The use of different combination methods undermines the comparability achieved in the intercalibration exercise because methods have been intercalibrated at BQE level. The overall ecological status of a water body will not be comparable to a water body with similar type and pressures in other countries due to these different combination methods. By averaging the results of various quality elements Member States incur in risks of hiding existing significant impacts. The weight-of-evidence approach is not WFD-compliant and does not respect the precautionary principle to ensure protection of the most sensitive BQE to the various pressures.

The RBMPs provide no clear picture on whether or not ecological status assessment methods have been developed for all national surface water body types or whether there are gaps. In some Member States and for some BQEs the assessment methods are not type-specific, but rather more generally applied for all national types (e.g. benthic fauna methods for rivers and coastal waters). Other methods are more type-specific with a unique set of reference values and class boundaries for each national type although it is unclear whether all national types are covered. In general, the transparency of the information about availability of methods, reference conditions, class boundaries and applicability to national types can be substantially improved.

Only few MSs have used all relevant quality elements in ecological status assessment of surveillance monitoring sites. The quality elements used by most Member States are benthic invertebrates in rivers, phytoplankton (mainly chlorophyll a) in lakes, and both benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton (mainly chlorophyll a) in coastal and transitional waters, as well as supporting QEs for all water categories. Fish is also used by many Member States for classification of rivers and transitional waters. Benthic flora is less used than the other BQEs in all the water categories, in spite of the existence of WFD compliant assessment methods.

The most sensitive biological quality elements have been selected for ecological status assessment for operational monitoring sites in some Member States, while others use only supporting QEs. This is particularly done for lakes, only adding chlorophyll a. For rivers, most Member States use mainly benthic invertebrates and/or fish in addition to supporting QEs, while phytobenthos is often ignored. The limited use of phytobenthos for assessing ecological status in some Member States is surprising, as this BQE is the most sensitive BQE to nutrient enrichment, which is still affecting a large proportion of Europe’s waters. Thus, the ecological impacts of nutrient pressures in rivers may not be sufficiently detected, especially where nutrient standards are not set in accordance with the good-moderate boundaries for the most sensitive BQE (i.e. phytobenthos). For coastal and transitional waters most Member States use benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton in addition to supporting QEs[6].   

For most Member States a background document or national/regional classification guidance document exists, but in some cases this document was not reported by the RBMPs, nor found in the annexes, thus causing problems for the assessment of ecological status methods. Given the key role that the assessment of ecological status plays in the implementation of the WFD, transparency on the methods used is important and Member States should make publicly available the methods used.

Uncertainty is a problematic issue in the first RBMPs. There is no common understanding across Member States on how uncertainty should be assessed, and the information reported on uncertainty is often insufficient or missing in the RBMPs and associated documents. This lack of information concerns especially the uncertainty in the assessment methods themselves, e.g. uncertainty in relationships between the biological metrics used and the main pressures, as well as uncertainty in the boundary setting. The uncertainty in the actual status assessment of ecological status of water bodies are reported by most Member States in confidence categories (low, medium, high), with no or little information on spatial and temporal variability. Low confidence or no information on confidence is reported for ca. 60% of all classified water bodies, while less than 20% are classified with high confidence at the EU level[7]. This illustrates the generally low confidence in the ecological status assessment in these first RBMPs. Moreover, a large proportion of water bodies are classified by grouping, especially in Member States with a high number of water bodies (e.g. SE). Assessing water bodies by grouping without any monitoring data increases the uncertainty but may be justified in areas where most water bodies are of the same type and are subject to the same level of pressures and hence can be assumed to present the same ecological status.

· Intercalibration of ecological status assessment methods and compliance with intercalibrated class boundaries

The class boundaries for ecological status assessment reported in the first RBMPs are mostly consistent with the results of the intercalibration of phase 1[8] with minor deviations in some Member States. Large inconsistencies with more relaxed boundaries are rarely found but the reporting is unclear to allow consideration of consistency in some cases. The RBMPs are also often unclear on whether the intercalibration results have been properly ‘translated’ to other national surface water types that have not been intercalibrated[9].

A large proportion of biological methods required for assessing ecological status in the different water categories were not intercalibrated in phase 1, partly due to the lack of national assessment methods but in some cases due to large differences between the national assessment methods. No assessment methods were intercalibrated for fish in phase 1, and for lake phytoplankton most methods were limited to only chlorophyll a. Also phytobenthos in lakes and macrophytes in rivers were not intercalibrated in phase 1. Transitional waters assessment methods were not intercalibrated for any BQE in phase 1 mainly due to the lack of national assessment methods. Thus, the phase 1 results are uncomplete and a second phase was needed to close remaining gaps.

The second phase of the Intercalibration process, mostly completed in 2011-2012, has provided improved comparability of national methods for several BQEs after further adjustment of metrics, reference values and class boundaries, as well as results for some of the BQEs remaining after phase 1. When these intercalibrated class boundaries are adopted in the new IC Decision (due to be approved by the end of 2012) they should be applied for status assessment as a basis for the preparation of the second RBMPs.

8.4.3.     Conclusions

· The development of classification systems for the assessment of ecological status was one of the most challenging tasks in the implementation of the WFD.

· Many Member States have made a huge effort to develop and implement WFD-compliant methods to assess ecological status of their water bodies. The progress has been impressive. Thanks to this effort, the methods for assessing ecological status of surface waters in Europe today are better than before the WFD.

· The work at EU level through the CIS Working Group A Ecological Status (ECOSTAT), in particular in the context of the intercalibration exercise facilitated by the Commission, has been essential in achieving this progress, not only for the work delivered but also for the extensive exchange of information and knowledge that this has fostered.

· However, for the first RBMPs, many Member States did not apply the new methods but primarily used their traditional assessment methods, e.g. benthic fauna and phytoplankton chlorophyll, as well as supporting general physico-chemical QEs. Thus, there is a need to overcome the weight of tradition (business as usual) and start to apply the new WFD-compliant methods including more complete phytoplankton  methods (not only chlorophyll), benthic flora and fish to a larger extent.

· Moreover, there are still important gaps and weaknesses remaining, especially concerning assessment methods for transitional and coastal waters which are important in view of the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; benthic flora in rivers and fish in rivers, lakes and transitional waters, as well as methods sensitive to hydromorphological pressures in all water categories.

· The obligation to identify river basin specific pollutants and set EQS for them has not been equally observed, with some Member States identifying many more than others, and some standards being much less stringent than others for the same substances. This has implications for the comparability of conclusions drawn regarding ecological status.

8.4.4.     Recommendations for improvement in the next planning cycles

· Member States are encouraged to be ambitious in terms of developing and improving assessment methods to remove the gaps and reduce the weaknesses remaining after the first RBMPs and the second phase of intercalibration (see conclusions above). The GIG and ECOSTAT structures and guidance, as well as results from WFD support projects, e.g. WISER and REFORM should be used as support.

· Biological indicators for other major pressures than organic pollution and eutrophication are still missing in many Member States and should be developed. This is particularly important to assess impacts of hydromorphological pressures which are currently reported to affect a large proportion of Europe’s waters.

· Methods included in the Official Intercalibration Decision based the second phase of the intercalibration process should be applied, including more complete phytoplankton methods (not only chlorophyll), as well as benthic flora and fish to a larger extent.

· Standards for supporting QEs, including nutrient standards, should be better linked to the good-moderate boundaries for the most sensitive BQEs. This is important to ensure coherent assessments and sufficient ambition level in terms of mitigation measures to reduce nutrient pressures to a level compatible with the achievement of good ecological status.

· National guidance documents on classification should be revised taking the final results of intercalibration into account. Translation of Intercalibration results for common types to the national types must be made more transparent and clear-cut than for the first RBMPs.

· Monitoring of sensitive BQEs should be increased to provide more reliable assessments with known confidence and uncertainty, as a basis for more targeted PoMs for the next cycle of RBMPs.

· The status assessment should be used as the main driver for the selection of targeted measures, complemented as necessary with other information, such as pressure data.

· The substantial flexibility allowed by the WFD for Member States to develop national methods and typologies has resulted in a wide variety of national types (ca. 2200) and national assessment methods (ca. 300, Birk et al. 2012). Although these may be appropriate at the national level and have also to some extent been intercalibrated, their large variation makes comparability of ecological status across Europe difficult. Comparability could be further facilitated by progressing towards a larger degree of harmonisation of national types and national methods, also taking into account the fact that many RBDs are shared with other Member States.

· Identification of relevant specific national pollutants should be improved in the context of the update of the pressure-impact analyses under WFD Article 5. The methods for setting of EQS values for these specific pollutants should be more transparent[10].

· Regarding the specific pollutants it is hoped that the standards for different substances will be more similar in future if Member States collaborate to derive them or at least follow the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance for Deriving Environmental Quality Standards that was published in 2011.

8.5.        Classification of chemical status for surface waters

8.5.1.     Introduction

Good surface water chemical status means the chemical status required to meet the environmental objectives for surface waters established in Article 4(1)(a) of the WFD, that is the chemical status achieved by a body of surface water in which concentrations of pollutants do not exceed the environmental quality standards established in Annex IX and under Article 16(7), and under other relevant Community legislation setting environmental quality standards at Community level.

Decision 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2001 established the list of priority substances in the field of water policy. The Decision identified the substances for which quality standards were to be set at Community level which was implemented by means of Directive 2008/105/EC (EQS Directive (EQSD)). Eight other pollutants that were regulated by Directive 76/464/EEC were also incorporated into the assessment of chemical status. The EQSD includes a number of other obligations related to priority substances such as monitoring of sediment and biota and the establishment of an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses.

Directive 2009/90/EC (QA/QC Directive) on the quality and comparability of chemical monitoring completes the legislative framework providing minimum performance criteria to ensure the quality of the analytical results. The deadline for transposition of the QA/QC Directive into national legislation was 21 August 2009, just before adoption of the RBMPs.

8.5.2.     Status of implementation of the EQSD for the first RBMP

The list of priority substances was published in 2001 but the EQS were published only in the EQSD at the end of 2008. The transposition of the EQSD into national legislation was due in July 2010, after the adoption of the RBMPs. The EQSs were known from June 2006, at the time that the Commission proposed the EQSD. The EQSs were not discussed during the negotiations. The obligations for monitoring priority substances under the WFD Article 8 were fully in place by the end of 2006, as the list of substances was already known.

The timing of the adoption and transposition of the EQSD has influenced the uptake of the derived obligations in the first RBMPs. Some Member States have implemented the EQSs as laid down in the EQSD for all priority substances. In many RBMPs the situation is unclear. Others have implemented existing national standards or have even taken into consideration other national river basin specific pollutants in the assessment of chemical status, which is clearly not in line with the WFD.

Furthermore, the extent of monitoring of priority substances across the EU has been very diverse. Only very few Member States have monitored all priority substances. The grounds for the selection of substances to monitor in other cases are generally unclear. The result is that the basis for the assessment of chemical status is different across Member States. Overall, the extent of monitoring is insufficient to provide an assessment of chemical status as proved by the high percentage of surface water bodies with unknown status (above 40%).

As a consequence of the above elements, the chemical status of water bodies as reported by Member States is hardly comparable.

8.5.3.     EQS used for assessment of chemical status of surface waters

The following table presents an overview of the degree of application in the RBMPs of the EQSs laid down by the EQSD in the assessment of chemical status (see country specific parts of the Commission Staff Working Document for more details).

Member State || Application of standards in the EQSD in the first RBMP

AT || It is stated in the RBMPs that the priority substances and other pollutants in the EQSD were used in the assessment of chemical status. The chemical pollution by-law in force at the time of the RBMP includes national standards that are less stringent than those in the EQSD for a number of priority substances. In addition, the following substances are missing: chloroalkanes, fluoranthene, nickel, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and tributyltin compounds (TBT).

BE || It is stated in the RBMPs that the priority substances and other pollutants in Annex I of the EQSD were used in the assessment of chemical status; however the biota standards for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were not applied, and three priority substances were not monitored.

BG || The EQSs in the EQSD were applied for the water phase only for those priority substances, for which there were results from monitoring. No data were collected for a number of priority substances such as brominated diphenylether (BDE), C10 – 13 cchloralkanes, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), nonylphenol, octylphenol, pentachlorophenol, and tributyltin compounds (TBT). Insufficient datasets were reported for alachlor, chlorfenvinphos, chlorpyrifos, diuron, isoproturon, trifluralin and in general the confidence level of data on priority substances was low.

CY || It is stated that the EQSs for the priority substances and other pollutants in the EQSD were applied for the assessment of chemical status. However, not all pollutants/measurements were used for the assessment of chemical status, leading to a ‘not assessed/unclear’ chemical status for 53 out of 216 river WBs and for two out of 18 lake WBs.

CZ || A version of the proposed EQSD dated 21 June 2007 was used to set up the monitoring parameters, AA and MAC values. All the substances and corresponding EQS in Annex I of the EQSD were taken into consideration in assessing the chemical status with two exceptions: 4-nonylphenol (only nonylphenol with CAS No. 25154-52-3 is covered) and five out of six BDE congeners were not covered. This is because the methodologies for chemical status assessment were set in 2007 based on the 2007 working version of the EQSD, and some inaccurate interpretation occurred.

DE || In principle the EQSs for the priority substances and other pollutants in the EQSD were applied in the assessment of chemical status, however, there are numerous discrepancies or lack of clarity regarding whether all EQSs were really applied in the different German Federal States. The assessment of chemical status in Germany depended on the availability of data. Several Lander reported that monitoring did not include all priority substances (BDE, C10-13 chloroalkanes, TBT). Some national quality standards were used as well, e.g. the EQSs for chlorpyrifos was higher than that in the EQSD.

DK || The EQSD was formally applied but many substances were not taken into consideration. In Bornholm and Vidaa RBDs data on priority substances are missing. For lakes, the substances listed in Annex I were not measured at all in Jutland RBD and in other RBDs only a few data are available. The monitoring programme was more about spot checking rather than a monthly regular activity. Its overall output for chemical status assessment is thus vague. 

EE || From RBMPs it is not clear whether EQSs from the EQSD have been applied for the assessment of the chemical status. There is a lack of monitoring data as insufficient monitoring programmes for priority substances were in place.

EL || No assessment provided.

ES || Information is available only for Catalonia. Chemical status was assessed by analysing the priority substances included in Annex X of the WFD (Decision 2455/2001/EC), modified by Directive 2008/105/CE, and with the objectives set by Directive 76/464/CEE. The overall procedure is however unclear and some parameters were reported missing due to high limits of quantification (LOQs) of the analytical methods used.

FI || RBMPs were prepared in compliance with the provisions of the WFD, Decision No 2455/2001/EC and Directive 2006/11/EC. The EQSD was not applied for the chemical status assessment of waters in the RBMPs reported in 2010 because it was transposed only by 13 July 2010. Only those priority substances were monitored for which discharges into water were known based on a risk analysis and presence of which in water had been verified by sample surveys and for which suitable analytical techniques were available. Several priority substances were thus excluded from the chemical status assessment (e.g., TBT, BDE, C10-13 chloroalkanes, chlorobenzenes, chlorinated hydrocarbons, PAH). Analyses of biota and sediments were not considered.

FR || All substances listed in Annex I of the EQSD were used for the assessment of chemical status of inland and other surface waters in the Scheldt, Somme and coastal waters of the Channel and the North Sea, Seine and Normandy coastal waters, Corsica and  Loire, Brittany and Vendee coastal waters RBDs. Information was not clear for Rhone and Coastal Mediterranean, Adour, Garonne, Dordogne, Charente and coastal waters of Aquitania, Meuse, Sambre, Rhine, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyana and Reunion RBDs.

HU || Most of the EQSs in the EQSD were applied for chemical status assessment except those for which there was no analytical methodology / laboratory available (BDE, C10-13 chloroalkanes, TBT).

IE || The EQSD was applied (except for trifluralin) but it is not clear which substances were monitored. It seems that only a fraction of SWBs was assessed for chemical status.

IT || The basis for the assessment of the chemical status is unclear in all RBDs. It is not clear what was monitored, in which water category and which EQSs were used.  For 77.6% of all SWBs the chemical status is unknown with strong differences across the RBDs (chemical status was unknown for 100% of the SWBs in two RBDs). For a number of RBDs it is not clear which priority substances were monitored.

LT || Chemical status compliance checking was based on the national standards, which did not include all priority substances from the EQSD; for those included, the extent of compliance is not clear. The procedure applied for chemical status assessment is not clear; it seems to be based on incomplete monitoring. Only substances registered to be released and allowed to circulate in international rivers were monitored. 

LU || In principle the EQSs for the priority substances and other pollutants in Annex I of the EQSD were applied for the assessment of chemical status (higher MAC-EQS were applied for anthracene and hexachloro-cyclohexane (HCH)) but it is not clear if all of them were measured in all SWBs. There is an indication that only a limited number of monitoring sites was examined.

LV || Only four priority substances (cadmium, lead, nickel and mercury) were monitored in water and the required frequency of monitoring was not respected. Only those priority substances were monitored for which following the justifications for selection could be found: (i) where significant amounts of substances were discharged according to the permits issued by the regional environmental authorities; (ii) which are strategically significant for the country, e.g., transboundary water bodies.

MT || Assessment of the chemical status was based on risk assessment and was not verified by monitoring.

NL || Although it is mentioned in all Dutch RBMPs that some of the priority substances were not used for the assessment of the chemical status, recent information from the Netherlands indicated that all priority substances were included in the assessment.

PL || The EQSs for the substances listed in Annex I of the EQSD were used in the chemical status assessment, but it is not clear whether all of them were applied in each water body.

PT || No assessment was provided.

RO || It is stated in the RBMP that chemical status assessment is based on the EQS values laid down in Annex I of the EQSD, including MAC and AA. However, the biota standards for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were not applied, and substances were monitored only if significant discharges were identified.

SE || It is not clear in the RBMPs which priority substances were monitored for chemical status assessment, nor which matrix they were monitored in. The informal Swedish feedback clarified that all priority substances except hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) were regularly monitored.

SI || Classification of chemical status was based on all priority substances but some priority substances were not included in the assessment of chemical status, since their limits of detection (LOD) were higher than the corresponding EQSs (TBT, trifluralin, some PAHs). There was no monitoring of priority substances in lakes.

SK || All EQSs in Annex I of the EQSD were applied for the assessment of the chemical status of SWBs, but the biota standards for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were not applied, and in most SWBs not all priority substances were monitored.

UK || In England and Wales, monitoring of priority substances was largely based on permitted discharges and the choice of substance and location was as for existing legislation. In Scotland, SEPA monitored priority substances at surveillance sites for which there where likely sources giving rise to discharges into the catchment of the water body concerned. However, a number of priority substances were not monitored at all. Nor does information on monitoring in lakes appear to have been provided. In general, a large proportion of water bodies were not monitored for priority substances and their chemical status is therefore unknown.

Table 8.5.1: Overview of application of standards in the EQSD in the first RBMP                      

Source:RBMPs

8.5.4.     EQSs for biota for mercury, HCB and HCBD

According to the Article 3(2 a) of the EQSD, Member States may opt to apply, for mercury and its compounds, an EQS of 20 μg/kg, and/or for hexachlorobenzene (HCB), an EQS of 10 μg/kg, and/or for hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), an EQS of 55 μg/kg, these EQS being for prey tissue (wet weight), choosing the most appropriate indicator from among fish, molluscs, crustaceans and other biota. In order to allow Member States flexibility depending on their monitoring strategy, Member States should be able either to monitor and apply those EQS for biota, or to establish EQS for surface water that provide the same level of protection.

EQS in biota were applied only in NL, NO, SE and UK, while the RBMPs of other countries either reported negatively on this issue or made no reference to the use of the biota EQS for the above substances.

According to footnote 9 of Annex I to the EQSD, where Member States do not apply the standards for biota for the three substances in Article 3(2)a of the EQSD, they should introduce a water standard that is more stringent than the one in Annex I to the EQSD. There is no indication that any Member State has set such a standard for the first RBMP. As a consequence, an assessment of chemical status for mercury, HCB and HCBD as good in the first RBMP, if made against the water standard, cannot be assumed to represent a sufficiently protective situation.

8.5.5.     EQSs for sediment and biota for other substances

According to the Article 3(2)b of the EQSD, Member States may opt to apply EQS for sediment and/or biota instead of those laid down in Part A of Annex I (33 priority substances plus 8 other pollutants) in certain categories of surface water. Member States that apply this option shall establish and apply EQS for sediment and/or biota for specified substances.

Only BE, ES (Distrito Fluvial de Cataluña), IT and NO opted to derive EQSs for sediment and/or biota for some of the 33 plus 8 substances (see country specific parts of the Commission Staff Working Document for more details).

8.5.6.     Measurements lower than the limit of quantification

Article 5 of the QA/QC Directive requires Member States to apply certain rules for handling measurements lower than the limit of quantification.

Information about compliance with Article 5 of the Directive 2009/90/EC (QA/QC Directive) was generally not reported. Only AT, LU, RO, SI and UK provided some information indicating that they are already applying the provisions of this Directive.

8.5.7.     Background Concentrations & Bioavailability

Annex I Part B of the Directive 2008/105/EC stipulates that Member States may, when assessing the monitoring results against the EQS, take into account:

(a) Natural background concentrations for metals and their compounds, if they prevent compliance with the EQS value;

(b) Hardness, pH or other water quality parameters that affect the bioavailability of metals.

The background concentrations were considered in the assessment of compliance with EQS in AT, IE, IT and RO while the bioavailability of metals was not considered in any of the RBMPs.

8.5.8.     Identification of EQS exceedances

Based on the results of the monitoring campaigns and compliance checks against the EQSs, Member States assessed the chemical status of surface water bodies. A number of priority substances/certain other pollutants were identified as causing failure of good chemical status of certain water bodies and these failures were reported in the RBMPs. Information on the priority substances causing failure to achieve WFD environmental objectives was missing in a large number of RBMPs.

For the majority of reviewed RBDs, data on the priority substances causing failure were provided but examination of the existing monitoring networks revealed the following facts:

There are large percentages of water bodies that have not been assessed for chemical status (i.e. status is unknown). Generally, most Member States only classify chemical status of water bodies for which they have some monitoring information. Many monitoring programmes seem to be rather limited in terms of numbers of substances and monitoring stations. It is not transparent how the selection of the substances that are monitored has been carried out. There are many statements related to substances ‘discharged in the basin’ but there is no further evidence or justification provided from WFD-compliant monitoring programmes. The above mentioned gaps in monitoring networks explain why in many cases the substances causing failures are not identified or reported either in WISE or in the RBMPs. Therefore, it is not possible to know what is causing the problems.

8.5.9.     Mixing zones

According to Article 4 of the Directive 2009/105/EC Member States may designate mixing zones adjacent to points of discharge. Concentrations of one or more substances listed in Part A of Annex I may exceed the relevant EQS within such mixing zones if they do not affect the compliance of the rest of the body of surface water with those standards.

The use of mixing zones was reported only by two Member States: AT and ES (Catalonia RBD). In AT, pursuant to §5 (6) of the Austrian law when providing permits for discharges of the priority and national substances into SWB, the allowable pollutant loads have to be set in a way that the EQS are met within a certain distance from the discharge (the mixing zone). This distance is normally ten times the width of the SWB at the point of discharge, but limited to 1 kilometre. In Catalonia, mixing zones have been considered for rivers and coastal waters. In coastal waters the zones have a radius of 50 meters around the outflow of the discharge into the sea. In rivers the mixing zone is designated in a stretch of river 50 m downstream from the wastewater discharge point.

8.5.10.   Conclusions

As a result of different degrees of implementation of the EQSD in the first RBMPs there is a lack of comparability of the information on chemical status of surface water bodies among Member States. Only few Member States opted to apply, according to the Article 3(2 a) of the Directive 2008/105/EC, EQSs for mercury and its compounds, hexachlorobenzene and/or hexachlorobutadiene in biota.  However, no Member State has set more stringent EQSs for mercury in water as required by the Directive 2008/105/EC where the biota standards are not used. The necessity of a very careful and sensitive monitoring of mercury in the environment can be demonstrated by the situation in Sweden where atmospheric deposition of mercury was found as one of the major environmental problems with the effect that no surface water body would meet the EQS for mercury in biota. Having regard to the situation in Sweden, it must be pointed out that the lack of detection of the mercury problem in other Member States might be a consequence of the insufficient monitoring practices and of the fact that more stringent standards for mercury in water have not been set. Most of the Member States reported very limited failures for some of the priority substances. A large proportion of water bodies (above 40%) have not been assessed for chemical status and many monitoring programmes seem to be very limited in terms of number of substances and monitoring stations. As a consequence, the picture presented by the chemical status assessment of the first RBMPs is incomplete.

8.5.11.   Recommendations

Full transposition and implementation of the Directive 2008/105/EC has to be ensured during the next RBMP planning period. Improvement of monitoring networks has to be achieved to enable analysis of all priority substances under conditions of full compliance with the provisions of Directive 2009/90/EC. The option to monitor priority substances in certain categories of surface water in sediment and biota should be fully exploited, in particular for hydrophobic substances such as many persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic substances where monitoring in water is not capable of delivering meaningful results. The monitoring strategy should be designed to reflect a true picture of the chemical pollution in the aquatic environment. Current widespread efforts to monitor highly hydrophobic substances in water are a waste of resources and the results do not reflect the reality. Sediment or biota monitoring is in any case specifically required for the trend monitoring specified in EQSD Article 3(3). The monitoring programme for priority substances should make use of all types of WFD monitoring (surveillance, operational, investigative). The results of the pressures analysis should be used by Member States to start investigative screening programmes to identify the relevant priority substances in the RBD, the results of which can inform the design of the monitoring programmes. It has to be emphasised that for developing smart and efficient monitoring programmes the information on pressures and emissions is very important but in many cases not sufficient to predict which substances will be present in water bodies in significant quantities. This refers especially to those substances with more complex use patterns and environmental fates. Although it is not expected that all water bodies be monitored, all water bodies should be assessed for chemical status. Grouping techniques and estimations need to be developed, together with a sound monitoring strategy to provide representative data. The design of the monitoring programme should be guided to provide enough confidence in the status assessment. Monitoring of mercury in biota should be the norm. If this is not done, Member States are obliged to set a more stringent standard for water than the one set in Annex I to the EQSD, but reliable monitoring is not possible at that level with current analytical techniques. The application of the EQSs for water in Annex I to the EQSD is not an option as it is not protective enough. The monitoring of hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should also be in biota. It is essential that failures of the EQSs are reported transparently. Substances causing failures and the water bodies affected should be clearly identified. There are RBMPs that do not report which standards are failing where. This is essential basic environmental information that should be publicly available. Aggregated reporting (such as ‘heavy metals’, ‘industrial pollutants’ or ‘pesticides’) is not useful to transparently identify the causes of the problems and to take action. Therefore it should be avoided. Full transposition and implementation of the Directive 2009/90/EC has to be ensured during the next RBMP planning period.

8.6.        Designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB)

              Figure 8.6.1: map of distribution of HMWBsand AWBs in EU RBDs

Source: WISE Note: Better quality maps are available on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/index_en.htm

8.6.1.     Introduction

The WFD aims to bring all water bodies to a good ecological status by 2015. Measures have to be identified and implemented for impaired water bodies to improve their quality. Not all water bodies, however, can be brought to a good ecological status (GES) which refers to a nearly natural undisturbed condition. Many water bodies have been heavily modified in their physical structure to serve various uses including navigation, flood protection, hydropower, and agriculture. In many cases, it is not viable nor desirable from a socio-economic perspective to abandon such uses and to remove the physical modifications which affect the water bodies. Member States can, thus, designate such water bodies as heavily modified water bodies (HMWB) whose environmental objective is good ecological potential (GEP) instead of GES.

According to the WFD Article 4(3)(a) and (b), Member States may designate a water body as heavily modified if:

(a) The changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary for achieving GES would have significant adverse effects on:

(i) The wider environment.

(ii) Navigation, including port facilities, or recreation.

(iii) Activities for the purpose of which the water is stored, such as drinking water supply, power generation or irrigation.

(iv) Water regulation, flood protection, land drainage.

(v) Other equally important sustainable human development activities.

AND

(b) The beneficial objectives served by modified characteristics of the water body cannot, for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate costs, reasonably be achieved by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option.

A guidance document on the designation of HMWBs was developed in the framework of the Common Implementation Strategy[11].

HMWB designation refers to existing modifications. Any new modification with potential significant effect on the ecological status of the water body needs to be handled through WFD Article 4(7). Therefore, designation of HMWB in view of future modifications is not in line with the WFD.

The WFD takes a very similar approach to AWB and HMWB. AWB must have been created by the same specified uses listed in Article 4(3)(a). The Guidance document number 4 interprets an AWB "as a surface water body which has been created in a location where no water body existed before and which has not been created by the direct physical alteration or movement or realignment of an existing water body".

8.6.2.     Extent of water body designation as heavily modified or artificial

The following figures give an overview of designated heavily modified water bodies (HMWB) and artificial water bodies (AWB) by Member State in relation to the number of total surface water bodies. Around 12% of water bodies have been designated as heavily modified at EU level. However, a large number of water bodies remain ‘unknown’ as regards their natural or heavily modified status in some countries indicating that the designation process has not been completed. Around 4% of water bodies have been designated as artificial water bodies at EU level.

Figure  8.6.2:  Designated HMWBs and AWBs in the EU Member States

Source: WISE

Note: FI, LT, SK, CY, CZ and SE have less than 0.5% AWB and thus no visible bars in the chart on AWB. . There are no AWBs in IE, LU, LV and MT.

In the 2005 Article 5 reports, all Member States made preliminary identifications of HMWBs; the percentage of provisional HMWBs varied greatly from country to country.[12]

In most cases, there are no significant changes in the percentage of finally designated HMWBs compared to provisional HMWBs in the Article 5 reports. In some Member States there is a significant decrease in the percentage of HMWBs (e.g. in Czech Republic and Slovakia). In other Member States there has been an increase in the percentage of HMWBs compared to the provisional identification phase (e.g. Hungary, Germany, Belgium, Poland).

8.6.3.     Water uses and physical modifications for HMWB designation

The majority of RBDs (91%) specify the water uses for which the water bodies have been designated as HMWB, clearly related to the uses of WFD Article 4(3)(a). This has not been clearly identified in the remaining 9% of RBDs.

Storage for power generation, navigation, flood protection, water regulation and water storage for drinking water supply appear as the most common uses for designating HMWBs (reported in more than 60% of RBDs which specified the water uses of HMWBs).

Figure 8.6.3 – Uses for which water bodies are being designated as heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies

Source:RBMPs

The majority of RBDs (74%) also describe the kind of physical modifications that have led to the designation of HMWBs. However, in 23% of RBDs, the physical modifications for HMWB designation are not described, and in 3% or RBDs, no clear information has been provided.

Weirs/dams/reservoirs, channelization/straightening/bed stabilisation and land reclamation/ports/coastal modifications appear as the most common physical modifications that have led to HMWB designation (reported in more than 70% of RBDs which described physical modifications for HMWBs).

Figure 8.6.4 – Types of physical modifications in the designation of heavily modified water bodies

Source: RBMPs

8.6.4.     Methodology for HMWB designation

Around half of RBDs assessed followed the complete stepwise approach for HMWB designation described in CIS HMWB Guidance nº4[13]. However, the extent and transparency of the implementation of the key steps is variable (see below).

The remaining RBDs either used some steps of the CIS approach or, in some cases, followed a different approach than the one described in the CIS HMWB Guidance nº4 (mainly in Bulgaria and Sweden).

In ca. 11% of RBDs, the designation methodology is not explained or the information given is unclear (this is the case for all RBDs in Italy and single RBDs in France, Finalnd and Germany). For some RBDs, the methodology may be described in background documents but these have not been clearly referenced in the RBMPs in all cases.

The following steps of the HMWB designation process (according to the CIS HMWB Guidance nº4) have been followed to varying extents:

Definition of 'substantial changes in character'

The definition of 'substantial changes in character' due to human activity (physical modifications) is explained in the majority of RBDs (ca. 63% of RBDs); in the remaining RBDs, this definition is not given or is unclear.

The following are key observations on the set of criteria used to define 'substantial changes in character due to physical modifications:[14]

· Several approaches refer to simple presence of certain structures as criterion for 'substantial changes in character, e.g. the presence of dams, dikes or ports.

· Criteria are frequently connected to specific thresholds or ranges of values for a certain pressure or impact.

For example, thresholds often relate to the surface of reservoirs and impoundments or the percentage of river channelized for different uses, e.g. for urbanisation or navigation.

· In some Member States, scoring systems or methods have been developed to take the effect of combined pressures into account, e.g. UK.

· In other Member States, hydromorphological structure class systems exist to assess physical alterations (e.g. the German Stream Habitat Survey) and substantial changes in character of water bodies are defined as failure of a specific class.

'Significant adverse effects'

A description of the approach on how significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use or wider environment have been defined is given in around half of the RBMPs assessed; in the remaining, such description is not given or is unclear.

Several plans mention that the assessment of significant adverse effects has been undertaken but they do not specify the methodology or give reference to a background document which is not clearly referenced in all cases.

When it comes to the development of criteria and/or specific thresholds of 'significance', such have been found in only 14% of the RBDs assessed. In most cases, significance has been defined on the basis of qualitative criteria rather than quantitative criteria. In the majority of RBDs, criteria were not developed or the information was unclear. In many RBDs with lack of criteria, the significance of effects has been estimated on the basis of expert judgement.

In general, significant adverse effects include: [15]

· Complete loss of use, especially in the case of water storage for drinking-water supply, power generation or irrigation.

· Significant reduction of use, e.g. loss of cargos and reduction of passenger traffic, reduction of bathing sites, and loss of energy generation (peak load and base load).

· Production losses or socio-economic losses (with % thresholds), e.g. reduction of flood protection levels and loss of production from agricultural land.

The evaluation of the RBMPs indicates that the assessment of significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use or wider environment is in many cases vague and not transparent as expert judgement is the basis for the estimations. The lack of criteria and/or specific thresholds of 'significance' indicate that the assessment of significant adverse effects is not comparable yet between Member States.

'Better environmental options'

The checking of whether the beneficial objectives served by the modifications of the HMWB can be achieved by 'other means' which are significantly better environmental options, technically feasible and not disproportionately costly has taken place in around half of the RBDs assessed. In the remaining RBDs, 'other means' have not been checked (ca. 30% of RBDs) or information given was unclear (ca. 19%).

In general, other environmental options considered included: [16]

· Replacement of the existing use with a better alternative, such as replacement of navigation with other environmentally friendly transport options, replacement of hydropower with other renewable energy (national level decisions), supply of irrigation water from groundwater sources or seawater desalination.

· Displacement of the existing use to another water body, such as relocation of properties (under flood protection), movement of recreation activities to other water bodies, displacement of navigation to an alternative port/harbour.

· Reduction of environmental impact of existing use, such as reduction of impact of water storage by compensatory and ecological discharges.

Overall, in the majority of the plans, the assessment of better environmental options has been rather superficial without detailed consideration of alternatives. For most HMWB and AWB, there are no real alternatives to deliver the water use they serve. Difficulties in this first cycle have persisted in applying the designation test and the process should be improved for next planning cycles.

8.6.5.     Uncertainties and future actions

Uncertainty in relation to the designation of HMWBs is discussed clearly in only 22% of the RBDs. In more than half of the plans, the issue of uncertainty is not discussed or information provided is uncler.

Future actions to improve the designation process (e.g. methodological improvements) are planned in ca. 20% of the RBDs. However, in most cases, no future actions for improvement of the designation process are planned or information provided in the plan is unclear.

8.6.6.     Conclusions

· The designation of HMWBs in the first RBMPs has been based largely on expert judgement. The extent and transparency of the implementation of the key steps of designation is variable in the Member States.

· The assessment of significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use or wider environment is in many cases vague and not transparent as expert judgement is the basis for the estimations. This entails the risk of wide interpretation of 'significant adverse effects' as only in a few cases transparent thresholds or criteria of 'significance' have been developed.

· The assessment of better environmental options has been quite superficial without detailed consideration of alternatives. In many plans, alternatives have not been checked at all or information given is very unclear.

· HMWB designation according to the WFD has a built-in driver for restoration (which is the default). Overall, in the first WFD planning cycle, it is unclear to what extent the designation process has been used as a driver for restoration or as a consolidation of status quo. Nevertheless, in the majority of RBDs there is clear evidence that hydromorphological measures are planned to improve the ecological potential of HMWB with the minimum of impact on use (see Section 8.14 on measures related to hydromorphology). This indicates efforts made to improve the conditions of HMWBs. At the same time, there is little information reported on the expected ecological improvements of measures at the water body level which indicates uncertainty on the resulting effects.

8.6.7.     Recommendations

· The methodology and specific criteria for HMWB designation (application of all relevant steps according to CIS HMWB guidance no. 4) should be clearly explained in the plans or clear reference and links to the relevant background documents needs to be given.

· The use of thresholds (e.g. percentage of river stretch affected) to define substantial changes in character for HMWB designation should be justified to ensure that significant modifications are not overlooked.

· There needs to be a clear check whether good ecological status is achievable in the water body. In case it is, designation is not an option but restoration to GES is an option.

· In order to designate water bodies as heavily modified, the explicit tests of the WFD Article 4(3)(a) and (b) (assessment of significant adverse effects and significantly better environmental options) should be applied on the basis of clear and transparent criteria. There is much room for improvement in this respect, since the assessment of 'significant adverse effects' and 'significantly better environmental options' is generally weak or has not been carried out in many RBMPs in the first cycle. At the same time, nearly all RBMPs report designated HMWBs which shows that the basis for designation is not solid in all cases.

· Uncertainties in the HMWB designation process (especially in cases of lack of assessment of significant adverse effects and better options) should be explained in the RBMPs. Planned actions for improvement of the designation process should be included in the reporting.

8.7.        Definition of Good Ecological Potential for HMWB and AWB

8.7.1.     Introduction

Within the WFD implementation, the status of HMWB and AWB needs to be assessed in terms of achieving at least Good Ecological Potential (GEP) as this is defined in Annex V of the Directive. A water body shows a GEP when there are slight changes in the values of the relevant biological quality elements as compared to the values found at Maximum Ecological Potential (MEP). The MEP is considered as the reference conditions for HMWB, and is intended to describe the best approximation to a natural aquatic ecosystem that could be achieved given the hydromorphological characteristics that cannot be changed without significant adverse effects on the specified use or the wider environment.

The definition of ecological potential for HMWB and AWB has been a subject of long and still on-going discussions between Member States and the Commission in the context of the CIS. Defining ecological potential is a challenging and complex subject in the WFD implementation, which needs to be defined on the basis of a sound methodological approach in order to set appropriate environmental objectives for the numerous HMWB and AWB in Europe.

8.7.2.     Methodologies for the definition of GEP

So far, the following two approaches have been put forward and discussed on EU level for the definition of Good Ecological Potential (GEP).

Reference-based approach (CIS approach)

The first approach is based on biological quality elements as illustrated in CIS Guidance No 4[17] (see Figure 8.7.1, right). The MEP for HMWBs relates to the values of biological quality elements after all mitigation measures have been implemented that do not have a significant adverse effect on the use. GEP is defined as only slight changes from those values at MEP. GEP represents a state in which the ecological potential of a water body is falling only slightly short of the maximum it could achieve without significant adverse effects on the wider environment or on the relevant water use or uses. An assessment of disproportionate costs of the mitigation measures should not be considered (as these are considered when applying exemptions).

Mitigation-measures approach (alternative Prague approach)

The alternative Prague approach[18] takes a different route and bases the definition of GEP on the identification of mitigation measures (see Figure 8.7.1, left). Starting from all measures that do not have a significant adverse effect on the water use, those measures are excluded that, in combination, are predicted to deliver only slight ecological improvement. GEP is then defined as the biological values that are expected from implementing the remaining identified mitigation measures. As in the first approach, an assessment of disproportionate costs of the mitigation measures should not be considered.[19]

A key difference to the first approach is that the GEP is derived directly from the mitigation measures, and not indirectly from the specification and prediction of biological quality elements at MEP.

||

Figure 8.7.1: Steps involved in defining GEP using the alternative “Prague” approach (left side of figure) compared to the relevant steps in the approach described in CIS Guidance Document No. 4 (right side of figure); red arrows: steps following CIS method; green arrows: “Prague” modifications of CIS method.

Source: CIS Guidance Document nº4

             

8.7.3.     To what extent has GEP been defined and which approach is used?

Only a few well developed and implemented methods for defining GEP could be identified in the first planning cycle.

So far, 3 Member States used the reference-based approach (see table 8.7.1). Some of these applications still need to be further developed to be fully in line with the WFD. In Germany, the reference-based approach has been applied by one Federal State, while the majority of States made use of the mitigation measures approach. In Slovakia, GEP is defined for rivers but no system has been developed for reservoirs.

A larger number of Member States in the 1st planning cycle based GEP definition on the mitigation-measures approach.

No clear information could be found in any of the plans on a comparison between the results of GEP definition on the basis of the mitigation-measures approach and results on the basis of the reference-based approach.

In some Member States, information on GEP definition is provided but it is not made explicit which of the two approaches or which elements of the two approaches (reference-based or mitigation-measures) are being used.

In a large number of Member States, GEP has not been defined at all or not to a sufficient extent yet. In several of these States, due to the lack of relevant monitoring data and classification systems for the ecological potential, the principles of ecological status assessment and expert judgment have been applied to classify HMWB and AWB.

In many RBDs, it is reported that as further monitoring data is gathered and intercalibration progresses, the GEP methodologies will be refined, clearly indicating a still on-going process.

An overview of the approaches used is presented in the following table. More details are available in the country specific parts of the Commission Staff Working Document.

Approach for GEP definition || Member States || GEP definition in biological terms || Scale of GEP criteria definition || Source

Reference-based approach (CIS) || All steps followed || - || - || - || -

Some steps followed (some steps only partially or not followed) || DE[20] || Yes, to considerable extent GEP defined on the basis of BQEs using the assessment methods for ecological status and considering changes in water category and type || Approach based on water types and water uses – applied on WB level || RBMPs assessment

RO || Yes, to some extent BQEs estimation of values based on statistical analysis of available data (mathematical basis for classes) and expert judgment (e.g. in estimating biological references for closest comparable water body type) Some lack of data and monitoring stations Some methods for sensitive BQEs still in development GEP characterisation for coastal waters done with medium confidence so far. || Approach for water categories (rivers, reservoirs, lakes, coastal) || RBMPs assessment

SK || Yes, to some extent Use of assessment methods for ES and closest comparable water body of the same type (still gaps in ES assessment methods and data missing, to be completed by monitoring) For each HMWB: definition of relevant type-specific BQEs, MEP for relevant QEs by expert judgement || Approach only for rivers (for reservoirs, in next cycle); method also WB-specific || RBMPs assessment

Mitigation measures approach (Prague) || All steps followed || - || - || - ||

Some steps of approach followed (some steps only partially or not followed) || FI || Yes, to some extent Method estimates the % changes in the values of BQEs due to mitigation measures on water body level; based partly on expert judgment Actual biological values at MEP and GEP are not estimated and not explicitly described. || Applied on WB level || RBMPs assessment Presentation by Finland on GEP definition, CIS Workshop WFD & HMWB, 12-13.3.2009, Brussels

DE[21] || Yes, to some extent Biological values at GEP not estimated, but in some cases there is expert judgement estimation (qualitative) of the biological effectiveness of mitigation measures on BQEs. In general, the Prague approach has been accompanied by the use of biological assessment criteria for ES of natural WBs. || Approaches usually address different water categories and water body types || RBMPs assessment RBMP supporting documents on GEP methods (for different Länder & RBDs)

UK || No Not possible to reliably predict a numeric value for BQEs in response to mitigation measures. Biological standards only applied to assess the impact of pollution pressures on HMWB/AWB and, in E&W, also to classify WBs impacted by abstraction. Biological elements also considered in designing mitigation to improve ecological conditions. || Water-use specific checklists of mitigation measures  - applied on WB level || RBMPs assessment Presentation by the UK on GEP definition, CIS ECOSTAT Hydromorphology Workshop, 12-13.6.2012, Brussels

|| Unclear application of individual steps || FR || To little extent / no Combination of Prague approach and available data regarding status GEP class boundaries based on intensity of hydromorphological pressures and BQEs not sensitive to hydromorphology, e.g. diatoms, chlorophyl-a (expert judgement) || Definition of HMWB types based on uses and modifications – applied on WB level || RBMPs assessment Annex V of Decree of 25 January 2010 on the methods and criteria for assessing the ecological status, chemical status and ecological potential of surface water Presentation by France on GEP definition, CIS Workshop WFD & HMWB, 12-13.3.2009, Brussels

DE[22]  || Unclear In some cases mention of expert judgement and use of classification methods for assessing ES || Applied on WB level || RBMPs assessment RBMP supporting documents on GEP methods (for different Länder & RBDs)

IE || To little extent / no Measures-based hydromorphological classes combined with interim ES (based on biology and physico-chemical data). || Applied on WB level || RBMPs assessment Surface water Status Group (2008). Report on the Interim Classification of Ecological Potential and identification of measures for Ireland’s HMWB. Towards the draft River Basin Management Plan, December 2008.

SE || No || Use-specific approach in progress (hydropower) || RBMPs assessment

DK || Unclear (information incomplete) || Unclear (information incomplete) || RBMPs assessment

Combination or both approaches used (reference-based & Prague approach) || NL Both; different for HMWB & AWB || Yes, to considerable extent Prague for HMWW: Effect of measures estimated in EQR per WB and added to present status (for each BQE) Reference-based for AWB: Based on data availability for  reference conditions of “best” ditches and canals || Approaches for HMWB and AWB Applied on WB level || RBMPs assessment Presentation by the NL on GEP definition, CIS ECOSTAT Hydromorphology Workshop, 12-13.6.2012, Brussels Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (2005). Dutch MEP/GEP Guidelines (Handreiking MEP/GEP).

AT Combination; closer links to Prague approach  || Yes, to some extent (qualitatively) MEP and GEP definition include a verbal description of the ecological status for fish (only) to be achieved (but no specific values) Verbal description of MEP and GEP in biological terms and effects of mitigation measures (on a qualitative scale) are based on expert judgement || Use/pressure specific guidance  - applied on WB level || RBMPs assessment

LT Both (primary use Prague approach; secondary  reference-based approach) || Yes, to some extent GEP related to GES of natural WBs: for lakes, ponds and transitional waters MEP equals HES and GEP equals GES; for straightened rivers, MEP equals GES of natural water bodies and GEP equals moderate status. GEP definition tested by field surveys using comparison of natural water bodies and HMWB of the same water body type Possible impact of mitigation measures tested by field surveys. || For water categories (rivers – straightened rivers and canals; lakes, ponds, quarries; transitional waters) || RBMPs assessment

DE[23] Elements of both approaches || Yes, to some extent Saarland : For macroinvertebrates only, class limits proposed for maximum, good, moderate, poor, bad potential Thüringen : For fish and macroinvertebrates, BQE values calculated using mathematical/empirical models || Applied on WB level || RBMPs assessment RBMP supporting documents on GEP methods (for different Länder & RBDs)

GEP defined but not made explicit which of two approaches is used || BE-Flanders  || Yes, to considerable extent Calculation of GEP values (for all BQEs) in relation to GES and current status due to irreversible pressures || Generic approach for rivers WB-specific for lakes and transitional waters || RBMPs assessment Presentation of BE to COM on Approach to define GEP in Flanders, 11.6.2012

ES-Catalonia || Yes, to some extent Rivers: expert judgement on expected populations of fish, macro-invertebrates and diatomeas ; Impoundments : Use of an ecological potential index; Lakes, trasitional and coastal waters (close to coast) : GEP considered similar to good status of natural waters of respective type. || For water categories (impoundments, rivers, lakes, transitional, coastal) || RBMPs assessment

SI || To little extent For rivers and for BQE of macroinvertebrates only : GEP defined on the basis of an index, assessing hydromorphological impacts on communities of organisms; moderate/poor boundary of index for ecological status of base type of river is used as good/moderate boundary for ecological potential || For rivers only || RBMP assessments

GEP defined to limited extent || CZ (lakes), HU, BG, CY, EE || - || - || RBMP assessments

GEP not defined || Reference made to the use of GES || IT, LU, PL, CZ (rivers), LV, DE[24] || - || - || RBMPs assessment

No definition || MT || - || - || RBMPs assessment

Table 8.7.1: overview of the approaches used in different Member States for the definition of GEP

Source: The European State questionnaires on Hydropower and the WFD. 2nd Workshop on Water Management, Water Framework Directive and Hydropower. Brussels, 13-14 September 2011 (http://www.ecologic-events.de/hydropower2/background.htm )

8.7.4.     Translating ecological potential into a biological target

Progress in 'translating' ecological potential (based on mitigation without significant impacts on the use) into biological targets differs among Member States. Overall, information in the plans on how ecological potential has been defined in biological terms is relatively scarce.

Table 8.7.1 above gives among others indications on the definition of GEP in biological terms for different Member States, bearing in mind the following: the derivation of numerical values or other value approximation for BQEs (especially BQEs sensitive to hydromorphological alterations)[25] and/or specific assessments of the ecological changes due to mitigation measures.

So far, there are few well developed approaches for quantifying biological targets for ecological potential at water body level. Such examples are found in Member States which used the reference-based approach (Germany – State of Bavaria), the mitigation-measures approach (The Netherlands), or other approaches (Belgium-Flanders). In these cases, it has been possible to calculate values of BQEs at GEP for the main types of HMWB and AWB. In the Netherlands, which used the mitigation-measures approach for HMWB, the effects of mitigation measures have been estimated in Ecological Quality Ratios per water body and added to the present status for the purpose of defining GEP.

Several other Member States have made to some extent progress in the biological definition of GEP. In Member States using the reference-based approach, the estimation of BQE values is based on analysis of available data, information on closest comparable water body types and expert judgement. Limitations result from gaps in relevant data and monitoring and the lack of fully developed assessment methods for certain BQEs.

In most Member States using the mitigation measures approach, it has not been possible to estimate numerical values of BQEs. However, there have been several qualitative estimations of the biological targets, using expert judgement. For example, in Finland, the % change in values of BQEs due to mitigation measures is estimated on water body level and, in AT, GEP is verbally described in biological terms (for fish) setting a biological goal for the mitigation measures.

In the same time, in other Member States applying the mitigation measures approach, GEP definition in biological terms has not taken place so far or the information provided is not explicit and clear in this respect.

Overall, information in the RBMPs indicates that GEP definition is a learning process. In several plans, it is made clear that approaches are still incomplete and more work is required or even under way for the next planning cycles on the development of harmonised GEP methods using biological quality elements sensitive to hydromorphological changes.

8.7.5.     Scale of GEP definition

Methods for defining ecological potential are water-body specific only in 44% of RBDs. In 29% of RBDs, definition of ecological potential is water use specific and in 27% of RBDs, water body type specific. In certain RBDs, the method is a combination of water-body specific and water use specific methods (e.g. Austria, UK).

Figure 8.7.2:Scale at which the GEP has been defined

Source: RBMPs

8.7.6.     Defining Maximum Ecological Potential

In the majority of RBDs, only good ecological potential (GEP) is defined, whereas in ca. 85% of RBDs, maximum ecological potential (MEP) is not defined or no information is found on the techniques for estimating biological values at MEP.

In ca. 15% of RBDs, the estimation of biological values at MEP has been done on the basis of expert judgement. Similarly, it has often been reported that GEP is defined on the basis of expert judgement and in relation to the principles of GES assessment (e.g. potential is status minus 1 class), due to the lack of appropriate monitoring data and specific classification systems. In the same time, no clear information is found in the plans on the comparability between defined GEP and good ecological status (GES), with the exception of few Member States (e.g. Belgium-Flanders, the Netherlands). 

8.7.7.     Mitigation measures and expected ecological improvements

In 35% of RBDs, specific mitigation measures have been considered and reported. In 20% of RBDs, mitigation measures have been considered but no reference was found which measures specifically. In 23% of RBDs, no reference was found to mitigation measures.

Mitigation measures in the RBMPs are frequently referenced as measures to improve hydromorphological conditions (and the related ecological status/potential) in the programmes or catalogues of measures, without clarifying whether and how these measures have been used for the GEP/MEP definitions. Often, the mitigation measures without significant adverse effects on the use or the wider environment used for MEP/GEP definition are not explicitly listed in the RBMP.

In some cases, lists of possible mitigation measures for GEP/MEP definition are given but no definitive list of the measures that have no significant adverse effects on the use, depending on the nature and characteristics of the specific water bodies being assessed.

The ecological changes that the mitigation measures are designed to achieve are described in only ca. 12% of RBDs. In 24% of RBDs, there is some general information on ecological improvements of mitigation measures but the ecological benefits of individual measures remain unclear. In a large number of the RBDs, there is no explanation of the expected ecological changes. Considering the key role of mitigation-measures in GEP definition, this is clearly an information gap. Mitigation measures need to be linked to specific ecological improvement targets to set the environmental objective of HMWB and AWB.

8.7.8.     Conclusions

· In the first RBMPs, only a few well developed and implemented methods for defining GEP could be identified. In many Member States, GEP has not been defined in the first planning cycle or not to a sufficient extent.

· Progress in 'translating' ecological potential into biological targets also differs greatly among Member States. There are only a few well developed approaches for quantifying biological targets for GEP at water body level. In some Member States, especially those which applied the mitigation-measures approach, the estimation of biological values for the ecological potential is done in qualitative way using partly expert judgement.

· In several plans, it is made clear that approaches for GEP definition are still incomplete and more work is required or even under way for the next planning cycles on the development of harmonised GEP methods using biological quality elements sensitive to hydromorphological changes.

· Mitigation measures have been considered in ca. 2/3 of the RBMPs but the selection of those measures that have no significant adverse effects on the use or the wider environment (for MEP/GEP definition) is often not made explicit. Only in a few cases, the ecological improvements that the individual mitigation measures are designed to achieve are described.

8.7.9.     Recommendations

· RBMPs or accompanying technical documents need to make explicit which of the two approaches discussed in the context of the CIS to define GEP is being used (reference-based or mitigation measures approach). If another approach is used, it should be clear which elements of the two approaches discussed in the CIS are used / combined and why.

· All approaches for GEP definition (reference-based approach, mitigation-measures approach or other approach) should be drivers for ecological improvement and should be able to deliver comparable results in terms of ecological improvements on the ground.

· The environmental objective of GEP is not just a list of mitigation measures but it is about the ecological change those measures are designed to achieve. The ecological changes that mitigation measures are designed to achieve should be clearly reported (part of objective setting for HMWB). In this context, it is essential that RBMPs are explicit about the approach used to biologically validate the results of GEP definition. HMWB should not be classified only on the basis of principles of ecological status assessment but it is necessary to use biological assessment methods that are sensitive to hydromorphological alterations. It is also recommended to compare the ecological quality represented by GEP with class boundaries of ecological status (reality check on GEP).

· Mitigation measures without significant adverse effects on the use or wider environment need to be clearly indicated in defining GEP and criteria for the 'significance' of adverse effects need to be transparently identified (also linked to HMWB designation). RBMPs should indicate in a transparent and clear manner the mitigation measures which are considered and the mitigation measures which are not considered due to their significant adverse impact on the use.

· More transparency is also needed on specific criteria used in the context of GEP definition, e.g. criteria to define significant adverse impacts of mitigation measures on the use or the wider environment. The RBMPs should show explicitly that the financial costs of mitigation measures are not included in the objective setting for HMWB and AWB.

8.8.        Assessment of groundwater status

8.8.1.     Requirements of the WFD

The groundwater related aspects of the WFD cover a number of elements to be considered by the Member States. Article 4.1(b) of the WFD specifies five objectives for groundwater that are to be met:

· Prevent or limit the input of pollutants.

· Prevent the deterioration of status of groundwater bodies.

· Achieve good groundwater status (both chemical and quantitative).

· Implement measures to reverse any significant and sustained upward trends of concentrations of pollutants.

· Meet the requirements of protected areas.

This chapter discusses the requirements related to groundwater status.

Overall 13,261 groundwater bodies were identified and reported in Europe. More than half of them are located in Finland and Sweden, mainly due to the specific hydrogeological situation in these Member States. About 87% of all groundwater bodies are in good quantitative status and about 80% were reported to be in good chemical status.

Overall, for 2009 about 74% of the 13,261 groundwater bodies (representing 63% in terms of area) were reported to be both of good chemical and quantitative status which is expected to increase to 80% in 2015 (representing 68% in terms of area). Member State specific information can be found in WFD aggregation table GWB_STATUS_2015.

Figure 8.8.1: Percentage of groundwater bodies achieving good, poor or unknown chemical and quantitative status

Source: WISE

The figure above shows a relatively high percentage of groundwater bodies in good status in Europe but it is also necessary to consider the differences in the methodologies how the assessment of the groundwater status was done by Member States.

8.8.2.     Groundwater chemical status

The definition of chemical status is set out in WFD Annex V (2.3.2). Good groundwater chemical status is achieved when there is no saline intrusion in the groundwater body, when monitoring data do not exceed relevant standards and when concentrations in groundwater do not result in failure of status of associated surface waters nor any significant diminution of the ecological or chemical quality of such bodies nor in any significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend directly on the groundwater body.

About 80% of almost 13,300 groundwater bodies (representing 72% in terms of area) were reported to be of good chemical status in 2009, for 5% of the groundwater bodies (3% in terms of area) the status is unknown, and nearly 2,000 groundwater bodies (~15% in terms of numbers and 25% in terms of area) were reported to be of poor chemical status.

Poor status is mainly caused due to exceedance of groundwater quality standards or threshold values affecting nearly 12% of all groundwater bodies in 21 Member States (and more than 75% of those in poor status) and the main responsible pollutant is nitrate. The second most common reason for poor chemical status (4% of all groundwater bodies) in 13 Member States is the deterioration in quality of waters for human consumption and the significant impairment of human uses. It should be noted that poor status of a groundwater body can be caused by more than one reason.

8.8.2.1.  Consideration of associated surface waters and GW dependent terrestrial ecosystems

The health of associated surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems is a key element in the assessment of groundwater body status and hence their proper consideration in the assessment procedure via the groundwater threshold values.

Two thirds of the RBMPs (68%, from 15 Member States) reported the consideration of these elements in the groundwater status assessment, but it is not clear in a lot of cases whether this is only a theoretical consideration or whether the considerations were taken into account and put into practice. For the remaining 32% of RBMPs no such information was reported or it was unclear whether these elements were considered in the status assessment.

The failure to meet environmental objectives in associated surface water bodies or significant diminution of the ecological or chemical status of such bodies was reported to cause poor status in 189 (1.5%) groundwater bodies (from 6 Member States), but significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend directly on the groundwater body was only reported for 6 groundwater bodies (from 3 Member States) to cause poor status.

Several Member States reported a considerable lack of knowledge in assessing the needs of terrestrial ecosystems and the interaction between groundwater and these ecosystems. It needs specific attention and considerable efforts to bridge this gap in the coming years. This gap was also confirmed by the background document "In-depth assessment of the differences in groundwater threshold values established by Member States" which revealed that environmental quality standards and threshold values were only reported by the Member States to be considered for aquatic ecosystems but not for terrestrial ecosystems.

8.8.2.2.  Groundwater threshold values

Regarding the provision of not exceeding relevant standards, the Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC (GWD) provides EU-wide groundwater quality standards for nitrates and pesticides and requests Member States to establish further national groundwater quality standards (referred to as ‘threshold values’) taking into account identified risks and the indicative list of substances given in Annex II of the GWD. This approach considers the actual risks identified by the analysis of pressures and impacts under Article 5 of the WFD and the high natural variability of substances in groundwater (depending upon hydrogeological conditions, background levels, pollutant pathways and interactions with different environmental compartments).

The groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good chemical status at the end of the RBMP cycle and the parameters responsible for such a classification play an essential role in the compliance regime, both through the establishment of groundwater threshold values and the assessment of good chemical status, as groundwater bodies not identified at risk can automatically be classified as being of good status. Threshold values should be established for all pollutants that characterise groundwater bodies at risk of not achieving the good chemical status objective and this should be done at the most appropriate level, e.g. Member State, RBD or groundwater body level. The GWD provides general guidelines on how to establish threshold values (Annex II).

The WFD requirement of considering the list of substances given in Annex II GWD and all pollutants posing risk in the establishment of threshold values was met by nearly all Member States (24). In total, threshold values were established for about 560 different substances or indicators but it is not clear which of these substances or indicators from this impressive list pose an actual risk to groundwater bodies of not meeting good status in 2015. Many of these reported threshold values seem not to be established as a result of an actual risk but to enable risk and status assessment.

The GWD requirement (Annex II Part C (a) WFD) to include, where feasible, information on the number of bodies or groups of bodies of groundwater characterised as being at risk, and on the pollutants and indicators of pollution which contribute to this classification in the RBMPs was met by only half of the Member States. One of the reasons for this reporting gap could be that this information should have already been included in the recent reporting of groundwater risk in the form of the WFD Article 5 report on the analysis of pressures and impacts (due in 2005) and the assumption by many Member States that the situation concerning the risk remained unchanged and still valid.

In the case of naturally-occurring substances the GWD (Annex II Part A and C) requires the consideration of natural background levels of substances when establishing threshold values and reporting on the relationship between the threshold values and the observed background levels. Such a consideration was reported by 23 Member States in 102 RBMPs. The relationships between the threshold values and the background values vary considerably from Member State to Member State depending on the national approaches taken. Figure 8.8.2 illustrates the different national approaches which were applied and which then lead to different levels of threshold values.

Figure 8.8.2: Different approaches for deriving groundwater threshold values (TV) considering natural background levels (NBL) and criteria values, leading to considerably different TVs.

Note: Criteria value is the concentration of a pollutant, not taking into account any natural background concentrations, that if exceeded may lead to a failure of the good status criterion concerned.

Source: Background document "In-depth assessment of the differences in groundwater threshold values established by Member States"

In 2 Member States (4 RBMPs) the background values were reported as not considered in the threshold values but later in the compliance assessment. In 13 RBMPs of 4 Member States no details on the consideration of background levels were mentioned.

Not only the relationships between the threshold values and the of background levels vary between Member States but also the methodologies for calculating such background levels differ due to the individual national approaches taken.

The evaluation of compliance is based on a comparison of monitoring data with quality standards and threshold values. In principle no groundwater body is allowed to exceed these standard values and in case of an exceedance at one or more monitoring points good status is still possible. In this case, an appropriate (case by case) investigation should confirm that such exceedance may be due to a local pressure (e.g. point source pollution) that does not endanger the status of the overall groundwater body concerned (Annex III GWD). Nevertheless, although the whole groundwater body is still in good status despite of local exceedance, measures need to be implemented to control and possibly remediate such pollution. Only 8 RBMPs reported that no exceedance of quality standards or threshold values at any monitoring point in groundwater bodies of good status occurred and 46 RBMPs reported such exceedance. In 54 RBMPs no related information was reported.

The background reports relating to the RBMPs showed that the extents of acceptable exceedance are calculated by different national approaches, either by considering the number of monitoring sites (12 Member States), the affected (weighted) area (9 Member States), the affected GWB volume (3 Member States) or by expert judgements for which further information was not provided (and which are therefore not comparable at the European level). The acceptable extent of a GWB which might exceed quality standards or threshold values, where the conditions of good chemical status are still met, varies from a fixed value of 25 km² to 10% up to 50% of the monitoring points / area / volume. But expert judgment was also reported without further specifying the underlying criteria. Most of the Member States (11), where information was available, reported 20% as an acceptable extent of exceedance, 4 Member States reported 30% and 2 others reported 33%.

The background document "In-depth assessment of the differences in groundwater threshold values established by Member States" contains more details on the assessment of the different methodologies of compliance regime and of threshold value establishment used in Member States and reveals that threshold values established in Europe are hardly comparable.

8.8.2.3.  Trend and trend reversal assessment

According to the WFD Member States need to identify significant and sustained upward trends in concentrations of pollutants. The details are laid down in Annex IV of the GWD which requires - among others - that the assessment is based on a statistical method.

68 RBMPs reported by 17 Member States reported that trend assessments have been performed, in 57 RBMPs the assessment methods have been described and it can be concluded that mainly statistical methods were applied as required by the GWD. The length of the considered time series varies considerably starting mainly from 1995 up to 2008. Due to the fact that in many groundwater bodies in Europe monitoring started in December 2006 under the WFD with the surveillance monitoring, performing trend assessment is currently premature. A more complete picture on trends is expected in 2015 with time series of WFD monitoring of seven years (in case of operational monitoring).

Additional trend assessments are required by the Article 5.5 GWD to assess the impact of existing plumes of pollution resulting from point sources and contaminated land and to verify that these plumes do not expand and do not present a risk for human health and the environment. Only very few RBMPs reported the application of such an additional trend assessment without providing details and it is not clear whether such assessments were performed already or are to be performed. Some Member States mentioned that it is not applicable in their territory; others reported that the available data are not sufficient; some RBMPs mentioned that such an assessment is done by modelling.

Each significant and sustained upward trend needs to be reversed by implementing appropriate measures and such a trend reversal needs to be demonstrated by the Member States. 23 RBMPs of 6 Member States already reported information on the establishment of such a methodology whereas 42 RBMPs of 9 Member States stated that a methodology is not yet defined. Trend reversal assessment usually needs the assessment of a trend first therefore longer time series will be necessary to complete them. Even in 2015 trend reversal assessments might not be carried out in every RBD.

8.8.3.     Groundwater quantitative status

The definition of quantitative status is set out in WFD Annex V (2.1.2). Good groundwater quantitative status is achieved when the level of groundwater in the groundwater body is such that the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long term annual average rate of abstraction. Accordingly, the level of groundwater is not subject to anthropogenic alterations such as it would result in failure to achieve the environmental objectives for associated surface waters; any significant diminution in the status of surface waters; and any significant damage to groundwater body dependent terrestrial ecosystems. Furthermore, there is no anthropogenic caused saline or other intrusion.

About 87% of the 13,261 groundwater bodies (84% in terms of area) were reported to be in good quantitative status in 2009, for 7% of the groundwater bodies (4% in terms of area) the status is unknown and nearly 800 groundwater bodies (~6% in terms of numbers and 12% in terms of area) were reported to fail good quantitative status, mainly due to the exceedance of the available groundwater resource by the long-term annual average rate of abstraction.

Failure to meet environmental objectives in associated surface water bodies or significant diminution of the ecological or chemical status of such bodies was reported for rather few groundwater bodies (326) from 10 Member States. Significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend directly on the groundwater body was reported for only 38 groundwater bodies from 5 Member States.

Most of the RBMPs (93%) reported on the considered elements in the quantitative status assessment. The comparison of the available groundwater resource with the long-term annual average rate of abstraction in the assessment of quantitative status was considered in all of these RBMPs. The further elements like the diminution of the status of associated surface water bodies was reported to be considered by 53% of these RBMPs, damage to groundwater body dependent terrestrial ecosystems by 76% and saline and other intrusion were reported to be considered by 74% of these RBMPs. For 7 % of the RBMPs the considered criteria were not described or the information was unclear.

About 72% of the RBDs which reported information on the considered elements in the status assessment mentioned that the needs of dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been assessed.

In total 56% of all RBMPs reported that the definition of ‘available groundwater resource’ was fully or partly applied in accordance with Article 2.27 WFD. Therein, ‘available groundwater resource’ is defined as the long-term annual average rate of overall recharge of the body of groundwater less the long-term annual rate of flow required to achieve the ecological quality objectives for associated surface waters specified under Article 4, to avoid any significant diminution in the ecological status of such waters and to avoid any significant damage to associated terrestrial ecosystems. For the remaining 44% of RBMPs the respective information was not found or rather unclear.

A bit more than half of the RBMPs reported that the balance between recharge and abstraction of groundwater was assessed in order to verify whether the available groundwater resource is exceeded. In the remaining 46 RBMPs (43%) the respective information was not found or rather unclear. The methodologies described very often compare the abstractions with the recharge (considering a safety margin) others conclude from stable groundwater levels to an appropriate balance between recharge and abstraction, while some Member States combine both assessments. Ecological flow needs were frequently mentioned to be considered in the assessments.

8.8.4.     Drinking water protected areas

In total about 28,000 groundwater related drinking water protected areas (DWPA) according to Article 7 of the WFD were reported by Member States. About 12,500 (45%) were reported to be in good status, 322 (1%) are failing good status and for more than 15,000 groundwater DWPAs (54%) the status has not been reported.

More than half (6,669) of the identified groundwater bodies are associated with DWPAs. The percentage of groundwater bodies within a Member State associated to DWPAs range from about 9% up to 100%. Most of these groundwater bodies are only linked to one DWPA but 772 of these groundwater bodies are associated to six and more DWPAs.

This very close linkage between groundwater and drinking water use is very well reflected in the established threshold values, which are in many cases primarily derived from drinking water standards.

8.8.5.     Transboundary co-ordination

Where groundwater bodies are shared between two or more Member States it should be ensured that the establishment of threshold values is co-ordinated between the relevant Member States (Article 3.3 GWD) and where EU Member States share groundwater bodies with countries that are not in the EU, the Member States should endeavour to establish threshold values with the non-EU countries concerned (Article 3.4 GWD).

15 Member states reported having transboundary groundwater bodies. For 22 RBDs (from 9 Member States) co-ordination of the establishment of their threshold values with all (17 RBDs, 7 Member States) or at least some (5 RBDs, 2 Member States) of the neighbouring countries was explicitly reported. For further 40 international RBDs (from 15 Member States), no such transboundary co-ordination activities were reported. (47 RBDs are national RBDs).

8.8.6.     Conclusions

Overall, about 74 % of the groundwater bodies (representing 63% in terms of area) were reported to be both in good chemical and quantitative status in 2009 which is expected to increase to 80% in 2015 (representing 68% in terms of area).

About 80% of the groundwater bodies were reported to be in good chemical status in 2009, but nearly 2,000 groundwater bodies were reported to be still in poor chemical status and for 5% of the groundwater bodies the status is still unknown. Poor status is mainly caused due to the exceedance of groundwater quality standards or threshold values affecting nearly 12% of all groundwater bodies in 21 Member States and the main responsible pollutant is nitrate.

About 87% of the groundwater bodies were reported to be in good quantitative status in 2009, but nearly 800 groundwater bodies were still reported to fail good quantitative status, mainly due to the exceedance of the available groundwater resource by the long-term annual average rate of abstraction. For 7% of the groundwater bodies the status is still unknown.

Although quite high percentage of groundwater bodies are considered to be in good status the methodologies used show significant shortcomings that puts in question the results of the status assessment.

It is not clear in a lot of cases whether – besides theoretical considerations - associated surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were practically included in the groundwater status assessment. Environmental quality standards and threshold values were only reported to be considered for aquatic ecosystems but not for terrestrial ecosystems. Member States reported a considerable lack of knowledge in assessing the needs of terrestrial ecosystems and the interaction between groundwater and these ecosystems.

Regarding the establishment of groundwater threshold values nearly all Member States (24) met the requirement of considering the list of substances given in Annex II GWD and of all pollutants posing a risk on groundwater bodies. In total, threshold values were established for about 560 different substances/indicators. However it makes extremely difficult to compare these threshold values as national approaches vary considerably in Member States in terms of relationships between the threshold values and the background values, the methodologies for calculating such background levels and the extents of acceptable threshold value exceedance. As mentioned in the section on groundwater monitoring, the core parameters are not monitored everywhere that makes the compliance assessment even more difficult.

17 Member States reported that some, not always complete trend assessments have been performed while establishment of a trend reversal methodology was reported only by 6 Member States. A more complete picture on trends is expected in 2015 with time series of WFD monitoring of at least seven years.

The information included in the RBMPs on the status of drinking water protected areas is scarce: for more than half of those areas the status was not reported even though most of the established threshold values are primarily derived from drinking water standards representing the main groundwater use.

Regarding groundwater quantitative status the methods for calculating groundwater recharge, abstraction and their balance as well as available groundwater resource are different in Member States and in a number of cases those methods are not transparent. It is also not clear whether associated surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were included in the assessment in practice.

15 Member States reported having transboundary groundwater bodies, but only 9 of them reported explicitly on the co-ordination of the establishment of their threshold values with all (7 Member States) or at least with some (2 Member States) of the neighbouring countries.

8.8.7.     Recommendations

· Reliability of the status assessment should be improved by extended monitoring and by correctly applying all the required elements of status and trend assessments. 

· RBMPs should clearly address all elements specified in the WFD related to both the good chemical and the good quantitative status of groundwater. RBMPs should clearly report the reasons for not considering certain elements.

· Groundwater bodies characterised as being at risk and the pollutants that contribute to this classification should be reported in the RBMPs.

· RBMPs should clearly indicate whether all substances causing a risk of not meeting good chemical status and all Annex II substances were considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values and what are the results of these considerations.

· Information on exceedances of quality standards and/or threshold values should be reported also for groundwater bodies in good chemical status.

· Groundwater dependent ecosystems and groundwater associated surface water bodies should always be considered. Member States should take the opportunity of sharing and exchanging experience gathered so far regarding the interconnections between groundwater and the ecosystems and regarding the needs of the ecosystems e.g. in the frame of the Common Implementation Strategy of WFD. Knowledge gaps need to be filled with appropriate studies to inform the RBMP process.

· Methodologies for the establishment of threshold values need to be transparent and better harmonised among Member States. Acceptable extent of exceedance of quality standards and threshold values should be based on transparent criteria considering CIS guidance documents.

· Trend assessments should be completed in the second RBMP cycle and trend reversal assessment should be implemented as far as data series allow.

· The definition of ‘available groundwater resource’ according to Article 2.27 of the WFD should be fully applied and reported.

· Methodologies to calculate the balance between recharge and abstraction of groundwater should be transparent and better harmonised between Member States. Ecological flow should be considered.

· Information on the status of drinking water protected areas should be included in the RBMPs.

· Transboundary co-ordination of the establishment of threshold values should be applied in all transboundary groundwater bodies.

8.9.        Environmental objectives and exemptions

8.9.1.     The requirements of the WFD

The WFD defines its environmental objectives in Article 4 and sets the aim for long-term sustainable water management. Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater bodies, i.e. good status or potential (for HMWBs) by 2015, and introduces the principle of preventing any further deterioration of status. A number of exemptions to the general objectives are possible under certain conditions. Article 4(4) allows for an extension of the deadline beyond 2015, Article 4(5) allows for the achievement of less stringent objectives, Article 4(6) allows a temporary deterioration in the status of water bodies and Article 4(7) sets out conditions in which deterioration of status or failure to achieve certain of the WFD objectives may be permitted for new modifications to the physical characteristics of surface water bodies, and deterioration from high to good status may be possible as a result of new sustainable human development activities.

The WFD provides the general framework on exemptions but there is scope for differences in understanding and implementation. From the outset of implementation it was clear that the use of exemptions needed to be explained further and the rules for application had to be made clearer. These clarifications can be found in the guidance document on exemptions, which was developed over several years[26].

8.9.2.     Setting environmental objectives

The WFD sets environmental objectives for the whole aquatic ecosystem. The development of these objectives requires a complex process from setting reference conditions, characterising water bodies, monitoring current status and estimating the effectiveness of measures. At the end of this process achieving good status cannot always be possible in the time frame provided by the WFD and the above mentioned exemptions might be applied.

In 2009, 42% water bodies were in good or high status and the water bodies expected to reach good status in 2015 represent 52% of water bodies. It is difficult to establish the percentage of water bodies that will achieve good status in 2021 and 2027 as Member States have rarely provided that information in the RBMPs (reported by fewer than 10 Member States).

Among other things, the ecological status conclusions in future plans, and the comparability of the results, will depend to an extent on the efforts made by Member States to consistently identify river basin specific pollutants and set harmonised standards for them.

The information provided on chemical status has been very limited and not consistent (see chemical status chapter). More than 40% of the surface water bodies are reported as having ‘unknown chemical status’. The assessment of chemical status for the other 60% of water bodies is not comparable. Therefore, it is not possible to present a reliable picture of surface water chemical status and expected progress at EU level.

The information provided in the RBMPs on chemical status is not sufficiently clear or complete to establish a baseline for 2009. It is worth recalling that the objective of good chemical status refers only to the 33 priority substances identified in 2001 plus 8 other pollutants that were subject to earlier regulation. The chemical quality of water bodies has significantly improved in the last 30 years but the situation as regards these priority substances introduced by the WFD is unclear. A large proportion of water bodies are reported as unknown status. In addition, the first RBMPs show different degrees of implementation of the Directive 2008/105/EC setting Environmental Quality Standards, which makes the status assessment difficult to compare.

For groundwater, 80% of groundwater bodies were already in good chemical status and 87% are in good quantitative status in 2009. For 2015 an increase of groundwater bodies achieving good status is foreseen in the RBMPs, which would be at good quantitative status for 96% of groundwater bodies and at good chemical status for 89%.

|| No of MS || No of water bodies || % Water bodies in good status or potential 2009 || % Water bodies in good status or potential 2015 || Progress 2009-2015 in % || Unknown status in 2009 in %[27]

Ecological status of surface waters || 21[28] || 82684 || 43 || 53 || 10 || 15

Chemical status of surface waters || Information unclear to establish the 2009 baseline[29] || 40

Quantitative status of groundwater[30] || 24 || 5197 || 85 || 92 || 7 || 6

Chemical status of groundwater74 || 24 || 51797 || 68 || 77 || 9 || 3

Table 8.9.1: Water bodies in good status in 2009 and 2015

Source: Information reported by member States in 2012

The number of exemptions applied varies significantly in the different Member States. However it should also be noted also the starting point (water bodies already in good or high status) also differs significantly.

Figure 8.9.1: Water bodies in good ecological status and use of exemptions

Note: No exemptions reported for ES, EL and PT as not all plans have been adopted and reported

Source: WISE

The lack of information on expected status for future planning cycles (2021 and 2027) is a major concern given that almost half of water bodies are not expected to be in good status by 2015. Only around 20% of the reported RBMPs include information on expected ecological status of surface waters by 2021 and 2027 and only between 15% and 18% for chemical status of surface waters. For groundwater, the expected quantitative status has been reported only for 28% of RBMPs, while the chemical status has been reported for almost 40% of the plans.

The uncertainties in the whole planning process are important and have a considerable impact in the establishment of environmental objectives and exemptions to those objectives. The uncertainties of particular concern are those with regard to the status assessment (lack of full developed methods for ecological status), the gaps in the monitoring programmes, and the effectiveness and expected rate of improvement of the proposed measures. In most cases RBMPs state that further investigations are required to confirm the status of a water body and to confirm the extent of impacts or to identify appropriate measures and their effectiveness.

It is stated in the following basins that the application of exemptions that have been co‑ordinated in a transboundary context: Ems, Odra, Meuse, Schlei/Trave, Rhine, Danube, Elbe, Venta, Lielupe, Daugava, Scheldt and Solway Tweed (see section 8.1 on Governance).

8.9.3.     Additional objectives in protected areas

Article 4(1)(c) describes the objectives for protected areas such as for Drinking Water, Shellfish, Bathing Water and Natura 2000. For water bodies which are in a protected area, the environmental objectives set need to go beyond good status because more stringent objectives have been set for those areas in the relevant Community legislation under which the individual protected areas have been established.

|| Number of Protected Areas

Country || Article7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

AT || 231 || 268 || 54 || || 71 || 93 || || || || ||

BE || 168 || 2 || 17 || || || 27 || || 1 || 2 || 1 || 2

BG || 331 || 93 || 111 || || 106 || 231 || || 103 || 4 || 8 || 22

CY || 18 || 113 || || || || 36 || || || 5 || || 2

CZ || 2.673 || 188 || 15 || || || 439 || || 746 || 6.040 || ||

DE || 1.418 || 2.271 || 1.022 || 295 || || 4.878 || || || 139 || ||

DK || 368 || || 113 || || || 257 || || || || 36 ||

EE || 2 || 89 || 73 || || 111 || 542 || || || 2 || ||

EL || 150 || 2.108 || 181 || || || 273 || || || 11 || || 48

ES || 25.857 || 1.515 || 519 || 134 || 156 || 1.125 || 1025 || 1.302 || 366 || 201 || 440

FI || 2.302 || || || || || || || || || ||

FR || 28.978 || 3.342 || 314 || 42 || || 771 || || || 8 || 83 || 64

HU || 1.756 || 265 || 55 || || 7 || 467 || || 210 || 1 || || 3

IE || 943 || 126 || 136 || || 31 || 420 || || || 7 || 63 || 42

IT || 6.023 || 1.645 || 474 || 8 || 566 || 1.725 || 718 || 43 || 92 || 141 || 213

LT || 1.305 || 99 || 88 || 31 || || 427 || 185 || 1.005 || 4 || || 4

LU || 84 || 4 || 13 || || || 30 || || || 2 || || 2

LV || 2 || 222 || || || 196 || 308 || || || 56 || ||

MT || 7 || || 3 || || || 9 || || 1 || 1 || || 8

NL || 31 || 644 || 90 || || || 159 || || || || 9 ||

PL || 357 || 320 || 141 || || || 364 || || || 19 || ||

PT || 526 || 462 || 60 || || 81 || 92 || 78 || || 17 || 34 || 12

RO || 1.879 || 35 || 106 || || 12 || 213 || || 381 || 42 || 4 ||

SE || 1.099 || 469 || 391 || || 28 || 1286 || || || 7 || 32 || 31

SI || 1.265 || || || || 14 || || || || || ||

SK || 213 || 36 || 38 || || 73 || 381 || || || 1.524 || || 1

UK || 1.569 || 522 || 100 || 153 || 6.650 || 302 || || || 574 || 135 || 17

Table 8.9.2: Number of protected areas of each type at country level

Source: WISE

From the assessment of the RBMPs, the additional objectives for the different types of protected areas have rarely been established (except relating to the Shellfish protected areas, for which almost 40% of RBMPs include specific additional objectives). In those cases where additional objectives have been set, the plans generally make reference to the specific national legal acts by which these additional objectives are regulated.

Figure 8.9.2: Objective setting in protected areas per category of protected area

Source: WISE

8.9.4.     Justifications for exemptions according to Articles 4(4) and 4(5)

Approximately 72% of surface water bodies in less than good ecological status and 88% of water bodies failing to achieve chemical status are subject to an exemption. More than 95% of all exemptions applied relate to the extension of the deadline (Article 4(4) WFD).

According to the information reported by Member States in WISE, in 42.738 surface water bodies (40% of total number of water bodies) an extension of the deadlines for achieving the environmental objectives (Article 4(4) WFD) will be required and in 23.797 cases (19%) less stringent objectives have been established for 2015 (Article 4(5) WFD). However, exemptions under Article 4(5) have actually been very limited in this first cycle, as ca. 23.000 of those water bodies relate to Swedish cases for mercury pollution[31] (see section 8.6 on classification of chemical status of surface waters).

As reported by Member States, 1.498 groundwater bodies (11% of total number of groundwater bodies) are subject to an exemption under Article 4(4) WFD, and 181 groundwater bodies (just over 1%) will be subject to Article 4(5) WFD.

According to Article 4(4) the status the achievement of good status can be delayed for one or several of the following reasons:

· The scale of improvements required can only be achieved in phases exceeding the timescale, for reasons of technical feasibility.

· Completing the improvements within the timescale would be disproportionately expensive.

· Natural conditions do not allow timely improvement in the status of the body of water.

The figure below sets out the application of Article 4(4) per Member State. The highest values can be found in Belgium, Hungary and The Netherlands.

Figure 8.9.3: Percentage of surface water bodies per Member State falling under Article 4(4)

Note: * Flemish RBDs

Source: WISE

In terms of the reasons for the application of exemptions, in general natural conditions and technical infeasibility are far more often used than disproportionate costs (see figure 8.9.4). This might be explained by the fact that methodologies for assessing disproportionality are often lacking or the necessary data to carry them out does not exist. The interpretation of the different reasons has varied significantly across Member States, making interpretation difficult

Natural conditions are substantially different from the reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate costs. Technical infeasibility is the most frequently used reason to exempt surface water bodies from achieving good ecological status (see Figure 8.9.4), either alone (46% of the exempted water bodies) or in combination with natural conditions (12% of exempted water bodies), disproportionate costs (12%) or with both (9%). The disproportionate cost argument is used as single reason for 8% of exempted water bodies and for 30% of the exempted water bodies when combined with one or both of the other arguments. Finally, natural conditions is used as an argument in 33% of exempted water bodies, either alone (11%) or in combination with the other two reasons.

In the case of groundwater, natural conditions is the most frequent reason to exempt water bodies from achieving good chemical status in 2015 (65% of the water bodies exempted). This is consistent with the long recovery times that are typical of groundwater bodies.

Surface water Ecological status || Legend T means technical feasibility D means disproportionate costs N means natural condition

Groundwater quantitative status || Groundwater chemical status

Figure 8.9.4: Exemptions reported by Member States to extend the deadline of the achievement of good status beyond 2015 and reasons given.

Source: WISE

The drivers behind the application of exemptions are mainly agriculture (primarily diffuse pollution from nutrients and pesticides) and hydromorphological pressures from urbanisation, hydropower, navigation and flood protection[32].

The use of exemptions, if properly justified, and if determined action is taken to move towards the objective of good status, is a valid and acceptable practice under the WFD. Some RBMPs show this determined action. In others, the added value of the WFD in relation to existing water management practices is less evident.

Article 4(4)(d) establishes that the measures required to bring water bodies progressively to the required status by the extended deadline, together with the expected timetable for the implementation of those measures should be described in the RBMPs. However, it is generally unclear when the environmental objectives are expected to be reached when the derogation under Article 4(4) has been used.

Under Article 4(5) Member States may aim to achieve less stringent environmental objectives for specific bodies of water when they are so affected by human activity, as determined in accordance with Article 5(1), or their natural condition is such that the achievement of these objectives would be infeasible or disproportionately expensive.

In this first cycle of RBMPs the derogation under Article 4(5) has been rarely used, and less than 5% of the exemptions applied are for setting less stringent objectives. The exception is the generalised used of Article 4(5) in the Swedish RBMPs. Sweden has reported all surface water bodies as failing to achieve good chemical status due to pollution by mercury, and applied an exemption for less stringent objectives under Article 4(5) to all water bodies.

8.9.5.     Use of exemptions in accordance of Article 4.6

Article 4(6) provides, under certain conditions, an exemption for temporary deterioration of the status of water bodies in certain circumstances, which are exceptional or could not reasonably have been foreseen. The reason for invoking an exemption under Article 4(6) is that an extreme event may affect the status of a water body considerably and during a significant period of time, so that temporary deterioration may be inevitable even with the implementation of the best water management practices (see section 8.17 on water scarcity and droughts).

The application of exemptions under Article 4(6) has been reported in 5 RBDs in Spain, Bulgaria, France and Belgium. The reasons for the application of such derogation are linked to extreme floods, prolonged droughts, accidents and force majeure.

According to Article 4(6)(b), the circumstances under which this exemption can be applied should be declared in the RBMPs, including the adoption of appropriate indicators. This information has not, however, been reflected in the RBMPs. There are only some general statements in some RBDs that Article 4(6) might be applied more often in the future, mainly because of extreme floods, prolonged droughts and accidents.

8.9.6.     Application of exemptions under Article 4(7)

Under Article 4.7 exemptions can be applied for new modifications to the physical characteristics of surface water bodies and new sustainable human development activities. This can relate to modifications in the planning phase (e.g. renewable energy plans which include hydropower) or to projects (e.g. new specific hydropower dams). In only 12 RBMPs (10.3%) there is a statement that Article 4(7) will be applied for specific projects and in 4 RBMPs it is unclear. Article 4(7) will be applied in Slovenia, Poland, France, Romania and the UK.

The exemptions that have been most commonly applied under Article 4(7) are due to flood protection (7 cases) followed by navigation (6 cases) and port development (4 cases). Hydropower and other electricity generation facilities are mentioned in only three and two RBMPs respectively.

However, according to the information available through other sources such as complaints, requests for EU funding and discussions with the energy and navigation sectors, it seems that the information given by Member States in the RBMPs does not fully reflect the current situation. Indeed, in many RBDs, projects which could fall under Article 4(7) are currently being developed. Furthermore, there are a number of major projects in the pipeline in several Member States that have not been included in their RBMPs.

8.9.7.     Conclusions

· The WFD sets environmental objectives for the whole aquatic ecosystem. However the approaches and methods for setting these objectives are not always transparent.

· The extensive use of exemptions may reflect the low level of ambition in many of the plans as regards achieving the environmental objectives.

· In general, there is transparent information about which water bodies are subject to exemptions and the reason for it (technical infeasibility, natural conditions and/or disproportionate costs). However, the interpretation of the different reasons for the application of exemptions has varied significantly across the different Member States.

· There is generally a lack of appropriate and transparent justification of the criteria applied for the use of exemptions under Articles 4(4) to (7).

· Most of the RBMPs do not contain any reference to the application of exemptions under Article 4(7), even if in some cases there are large projects in the pipeline that are likely to bring about new modifications of water bodies. This indicates a lack of integration with other policies and infrastructure planning.

· Furthermore, when Article 4(7) is applied, the justification is often not clearly explained in the RBMP, and in particular the explanation on how the disproportionate costs have been calculated is missing.

· Some plans provide good examples for additional objectives for protected areas but, in general, additional objectives for protected areas have not been clearly defined in most RBMPs, with the exception of Shellfish protected areas.

8.9.8.     Recommendations

· Member States should raise the level of ambition in the next RBMP cycle as far as the use of exemptions is concerned. In case of uncertainties about the effectiveness of the measures, Member States are recommended to take no-regret measures and continue the efforts on research in order to take better measures in the future.

· The justifications for the use of exemptions should be more transparent and include clear criteria for the decision. In case of extending deadlines or lowering objectives, the expected timeline and appropriate measures should be clearly indicated.

· Member States should engage relevant stakeholders and different authorities (regional, local) early in the planning process in order to improve the decision making for adoption of exemptions.

· Member States should include in the RBMPs an inventory of projects under development, including the stage of development of the individual projects, in order to ensure that the RBMPs present a complete overview of all current and planned developments within a RBD. The list should be continuously updated and open to all stakeholders and competent authorities.

· For the development of hydropower, navigation and flood protection, Member States are recommended to implement the policy recommendations and the best practice guidance that has been developed under the CIS and other processes.

8.10.      Programme of measures – general

8.10.1.   Introduction

The WFD requires, that within each RBD, a Programme of Measures (PoM) is established to address the significant issues identified and to allow the achievement of the objectives established under Article 4. The Directive further specifies that the PoM shall include as a minimum 'basic measures' and where necessary to achieve objectives 'supplementary measures'.

Basic measures as a minimum must comprise:

- Measures required in order to implement existent Community water legislation and other environmental legislation (set out in Article 10 and in Part A of Annex VI – detailed below).

- Measures to implement Article 9 (cost recovery).

- Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use.

- Measures to protect drinking water quality and reduce level of treatment required.

- Measures to control abstraction from surface and groundwater.

- Measures to control recharging of groundwater.

- Measures to control point source discharges.

- Measures to prevent or control inputs of diffuse pollutants.

- Measures to address any other significant impacts on status, in particular the hydromorphological condition.

- Measures to eliminate or reduce pollution by priority substances.

- Measures to prevent accidental pollution.

Legislation in Article 10 and in Part A of Annex VI:

 (i) The Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC).

(ii) The Birds Directive (79/409/EEC).

(iii) The Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC) as amended by Directive (98/83/EC).

(iv) The Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC).

(v) The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC).

(vi) The Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC).

(vii) The Urban Waste-water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC).

(viii) The Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC).

(ix) The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC).

(x) The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC).

(xi) The Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC).

Supplementary measures are those measures designed and implemented in addition to the basic measures, where it is necessary to achieve the environmental objectives of the WFD as established in Article 4 and Annex V. Supplementary measures can include additional legislative powers, fiscal measures, research, educational campaigns that go beyond the basic measures and are deemed necessary for the achievement of objectives.

According to Article 11(5), additional measures may be necessary when a water body is unlikely to achieve the objectives under Article 4, after the adoption of the measures under the first RBMP.

This chapter covers general issues concerning the PoM. The following chapters cover specific measures targeted to agriculture, groundwater and water pricing measures, as well as measures to tackle specific pressures like hydromorphology or hazardous substances.

8.10.2.   Status assessment and selection of measures

Measures should be targeted in terms of their type and extent to ensure that pressures are addressed and that this will deliver improvements towards achieving good status or potential in the individual water bodies. The measures should be designed based on the assessment of the actual status of the water body, supplemented with the information from the analysis of pressures and impacts affecting the water body.

Each step of the planning process of the WFD is, therefore, necessary to ensure the correct measures are implemented in the appropriate location. The planning process started with the transposition of the Directive into national law and the administrative arrangements, and was followed by the characterisation of the RBD (including the pressure and impact analysis, the economic analysis, the delineation of water bodies and the establishment of the typology and reference conditions for surface water bodies: the basis for the ecological status assessment). The status assessment based on sufficient (parameters, frequency, etc.) and updated monitoring results is a fundamental element of the planning process, but is also often the weak part of the chain. Finally, the environmental objectives are set and the PoM to achieve those objectives established. The PoM should become operational by December 2012 at the latest. There is also a need to monitor the effects and effectiveness of the measures in the improvement of the water status and (as stated in Article 11.5) where monitoring or other data indicate that the objectives set are unlikely to be achieved. The cause of the possible failure should be investigated, relevant permits and authorisations should be reviewed, monitoring programmes reviewed and adjusted and amended or additional measures devised to ensure achievement of objectives.

The assessment of the RBMPs has shown that the measures are often not concrete and the expected achievements not always clear. In general, there is limited understanding that the PoM are to reflect the result of the analysis of pressures and impacts and the status information from the monitoring programmes. Often the definition of the measures is too vague and there is little clarity on the scope of the measure.

Furthermore, the financial commitment, the actors responsible for the implementation, the planned timetable and the expected effects on the improvement of the status are not described in the majority of the RBMPs. This lack of detail in the definition of the measures may lead to insufficient action to tackle the specific problems of the water bodies and hinder the achievement of the WFD at local level.

There are, however, good examples of the definition of appropriate measures, e.g. Denmark links the protection of eelgrass beds to nutrient reduction load to specific measures deemed most cost effective. Detail is provided on costs and the area of land involved. This information is necessary to allow stakeholders to understand exactly what is proposed and to also plan for implementation.

More information can be found in the following chapters for the specific measures on agriculture, hydromorphology, chemical pollution, groundwater, protected areas and water pricing.

Despite the importance of designing the PoM based on the actual status of water bodies to meet clearly defined objectives, less than 30% of the RBMPs establish a clear link between the ecological and chemical status of the water bodies and the measures proposed in the PoM. Less than 25% of plans establish at least partially such a link and for almost 40% it is very often unclear whether the proposed measures are based on the status assessment, and therefore it is not clear whether the measures will be sufficient to reach the good status or potential of water bodies.

For groundwater, only around 21% of RBMPs have provided details of this clear link between the quantitative status of groundwater bodies and the measures to be implemented. 29% have a clear link with regard to the chemical status of groundwater.

|| Yes || No || No information || Unclear

|| rivers || lakes || groundwater || transitional & coastal || || ||

|| entirely || partly || entirely || partly || entirely || partly || entirely || partly || || ||

Ecological status || 29% || 24% || 28% || 24% || - || - || 24% || 28% || 5% || 4% || 37%

Chemical status || 28% || 27% || 28% || 27% || 29% || 26% || 25% || 29% || 5% || 4% || 36%

Quantitative status groundwater || - || - || - || - || 21% || 30% || - || - || 4% || 12% || 32%

Table 8.10.1: Percentage of RBMPs that establish a clear or partial link between the assessment of status and the adoption of measures

Source: RBMPs assessment

The link between the status and measures is essential to ensure that the measures are conceived and implemented to tackle the specific pressures that have an impact on the status of both surface and groundwater bodies and to address a particular environmental problem. The reasons explained in the RBMPs to justify the lack of this link are mainly in relation to insufficient monitoring data, and the need for improvement in the status assessment methods. When there is not enough monitoring data, the decisions are generally based on expert judgement or an analysis of the pressures. This may well lead to partial fulfilment of the environmental objectives.

8.10.3.   Implementation of measures

Measures are applied on a number of geographical levels (see Figure 8.10.1) from national to the individual water body, probably also reflecting the administrative set-up in the different countries.

In terms of the geographical scope of the implementation of measures, the measures are mainly applied at water body level and national level, but also at RBD level.

Figure 8.10.1: Geographical scope of the implementation of the measures

Source: RBMPs assessment

For nearly all RBMPs some measures are applied at water body or sub-basin level, and in some RBMPs the application of supplementary measures is systematically done at small scale, either water body or sub-basin. This approach is in line with the WFD objective of applying the supplementary measures in a targeted way, in order to address the specific pressures and needs for improvement of the specific water bodies.

Information about whether the measures are voluntary or mandatory is not existing or unclear in nearly half of the RBMPs (including the supporting documents). Basic measures should be mandatory and should address point and diffuse sources of pollution, and other measures required by other Community legislation. However, many PoMs only contain supplementary/voluntary measures, which is not in compliance with the requirements of the WFD.

The number of authorities and/or others (enterprises, farmers, etc.) involved in the implementation of the measures differs very much between the Member States and reflects to some extent the different approaches concerning mandatory and/or voluntary implementation. In some countries, a very complex matrix of responsible authorities has been established, while in others there are a high number of actors involved in the implementation of the measures. This type of set-up will likely require a very strong co-ordination and a high level of exchange of information, which will in turn be very costly. Furthermore, it makes it very difficult for the citizens to see how a common goal can be reached (see also section 8.1 on Governance).

The information in table 8.10.2 shows that for the majority of Member States several authorities are involved in the implementation of measures for a particular sector. The national approach seems to be widespread, especially with regard to the agricultural sector.

Figure 8.10.2: Percentage of RBMPs where different authorities are responsible for the implementation of measures related to sectors (in many cases there are several responsible authorities).

Source: RBMPs assessment

According to Article 11(7) WFD, the PoMs shall be established in the RBMPs submitted in 2009, and should be made operational at the latest by December 2012. The Commission will then assess the progress made by the different Member States in making their measures operational. Although some measures are already being implemented in all Member States, clear information on the timeline for implementation of all measures in the PoMs has been found in 20% of the RBMPs. An alternative date for some or all measures is mentioned in 31% of the RBMPs. For around half of the RBMPs, there is no information on the timetable for making the measures operational.

Measures should be made operational by December 2012 and should consider the time lag for the biological response, recharge of aquifers, internal load in lakes, etc. When the effect on status of water bodies may not be detectable even in 2015 then exemptions might be considered. The time needed for status improvement due to natural conditions is the reason for the exemption of 33% of exempted water bodies (see section 8.9 on environmental objectives and exemptions). In nearly 50% of the PoMs, some kind of assessment of the uncertainty of the effect of the measures is mentioned. However, this uncertainty is quantified in only a few cases.

The effectiveness of the proposed measures towards the objective of good status is not systematically presented in this first set of RBMPs. These uncertainties will also be present for the objectives setting, the analysis of exemptions, on the cost and benefits analysis, and in the definition of the PoMs.

However, non-action cannot be the result of such uncertainties and no-regret measures (reversible measures, measures that can be easily adapted, measures that can be carried out iteratively or measures with low risk and costs, and high return) should be implemented.

But lessons should be learned and Member States should now be in a better position to align these two processes in the second cycle. Better understanding of pressures through better monitoring should result in more targeted interventions in the second cycle.

Additional information on how the uncertainties on the establishment and effectiveness of the measures have been considered in the different countries (or general information on the different approaches) will be available with the final report of the 'Pressures and Measures study'. It has proved very difficult to predict the effectiveness of the measures at EU level, with the level of information available, as local conditions are determinant in many cases.

8.10.4.   Water rights and the implementation of the programme of measures

Article 11(3) requires the establishment of all necessary measures to implement other Community legislation, to implement the provisions of Article 9 and to ensure sustainable use or abstraction of water. These measures should be implemented, where necessary, with the aim of achieving the WFD environmental objectives.

The management of historical rights is a good example of the mismatch between the objective of good status of water bodies introduced by the WFD and the tools available for implementation. The principles of existing concessional systems across the EU date back many decades to the origins of water management. These are closely linked to the concept of property and the aim of ensuring a stable legal framework that promoted investment and economic development. In most cases, concessions were given for decades or even without time limit. Environmental conditions in the permits were non-existent or only considered to a very limited extent. As a consequence, dry river stretches are common in many parts of the EU due to existing water diversions for hydropower or irrigation. Hundreds of kilometres of rivers are not accessible for migratory fish due to dams which were not equipped with installations for fish passage. Over-exploitation of aquifers due to over-allocation of water rights is also a severe environmental problem in some parts of the EU, difficult to reverse, and affecting in some cases important nature reserves.

The WFD objective of good status is not compatible with these situations. However, existing legal frameworks and judicial systems are very protective over water rights in most of EU countries which leaves water managers in a very weak position to enforce the review of the concessions to ensure the attainment of new environmental objectives. A profound modification of the national legal frameworks is necessary to enable water authorities to introduce the necessary measures to achieve the WFD objectives. Whereas the review of industrial waste water permits is seen as a natural consequence of the introduction of new environmental objectives (e.g. the introduction of the EQS or the IPPC Directives), and the costs incurred by industry are considered to be part of the business risk, the situation for uses such as hydropower or agriculture is much more advantageous in situations where impacts on the aquatic environment can be more severe.

The need to provide water managers with the appropriate tools to enforce the attainment of the environmental objectives for existing concessions is without prejudice to the possibility to achieve win-win agreements between the water administration and the holder of the water right. This is being pro-actively and successfully promoted by water administrations in many Member States, typically working together to find solutions that can deliver both ecological improvements and benefits for the economic activity. However, in situations where these win-win solutions are not possible, or where the owner of the right is not amenable to change, water administrators should have the right tools at hand to review the concession without entering long judicial battles with uncertain outcome. The legal framework should strike a right balance between individual rights and the legitimate expectations of the society related to the protection of a public amenity such as water.

8.10.5.   Costs of measures

Figure 8.10.2 presents the relative distribution of costs between the most common pressures, showing that the cost for point sources represents nearly two thirds of the total costs for these three pressures.

Figure 8.10.2: Costs of measures divided according to different types of pressures

Source: RBMPs assessment

A clear distinction of the costs for basic and supplementary measures was found in 16% of RBMPs. In general, a significant part of the costs are related to basic measures, especially for newer Member States, whereas some of the older Member States only report around 25% of costs as being for basic measures, the rest being costs for supplementary measures. In countries like Bulgaria, Slovenia or Finland, for some RBDs more than 95% of the costs relate to basic measures, mainly related to waste water treatment, whereas countries like France or Luxembourg only around 25% of the costs are for basic measures.

Calculation of the cost effectiveness of the different kind of measures may be a good instrument for making decisions leading to the most cost effective implementation and, ultimately, for good ecological status.

In around 50% of RBMPs it is clearly stated that the cost effectiveness has been calculated for all measures, or for a selection of measures, or for a specific sector. The cost effectiveness is calculated at RBD level in only 2% of RBMPs. A national calculation has probably been used in the remaining RBMPs.

This tool for decision making has not yet been widely implemented but a number of good examples can be found and act as inspiration for the second planning period. For example, in the Swedish RBMPs a comprehensive cost effectiveness calculation has been provided for the relevant measures which even include the administrative costs. In Lithuania, this calculation has been applied for agricultural measures.

There is very little information in the RBMPs on the share of the main contributors financing the costs of measures. Nearly all of the reported RBMPs contain a mix of contributors of national, regional or private origin, whereas only 7% mention funding from the EU. The main contributors are the national authorities which generally contribute more than 75% of the total costs. The regional authorities and the private sector have in general a lower share (below 25% or between 25% and 50%).

Figure 8.10.3: EU overview of financial contributions by public authorities and different sectors for main types of measures

Source: RBMPs assessment

When measures are adopted to tackle specific impacts of specific sectors and uses, the implementation of the cost recovery obligations should provide also for the application of the polluter-pays principle in the financing of measures.

8.10.6.   Financial commitment

For ca. 60% of the PoMs, there is no financial commitment specified in the RBMPs. The main concern of this lack of commitment is that the PoMs will remain a theoretical document that may not be properly implemented due to the lack of resources or clarity regarding the responsible actors.

Though the total costs have been estimated or calculated for the majority of RBMPs, a clear financial commitment has only been reported for approximately 40% of the RBMPs, some apparently only have a partial commitment (e.g. only for point sources). For the rest of the RBMPs, the resources should be made available so all measures can become operational at the latest by December 2012 (Article 11(7) WFD).

Many of the RBMPs refer to other possible financial sources (e.g. EU funding or private), but not if the funding is not yet in place (i.e. only as expected funding, but not yet approved). It should be noted that information on the financial commitment may be available in documents like political agreements, budget remarks, etc that were not reported by Member States. However, information on how the measures are going to be financed should be explained in the RBMPs for all interested parties to be informed on the financing planning, and who will be responsible for those costs - national, regional budget, EU funds, etc.

8.10.7.   Transboundary PoM

WFD Article 13.2 states that 'in the case of an international river basin district (IRBD) falling entirely within the Community, Member States shall ensure co-ordination with the aim of producing a single international river basin management plan'. A summary of the PoMs should be part of the international RBMPs and, if not, an explanation of why the PoMs have not been co-ordinated should be included in the RBMPs. The same should apply where international RBDs involve non-EU Member States (see section 8.1 on Governance).

There has been international co-ordination in some RBDs, mainly for those large international RBDs involving several Member States and non-EU Member. The co-ordination of those measures that are more relevant in a transboundary context is presented in table 8.10.4. For those RBDs where transboundary co-ordination is relevant, measures to restore river continuity has been addressed for 20% of RBDs, measures to reduce nutrients in water bodies have been coordinated in 18% of the cases, and measures related to exceedance of Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) due to a transboundary chemical pollution have been established for 19% of those RBDs.

Have the following issues been specifically addressed in the internationally coordinated PoM? || || ||

|| Yes || % of yes || No

River continuity || 24 || 20% || 99

Nutrients || 22 || 18% || 101

EQS || 23 || 19% || 100

Table 8.10.4: RBMPs that have co-ordinated internationally measures to ensure river continuity, to reduce nutrients loads and to reduce chemical pollution across international RBDs.

Source: WISE

For the small international RBDs involving only two Member States or only one non-EU Member State, the picture is more unclear. In some RBMPs it is noted that part of the catchment situated in a neighbouring Member State is very small and not impacted, i.e. no measures needed. Other RBMPs say that the time line in the two Member States involved is different so co-ordination has not been possible. In general, the PoMs have not been co-ordinated with third countries for the smaller RBDs involving only one Member State and one non-EU Member State (e.g. Norway/Sweden or Latvia/Belarus).

8.10.8.   Conclusions

· The poor level of detail of the measures makes it difficult to ascertain the extent of the action and the expected effects of the measures. This detail must exist in the Member State to allow for implementation and so it is not an undue burden to provide such information in RBMPs.

· Many PoMs are quite vague and general, without clear definition of the specific actions, the financial commitment, the actors responsible for the implementation, the planned timetable and the expected effects on the improvement of the status.

· The ‘story line’ between status assessment and the definition and implementation of the measures should be improved and described clearly in the RBMPs and/or the PoMs. In the first RBMP cycle, many PoMs are based on expert judgements, etc with the risk of under implementation.

· It should be taken into account that the subsequent phase of ‘making measures operational’ is generally not consulted.

· The information about the financial commitment, sources for funding, implication for different sectors, etc is in general very poorly described in the RBMPs and the PoMs.

· Waste water treatment is the by far the most costly action according to the information reported in the RBMPs, probably due to high investment level in many new Member States to meet the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

· The WFD timetable for the making the measures operational (22 December 2012) is explicitly mentioned in only around 20% of the RBMPs. In nearly every second RBMP, a timetable is not presented at all.

8.10.9.   Recommendations

· The level of detail and the available information in relation to the measures should be improved in the next cycle of RBMPs.

· Basic measures should be defined to address all pressures and linked to Article 11. The full implementation of these measures should continue to be a priority during the next cycle of RBMPs.

· It would strengthen the RBMPs and the whole planning process if a clear financial overview, together with sources and the necessary commitment, could be added to the next plans.

· A cost effectiveness analysis is a very strong instrument to help decision makers. This instrument has only been reported in a limited number of RBMPs and it is recommended that it should be used to greater effect in the next generation of RBMPs. Combined with better monitoring and understanding of pressures this should result in more cost effective delivery of WFD objectives.

· Align funding decisions to priorities and actions identified in the RBMPs. Make links to floods, rural development and structural fund budgets.  This is a practical step towards integration of delivery.

· Include in the RBMPs and the PoMs transparent information on the costs of the measures, the responsible authorities and indicate who is bearing the costs.

· Make use of GIS and other mapping tools to show where pressures exist and where measures will be targeted.

· Assess the obstacles that have hindered the implementation of measures in the first cycle and take action to overcome them in order to be better prepared for the second cycle.

· The existing legal frameworks should be adapted to enable water authorities to introduce the necessary measures to achieve the WFD objectives. The review of the permitting systems for sectors such as hydropower or agriculture should allow these economic activities to be developed in accordance with the environmental requirements of EU legislation.

8.11.      Measures related to groundwater

8.11.1.   Introduction

The procedure for identifying measures necessary for protecting groundwater from human impacts and for enhancing or restoring groundwater bodies builds on the analysis of the characteristics of each groundwater body and the review of the impacts of human activities on the status of groundwater (according to Article 5 and Annex II of the WFD). For all groundwater bodies the analysis of pressures and impacts of human activities identifies whether there is a risk of not meeting the environmental objectives established under Article 4 of the WFD at the end of the RBMP period. In the event that surveillance monitoring confirms a risk, operational monitoring is needed as well as the implementation of a programme of measures. In this respect, Article 11 of the WFD requests Member States to implement all necessary measures to prevent or limit the input of pollutants into groundwater in order to prevent the deterioration of the status of all groundwater bodies. Member States have to protect, enhance and restore all groundwater bodies, ensure a balance between abstraction and recharge of groundwater and achieve good groundwater status by 2015.

All groundwater bodies identified not to be at risk can automatically be considered as of good status. For those groundwater bodies the clause of no deterioration of status is relevant and measures might be needed to preserve the good status of groundwater bodies. Groundwater bodies classified as being in good chemical status may still need measures in case a groundwater quality standard or a threshold value has been exceeded in a part of the groundwater body (Article 4.5 of the Groundwater Directive).

Measures are also needed to reverse any significant and sustained upward trend in the concentration of pollutants resulting from human activities. If an additional trend assessment identifies that existing plumes of pollution in groundwater bodies do extend and deteriorate the chemical status of groundwater bodies or present risk to health and environment, appropriate measures also need to be established.

Most of the measures for groundwater are defined in Article 11 of the WFD and the related Annexes, distinguishing between ‘basic measures’ and in cases these are not sufficient, ‘supplementary measures’. The measures to prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater are specified in Article 6 of the Groundwater Directive.

It has to be noted that the considerable inertia of groundwater bodies reflected in renewal rates of decades or even centuries, calls for a precautionary approach towards their protection. Any pollution or degradation is very expensive to remediate and requires a long time for improvements to be seen, therefore preventative measures play a very important role in groundwater management.

Whenever implementing measures on groundwater it is essential that the environmental objectives (water quantity, chemistry and ecology) of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems and associated surface waters are considered and not compromised.

This chapter elaborates further on the measures that have been reported as part of the RBMPs and programmes of measures, in particular on:

· Groundwater quantity and whether the need of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were taken into account.

· Preventing inputs of hazardous substances.

· Limiting inputs of non-hazardous substances.

· Specific measures in parts of the groundwater bodies where quality standards were exceeded.

· International co-ordination of measures.

8.11.2.   Measures related to groundwater chemical status

87 of 100 RBMPs, where groundwater bodies failed good chemical status, reported significant chemical pressures to groundwater. All but two of these RBMPs (85) provided detailed information. The detailed information shows that diffuse source pollution – mainly from agriculture (50%) and from urban land use (25%) – is a significant pressure in all of these 85 RBMPs, and point source pollution – mainly from waste deposit sites (20%), from contaminated sites (15%) and from discharges to groundwater (15%) – is a significant pressure in about 70% of those RBMPs.

The overarching measures protecting groundwater from pollution are the measures to prevent inputs of hazardous substances and to limit inputs of non-hazardous substances into groundwater (Article 6 of the GWD).

8.11.2.1.          Preventing inputs of any hazardous substances

According to Article 4 of the WFD and Article 6 of the GWD, Member States have to ensure that the programme of measures established includes all measures necessary to prevent inputs (from point and diffuse sources of pollution) into groundwater of any hazardous substances.

About 88% of the RBMPs reported that respective measures have been implemented. The remaining RBMPs did not describe whether such measures were implemented or the description was unclear.

Several RBMPs refer to the implementation of other pieces of European legislation as basic measures contributing to pollution prevention, like the Seveso Directive (96/82/EC) on major accidents, the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC), the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC), the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) or the Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC).

Further frequently reported measures include the prohibition of discharges of such substances and/or the ban of their use (mainly mentioning pesticides) by national regulations and laws.

The replacement of hazardous chemicals by non-hazardous substances or the use of alternative techniques, the application of best available techniques to prevent releases to the environment and plans to prevent accidental pollution or risk management are also commonly considered.

The development of risk analyses of contaminated sites and the decontamination and remediation of soils and historical pollution sites and finally the monitoring of hazardous substances in water were reported in a few RBMPs contributing to the requirement of preventing the inputs of any hazardous substances into groundwater.

8.11.2.2.          Limiting inputs of any non-hazardous substances

According to Article 4 of the WFD and Article 6 of the GWD all measures necessary to limit inputs of non-hazardous pollutants into groundwater have to be established in the programme of measures to avoid any deterioration of groundwater and any significant and sustained upward trends in pollution concentrations.

The assessment focused on those measures that aim at tackling the limitation of the inputs of non-hazardous substances from point sources and the prevention of losses from technical installations. About 93% of the RBMPs reported having implemented such measures. The remaining RBMPs did not describe whether such measures were implemented or the description was unclear.

As already listed above, several RBMPs refer to the implementation of other pieces of the European legislation as basic measures, especially the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, which already contribute to limiting the input of non-hazardous substances to groundwater via point sources of pollution.

Frequently reported measures are the general prohibition of direct discharges into groundwater, prior authorisation of any indirect discharges together with a regime of emission controls (e.g. restrictions on loads or concentrations of pollutants) and the implementation of protection zones where activities can be banned or restricted as well as the reductions of the discharge of urban and industrial waste water and the proper handling and storage of agrochemicals (fertilisers and non-hazardous pesticides).

Other reported measures cover the reduction of pollutants at the source, the adequate treatment prior to release, the implementation of best available techniques and best environmental practice, the monitoring of substances in water but also the monitoring of the authorizations, licenses, emission limits and the performance of the treatment prior to release.

The decontamination and remediation of soils and historical pollution sites contribute to limiting the inputs of non-hazardous substances to groundwater as well.

8.11.2.3.          Supplementary measures

More than half of the RBMPs reported the need for supplementary measures to be specifically implemented in groundwater bodies at risk or in poor status to achieve the objectives under Article 4 of the WFD. 20% of the RBMPs reported that there was no need and the remaining RBMPs (25%) were rather unclear in this respect.

The most frequently reported supplementary measures tackling groundwater pollution comprise the development of risk analyses and the decontamination and remediation of soils and historical pollution sites, the application of best available techniques and codes of good practice as well as further monitoring.

8.11.2.4.          Specific measures in groundwater bodies with exceedances of quality standards or threshold values

According to Article 4.5 of the GWD, measures are needed if the value for a groundwater quality standard or threshold value is exceeded at one or more monitoring point, even though investigation confirms that the extent of the exceedance is limited and therefore the groundwater body is classified as being in good chemical status. Member States have to take measures as may be necessary on the part of the groundwater body represented by the monitoring point or points at which the groundwater quality standard value or the threshold value has been exceeded.

Very few RBMPs mention explicitly specific measures to be implemented in the area of exceedance. It seems to be a very common approach that Member States implement the measures following the overarching groundwater quality objective of pollution prevention by tackling the pressures, rather than being driven by failures. According to a statement that is very often found in RBMPs measures are implemented in all groundwater bodies irrespective of whether their status is good or poor.

8.11.3.   Measures related to groundwater quantity

All of the RBMPs where groundwater bodies are failing good quantitative status (62 RBMPs) and where information on pressures are available at the same time (53 RBMPs) reported that abstraction (mainly for public water supply) is the main quantitative pressure, followed by saltwater intrusion (50%). Other quantitative pressures (not further specified) were mentioned in about 20% of the RBMPs while artificial recharge (13%) plays a rather minor role.

The main reported reason for failing good groundwater quantitative status was the exceedance of the available groundwater resource by the long-term annual average rate of abstraction.

Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior authorization of abstraction and impoundment is explicitly required by Article 11.3 (e) WFD. These controls have to be periodically reviewed and, where necessary, updated.

Member States can be exempt from these controls, abstractions or impoundments which have no significant impact on water status. This exemption clause was only reported by UK to be applied and only in the case of abstractions below 10 m³ and 20 m³ per day respectively.

Nearly all (91%) RBMPs where groundwater bodies fail good quantitative status reported that controls over water abstractions including registers of abstractions and the need for prior authorization of abstractions are the main measures tackling groundwater over-exploitation.

More than 80% of the RBDs with groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status reported controls of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies – including a requirement for prior authorization – as an important measure.

The same percentage of RBDs (more than 80%) reported programmes to increase water use efficiency (e.g. (waste) water re-use and rain water management) and programmes to promote sustainable and efficient use of water by awareness raising, advice or educational programmes.

As supplementary measures the intensification of monitoring, both of abstractions and of groundwater levels, was mentioned in about 35% of the RBMPs. Financial incentives, pricing policy for sustainable use (e.g. charges, fines, taxes for water abstractions) were reported by 23% of the RBMPs, and the implementation of research projects and risk and vulnerability assessments were reported by about 30% of the RBMPs where groundwater bodies of poor quantitative status occur.

The WFD requires that the use of abstracted groundwater does not compromise the achievement of the environmental objectives of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. About 43% of the RBMPs reported that the requirements of these terrestrial ecosystems have been taken into account in the definition of required measures. This seems to indicate that the knowledge on the quantitative needs of such ecosystems is slightly better than in the case of chemical status. 32% of the RBMPs did not consider this definition and for the remaining 25% it was not relevant or no indication could be found that the needs were considered.

8.11.4.   International co-ordination of measures

About 40% of the international RBMPs report co-ordination with neighbouring Member States or non-EU Member States. In about 15% of these international RBDs such international co-ordination was reported as not relevant, mainly due to the fact that there were no transboundary groundwater bodies identified. In 45% of these RBDs, no information on international co-ordination was mentioned in the RBMPs which is a clear gap either in the implementation of the WFD or in the reporting.

8.11.5.   Conclusions

Diffuse source pollution – mainly from agriculture (50%) and from urban land use (25%) – is a significant pressure in all RBMPs that indicate a failure of good groundwater chemical status while point source pollution – mainly from waste deposit sites (20%), from contaminated sites (15%) and from discharges to groundwater (15%) – is a significant pressure in about 70% of those RBMPs. Regarding quantitative status, all of the RBMPs reported that abstraction (mainly for public water supply) is the main quantitative pressure, followed by saltwater intrusion (50%).

Any pollution or degradation of groundwater is very expensive to remediate and takes a long time period to implement, therefore preventative measures play a very important role in groundwater management. Measures related to groundwater protection seem to be in place as about 88% of the RBMPs reported that measures to prevent inputs of hazardous substances have been implemented and about 93% of the RBMPs reported having implemented measures that aim to tackle the limitation of the inputs of non-hazardous substances from point sources and the prevention of losses from technical installations. However most of the measures are very general and not linked to pressures.

More than half of the RBMPs reported the need for supplementary measures specifically implemented in groundwater bodies at risk or of poor status to achieve the objectives under Article 4 of the WFD, but almost no RBMP explicitly mentions specific measures to be implemented in the area where an EQS or threshold value is exceeded. It seems to be a very common approach that Member States implement the measures following the overarching groundwater quality objective of pollution prevention by tackling the pressures rather than being driven by failures. It is very often found in RBMPs that measures are implemented in all groundwater bodies irrespective of whether their status is good or poor.

Nearly all (91%) RBMPs, where groundwater bodies fail good quantitative status, reported that controls over water abstractions including registers of abstractions and the need for prior authorisation of abstractions are the main measures tackling groundwater over-exploitation. About 43% of the RBMPs reported that the requirements of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been taken into account in the definition of required measures.

In 45% of the transboundary RBDs no information on international co-ordination was mentioned in the RBMPs which is a clear gap either in the implementation of the WFD or in the reporting.

8.11.6.   Recommendations

· The description of measures in the RBMPs should distinguish between basic measures and supplementary measures and also assign the measures to the water body types (surface water or groundwater) to which the measure is targeted.

· Measures should be better linked to pressures and better targeted to the groundwater bodies and address the specific pressures causing risk, poor status or unfavourable trends.

· Specific measures in the area of exceedance should be better taken up and reported.

· The needs of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems should be better considered in the definition of the measures.

· International co-ordination of measures should be established and reported in all transboundary groundwater bodies.

8.12.      Measures related to agriculture

8.12.1.   Introduction

In accordance with the environmental objectives laid out in Article 4 WFD and based on a risk assessment and the status assessment delivered by the monitoring programmes, Member States are required to implement necessary measures to prevent the deterioration of water bodies and to achieve good water status in surface and groundwater. These measures should be listed in a programme of measures (Article 11 WFD).

Under the risk assessment carried out in 2005, and this was confirmed by other preliminary assessments, agricultural pressure has been identified as one of the main pressures on the water resources[33] .

A PoM must include basic measures and supplementary measures addressing the identified pressures. Basic measures relevant for the agriculture sector include those set out in Article 10 (IPPC Directive, Nitrates Directive) and in Annex VI including the Habitats Directive and PPP Directive. Articles 16 and 17 further affect the agricultural sector by requiring the establishment of a list of priority substances that pose a risk to the aquatic environment, including those in relation to fertiliser and pesticide application in the agriculture sector.

As basic measures alone will mostly likely not lead to sufficient improvements in water body status, supplementary measures (Annex VI, Part B) are expected to target the significant pressure the agriculture sector puts on the water environment and to achieve the objectives set out in Article 4.

The following sections present the main EU level findings on how agriculture pressures have been addressed in the Member States. The results are based on the assessment of RBMPs and their corresponding PoMs in 23 Member States[34] plus Norway covering 115 river basins. This is followed by recommendations to improve actions taken in the agricultural sector in the next planning cycle.

8.12.2.   Pressures related to agriculture

Over 92% of the national RBDs consider agriculture as a significant pressure.

Diffuse pollution is by far the most important pressure resulting from agriculture, largely due to fertiliser use but also to pesticide application. Point source pollution is identified as significant to a lesser extent. As a consequence eutrophication problems are reported. However the link to agriculture is not always very clear as few RBDs were able to report eutrophication problems from solely agriculture source, while others aggregated the pressure from agriculture, domestic and industrial sources.

Figure 8.12.1: Geographical distribution of agriculture pressures in the EU

Source:WISE Note: Better quality maps are available on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/index_en.htm

Pressures from water abstraction and morphological modifications due to agriculture were reported in 36% and 37% of the RBDs, respectively.

The regional distribution of pressures from water abstraction for agriculture uses indicates south-eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Hungary Romania, Slovenia), southern Europe (Cyprus, France, Italy, Malta)    and also parts of the UK and Ireland.

Soil erosion poses a considerable threat in individual river basins, but at EU level it is a less significant pressure compared to other pressures, identified in only 27% of RBDs.

It is, however, important to consider that for these pressures quite a few river basins did provide clear information and this represents a clear gap in knowledge.  No clear picture for soil erosion was possible in 37% of the RBDs; for morphological pressures 41% of RBDs could not make definitive statements on the problem due to insufficient information. Another important gap in knowledge is the impact of self-abstraction on water bodies. Here, only 5% of RBDs mentioned it as a pressure, but it is important to consider that 57% of RBDs did not provide or only gave unclear information.

8.12.3.   Types of measures applied in the PoM

To address the pressures mentioned above, Member States have included a range of technical, economic and non-technical supplementary measures in their PoMs.

As can be seen from the graph below (Figure 8.12.1), technical measures are the most prevalent category of measures in the PoMs.

The reduction or modification of fertiliser application is the most common technical measure found, followed by measures to reduce pesticide application and to improve the morphology of rivers; this largely corresponds to the pressures identified by the river basins.

52% of RBDs linked technical fertiliser measures to the Nitrates Directive, indicating that many have chosen to emphasise basic measures in their PoMs.

It appears that twice as many basins include measures targeting soil erosion than mentioned it as a pressure. This could be due to the uncertainty of the problem. In addition, considerably more Member States include hydro-morphological measures than those that have problems with morphological alterations (37% RBDs with problems versus 69% with measures).

As with water abstraction, Member-States applying water saving technical measures are predominantly located in southern and south-eastern Europe as well as the UK. Some other Member-States outside of these recognised water scarce areas are implementing water saving measures as well, e.g. Austria, Belgium, Germany, Latvia or Poland.

Non-technical measures such as training (65% RBDs)) are also very common. Educational measures such as awareness raising or increasing knowledge (e.g. through research) are relatively popular with 52% of the basins. The prevalence of non-technical measures has greatly increased since the assessment of the draft plans.

The graph also highlights how few river basins include economic instruments targeting agriculture in their PoMs. Compensation for land cover is the economic measure most often applied (around 32% of RBDs); nutrient trading was only found in one RBD and fertiliser taxes in 6 RBDs (5%). It can be assumed that water pricing in agriculture was not specifically mentioned by 74% of the RBDs since it is a stand-alone requirement under the WFD. The will to apply economic instruments seems to have improved since the assessment of the draft RBMPs where much fewer basins were intending to compensate for land cover (4% of the RBDs) or establish co-operative agreements (15% of the RBDs).

* Measures by and large related to provisions already in place

Figure 8.12.1: Percentage of RBDs including agriculture measures in their PoM

Source: RBMP assessment

8.12.4.   Stakeholder involvement when selecting the measures

Stakeholder involvement has been assessed using the following categorisation:

-             Basic involvement: Farmers and farm associations were involved in the consultation processes but do not provide detailed information on the extent to which their contributions have influenced the selection process.

-             Moderate involvement: Farmers were not only involved in the public consultation process but were also included as stakeholders in working groups or steering committees.

-             Significant involvement: Farmers were actively involved in identifying, selecting and evaluating measures to include in the programs.

In terms of the involvements of farmers in the measures selection process, 78% of the assessed Member States (18 out of 23) indicated stakeholder involvement by farmers and in about 37% of RBs (43 basins out of 115) the involvement was significant or moderate.

8.12.5.   Are the proposed measures addressing the pressures?

It is not clear whether the proposed measures will lead to a significant reduction of pressures and ultimately to the achievement of good status.

Moreover the PoMs mainly tend to focus on the implementation of existing legislation, especially the Nitrates Directive. This might indicate a “business as usual” approach and could be interpreted as a low level of ambition by the Member States.

Agriculture being the driver for many water body failings, implementation of existing legislation is not sufficient and therefore substantial supplementary measures are unavoidable.

That many of the supplementary measures found in the PoMs are linked to the Rural Development Programmes is potentially troublesome due to the voluntary nature of measure implementation. For some Member States with high farmers' involvement, this approach may be wise, but for others the reliance on voluntary mechanisms may be a problem.

8.12.6.   Information provided regarding measure implementation

The information regarding the geographical application and the extent of application are mostly lacking. It seems that most of the Member States took a geographical approach using different units, such as per ha, at water body level, at sub-basin level, basin-wide or nation-wide. Water body level and sub-basin level are the most common method, at 37% (30 out of 81) and 40% (32 out of 81) of RBDs using a geographical approach, respectively.

What is by and large lacking in many of the river basins, is information on how these measures will be implemented in terms of timing, financing as well as monitoring. This information is very important to gain a clear understanding of the possibility for river basins to achieve the environmental objectives set out in Article 4. 38% (44 out of 115) of RBDs provide information on how the measures are being funded, of which 62% (30 out of 44) of these RBDs indicate they intent to use Rural Development funds. Out of the river basins eligible for Rural Development funds (Norway does not take part), only 4% indicate they will use Article 38 of the RDR on providing subsidies to farmers for requirements under the WFD. Besides the Rural Development funds, only limited information is given on other EU or national level funds.

8.12.7.   Conclusions

· While Member States are relatively clear about the types of pressures their river basins are facing, precise information is missing on how these pressures are going to be addressed and to what extent the selected measures will contribute to the achievement of the environmental objectives in 2015.

· The emphasis on the basic measures and the existing regulations with the prevailing of voluntary approaches may result into a ‘business as usual’ approach and jeopardize the fulfilment of the WFD objectives.

8.12.8.   Recommendations

· Experiences show that an advanced co-operation with the farmers' community at the different stages of the preparation of the PoM is important as it will ensure technical feasibility, acceptance and the expected success.

· A strategy mainly built on voluntary measures will not deliver. A right balance between voluntary actions and a strong baseline of mandatory measures / rules needs to be set up. A clear commitment at political level is unavoidable.

· Then this baseline needs to be clear so on one hand any farmer knows the rules, and on the other hand the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· More generally the authorities in charge of water and those in charge of agriculture at national and river basin levels need to improve their cooperation. The national legislations and the funding mechanisms should be made consistent and function in synergy. For instance information on infringement with the water legislation should be shared with the agricultural authority so it can count for cross compliance.

· A proper water pricing for farmers, based on volumetric pricing associated with mandatory metering, should be set up in accordance with WFD article 9 provisions. In complement the water allocation systems should be revised to take into consideration sustainability and climate change. It should foresee action to address efficiently illegal water abstraction.

· As for the voluntary measures, which are mainly derived from the Rural Development programmes, they also need to be very clear so any farmer knows what actions he is encouraged to do beyond the baseline.

· Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so the ambition of the RB authority is transparent and the plan to achieve the objectives is clear.

· In particular the Rural Development tool representing the first source of funding for water protection measures in agriculture, information on how the measures will be funded through the Rural Development programmes should figure in the PoM.

· When implementing the PoM a direct contact with the farmer is the key. As mentioned in the CAP reform legal proposal the Farm Advisory System should fully advertise on the WFD and the programme of measures. More generally any initiatives advertising the PoM directly to the farmer should be promoted. To ensure acceptance information on cost-efficiency should be shared with the famer.

Two documents elaborated by the CIS are a valuable source of information. They can be found on DG ENV website in all EU languages: "Guidance for administrations on making WFD agricultural measures clear and transparent at farm level" and "Handbook on Farm Advisory Systems and water protection".

8.13.      Measures related to chemical pollution

8.13.1.   Introduction

The WFD provides for measures against chemical pollution of surface waters by particular substances. In particular, it provides for the selection and control of substances of EU-wide concern (the priority substances) and the selection and control of substances of national or local concern (river basin specific pollutants). Other EU legislation, including REACH, the Plant Protection and Biocidal Products Regulations, the Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, and the Industrial Emissions Directive, may be relevant to the control of the substances, but some measures would be likely to be taken at national or local level. Before deciding on appropriate measures it is necessary to monitor the concentrations of pollutants in surface waters as well as their presence in discharges. This monitoring should be accompanied by an analysis of the pressures on the aquatic environment. This requires Member States to collect information on all possible point and diffuse anthropogenic sources of pollution coming mainly from industrial, urban and agricultural activities.

Chemical pollution of surface waters could be caused by different types of pollutants such as:

1) Priority substances and certain other pollutants which are included in the assessment of chemical status (mainly heavy metals, pesticides and industrial pollutants).

2) River basin specific pollutants identified as being of concern by Member States at river basin or national level.

3) Deoxygenating substances (COD, BOD5).

4) Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus).

5) Saline discharges (if applicable).

The appropriate control policies addressing chemical pollution set out in the EU legislation include:

Article 16 of the WFD which requires the establishment of a list of priority substances (Annex X) as well as the adoption of the specific measures against pollution by these substances (i.e. progressive reduction and, for priority hazardous substances, cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses):

· Directive 2008/105/EC (EQSD) laying down the environmental quality standards for the 33 priority substances and 8 other pollutants.

· Dangerous Substances Directive 76/464/EEC (codified as Directive 2006/11/EC) and its ‘daughter directives’ (listed in Annex IX of the WFD) establishing the emission limit values for the control of discharges for 9 priority substances and 8 other pollutants.

· Article 10 of the WFD stating the combined approach principle for the control of both point and diffuse sources of discharges. According to this Article, Member States shall ensure the establishment and/or implementation of: (a) the emission controls based on best available techniques, or (b) the relevant emission limit values, or (c) in the case of diffuse impacts the controls including, as appropriate, best environmental practices.

· Article 11 and Annex VI of the WFD specifying the type of the programme of measures.

The assessment of chemical status of surface water bodies is based on the 33 priority substances and the 8 other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I to Directive 2008/105/EC. An overview on the degree in which the provisions of this Directive have been followed has been given previously (Table 8.5.1). Other substances (e.g. river basin specific pollutants, deoxygenating substances, nutrients and salinity as specified above) are considered as components of the biological quality elements, and therefore included in the ecological status assessment. If one or more environmental quality standard (EQS) which have been established for a specific pollutant for a certain type of water body are exceeded, then the water body is considered as not reaching good ecological status/potential and appropriate measures have to be taken to improve the situation.

8.13.2.   Inventory of sources of pollution

The establishment of inventories of sources of pollution is a prerequisite for minimising chemical pollution. Article 5 of Directive 2008/105/EC stipulates that Member States shall establish an inventory, including maps, if available, of emissions, discharges and losses of all priority substances and pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I of Directive 2008/105/EC for each RBD or part of a RBD lying within their territory including their concentrations in sediment and biota, as appropriate. The inventories are to be established on the basis of the information collected in accordance with Articles 5 and 8 of the WFD, under Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR), and other available data. As explained previously, the EQSD was proposed in 2006 but not adopted until the end of 2008, and the transposition deadline was July 2010, after the adoption of the RBMPs. However, the obligations for gathering data under Articles 5 and 8 of the WFD were effectively in place by the end of 2006, as the list of substances was already known and emissions data on some substances have been gathered for the E-PRTR. In that respect Member States could be expected to have extensive elements for an inventory, even though an inventory precisely according to Article 5 of the EQSD might not yet have been established by the time of submission of the RBMPs.

Approximately two thirds of the reviewed RBDs report an inventory focussing on pollution sources. In 43 out of 122 RBDs, no information or no clear information was found. All reported inventories included data on pollution by nutrients and most covered priority substances, the river basin specific pollutants and the deoxygenating substances.

Identification of significant sources

Industrial emissions (including direct and indirect discharges) and households (including discharges through sewage treatment plants, facilities not connected to the sewerage system and storm water overflows) were the sectors most reported as contributing significantly to chemical pollution.

Waste deposits in landfills and atmospheric deposition were considered as significant sectors in only one third of the RBDs (atmospheric deposition of mercury was noted as one of the greatest environmental problems in Sweden with the result that no surface water body will meet the EQS for mercury in biota[35]). Other sources significantly contributing to chemical pollution of waters were identified in about 60% of the reviewed RBDs. These sources included:

· Mining (present and historic sites (DE, IE, IT); acid-mine drainage (DE) and salt mining (ES)).

· Corrosion of metallic surfaces (DE).

· Historically contaminated land (DE, FI, FR, IE, IT, SE, UK).

· Paved areas (DE).

· Potential effects of leakage from underground oil and gas pipes (ES).

· De-icing substances used on roads and airfields (FI).

· Potential risk from transport of hazardous substances (FI).

· Runoff from roads (IE).

· Transboundary pollution (di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate detected in the Neris river in LT at the border with Belarus).

· Pesticides from agriculture (SK).

· Diffuse urban sources (UK).

· Forestry (UK).

8.13.3.   Identification of failures

A number of priority substances, physico-chemical quality elements and chemical substances were identified to cause failure to achieve good chemical status and good ecological status/potential but gaps in monitoring mean that a complete picture of non-compliance cannot be drawn. 65 out of 122 RBMPs did not provide any information on physico-chemical quality elements or chemical substances considered as components of the biological quality elements. Most countries reported few failures for some of the priority substances. 40% of water bodies were not assessed for chemical status and many monitoring programmes seem to be rather limited in terms of substances and monitoring stations. More information on failures is provided in the summaries of ecological and chemical status.

The physico-chemical quality elements causing most failures include ammonia, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, nitrates, nitrites, phosphates, pH, BOD, COD and AOX. Several  river basin specific pollutants such as zinc, copper, arsenic, manganese, iron, thalium, molybdenium, benzo(a)anthracene, acenaphthene, DDD, DDE, metalachlor, bisphenol-A, cypermethrin, dibutyltin, mecoprop, dicloprop, MCPA, chloridazone, bentazone, linuron, dimethoate and terbutylazine were found to be causes of non-compliance.

8.13.4.   Chemical measures

Two broad categories of chemical measures can be established for a RBD:

· Measures affecting general pollution that allow the reduction/phasing-out of more than one pollutant (e.g. waste water treatment).

· Measures affecting particular substances (e.g. banning of substance, limitation of one of its specific uses).

General measures

These measures can be sub-divided according to the source of pollution into measures addressing:

· Industrial emissions.

· Waste deposits in landfills.

· Households.

· Atmospheric deposition.

· Other measures.

Measures to tackle industrial pollution were reported by almost all RBDs and include mainly:

· Various regulations/laws/by-laws that regulate permitting/emission standards (combined approach) for surface waters and groundwater

· Implementation of the requirements of the EC directives:

- Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC)

- Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC)

- Integrated Pollution Prevention & Control Directive (96/61/EC)

The measures focussing on household related pollution cover mostly measures related to the UWWT Directive and to WFD Article 11(3g, h and k) such as:

· Actions to reduce the use of pesticides by industry and civilians.

· Sensitising civilians to the use of environmentally friendly products.

· Reducing POPs use in consumer goods.

· Promoting use of phosphate-free products.

· Extension of the sanitation infrastructure.

· Measures to improve the efficiency of UWWTPs / construction of new UWWTPs.

· Measures suppressing illegal waste dumping in river beds and reservoirs.

· Expansion of sewerages / sewage sludge recycling.

· Improving treatment of storm water overflows.

The measures addressing waste deposits in landfills include implementation of the requirements of the Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC) and Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) and measures based on WFD Article 11(3g, k and l).

Substance-specific measures

The substance-specific measures focus on reducing emissions of priority substances, river-basin specific pollutants and nutrients. The examples of measures provided below demonstrate the approaches taken by the Member States to tackle the elevated concentrations of chemical substances in water which prevent the achievement of good water status:

Priority substances:

· More stringent control of emissions and setting conditions for adaptation to threshold values for cadmium and mercury (SI).

· Ban on the use of atrazine, diuron and simazine (UK).

· Reducing emissions of indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (LU).

· Reducing use and emissions of mercury and cadmium (FR).

River basin specific pollutants: 

· Limiting leaching of metals from street furniture, limiting leaching of zinc ashes (BE).

· National programme to reduce discharge of phenols into water environment 2004-2014 (EE).

· Restricted use of chlorides for road de-icing, replacing them with less hazardous substances (FI).

· Improving storage and handling of pesticides / changing cropping patterns to reduce pesticide use / implementation of best practices to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilisers (FR).

· UK-wide (temporary) suspension on use of cypermethrin as sheep dip (UK).

· Targeted action to address diffuse pollution by dichlobenil (UK).

· Catchment action plan for safeguard zone and proactive ‘Get Pelletwise’ measures to reduce pollution by metaldehyde (UK).

Nutrients:

· Set of measures to reduce pollution by phosphates (shortening the period for application of manure, requirement for a bigger storage capacity for animal manure, application of measures to reduce emissions) (NL).

· Requirement that the purification efficiency for phosphorus and nitrogen is at least 75% (NL).

· Ban on phosphorus additives in household detergents (IT, LT).

· Improvement of point-source installations in order to reduce emissions of ammonium (AT) / reduction of ammonium emissions (LT).

8.13.5.   Conclusions

· One of the most important steps in developing appropriate policies to reduce chemical pollution is to establish inventories of sources of pollution. However, in 43 out of 122 reviewed RBDs, no information or no clear information was found regarding whether there was an inventory of the sources of chemical pollution.

· Substance-specific measures can be adopted to reduce the emissions of the chemical substances preventing the achievement of good water status. The identification of such measures is still a significant gap in tackling chemical pollution, as only for a few RBDs are substance-specific measures reported, and they are generally not linked to failures of chemical and ecological status. Many of the measures addressing chemical pollution in the Member States are general and it is not always clear whether the value they provide can be attributed to action taken specifically to meet the WFD objectives.

· However, positive examples are provided of incentives to industry to improve wastewater treatment to more stringent levels than those imposed by the WFD or to apply a higher standard of treatment (stricter emission controls) where necessary to achieve water quality objectives.

8.13.6.   Recommendations

· Inventories of sources of pollution are a key component of the EU strategy against chemical pollution of surface waters. These inventories should be elaborated for each RBD to collate information about the emissions of chemical substances into water. The identification of significant sources, pathways and transformation processes, their causes and their seasonality helps to prioritise the measures to be taken to achieve good water status. These inventories should focus not only on the priority substances and other pollutants in Annex I of the EQSD but also on the river basin specific pollutants. Member States should refer to Guidance No 28[36] prepared under the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive to assist them in preparing future inventories.

· The proposed measures should be clearly linked to the reduction or termination of pollution by the particular chemical substances that are preventing the achievement of good chemical and/or ecological status of surface waters. Measures reducing emissions closer to their source may be more cost-effective than those closer to the ‘end-of-pipe’, although consideration should be given to, among other things, the number of substances whose emissions might be reduced by the measures.

· Member States may draw inspiration from the measures being planned or taken by other Member States, as many appear more widely applicable than their mention in the plans suggests. For example, in the context of pesticides (priority or river basin specific substances), Member States should now be initiating actions under the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive 2009/128/EC which requires, among other things, the development of National Action Plans to reduce the risks and impacts of pesticide use, including by encouraging alternative approaches."

8.14.      Measures related to hydromorphology

8.14.1.   Introduction

The WFD is the first piece of European environmental legislation which addresses hydromorphological modifications and impacts on water bodies. The Directive explicitly requires Member States to manage the effects on the ecological quality of water which result from changes to physical characteristics of water bodies. It requires action in those cases where the hydromorphological pressures are having an impact on the ecological status interfering with the ability to achieve the WFD objectives.

Measures related to hydromorphological improvements in the RBMPs are mainly supplementary measures with the aim of achieving the objectives established pursuant to Article 4.

8.14.2.   Hydromorphological measures in the RBMPs

In most RBDs assessed (96% of RBDs), there are hydromorphological measures proposed in the PoMs. Only in 4% of RBDs, no specific hydromorphological measures were proposed or no relevant information could be found.

In the majority of RBDs assessed (ca. 68%), the plans provide clear evidence that hydromorphological measures are also planned for heavily modified water bodies (HMWBs). In 18% of RBDs assessed, no relevant information was found (including 4 plans where no HMWBs have been designated and thus specific measures are not relevant). In 14% of RBDs, the relevant information was not clear.

In 62% of the RBDs which provided clear evidence that hydromorphological measures are planned for HMWB, specific information is given in the plan which indicates that hydromorphological measures are planned for each HMWB. Another 43% of RBDs indicate in more general terms that hydromorphological measures are planned for HMWB. In ca. 26% of RBDs, it could be concluded (indirectly) from the setting of GEP that hydromorphological measures are planned in HMWB.

Figure 8.14.1: Evidence provided for the planning of hydromorphological measures for HMWBs

Source: RBMPs assessment

8.14.3.   Which hydromorphological measures have been proposed in the plans?

The following hydromorphological measures (non-exhaustive list of pre-selected measures for the assessment of all RBDs) have been proposed to varying extents, as indicated below:

· In >60% of RBDs:

- Removal of structures (weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement).

- Fish ladders.

- Habitat restoration, including building spawning and breeding areas.

· In 30 – 60% of RBDs:

- Restoration of bank structures.

- Sediment and debris management.

- Restoration of degraded bed structure.

- Minimum ecological flow.

- Bypass channels.

- Reconnection of meander bends or side arms.

- Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses.

· In <30% of RBDs:

- Operational modifications for hydropeaking.

- Reduction or modification of dredging.

- Inundation of floodplains.

- Construction of retention basins.

- Lowering of river banks.

The assessment of several plans (e.g. in France, Germany, Italy) shows that often hydromorphological measures are described in the plans in a general manner without giving specific descriptions of the measures. This may be the case because only a summary of the PoMs has been requested by the WFD (thus, specific hydromorphological measures are listed in internal documents which have not been officially reported) or because some measures require further investigation before they can be defined with more precision.

Figure 8.14.2: Hydromorphological measures and occurrence at EU level

Source: RBMPs assessment

             

8.14.4.   Measures to achieve an ecologically based flow regime

Establishing ecologically based flow regimes is an important hydromorphological measure since to have a sufficient ecological flow regime is a prerequisite to reach good ecological status in rivers and it is crucial to maintain a flow throughout the river continuum.

In 45% of RBDs, the plans make reference to (national/regional) guidelines or regulations to define an ecologically based flow regime: Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, Sweden and UK (method in UK is under development). However, other countries may also have guidelines or regulations, which were not reported in the plans since this has not been a specific requirement for reporting.

Figure 8.14.3: Reference in RBMPs to national or regional guidelines on definition of ecologically based flow regime

Source: RBMPs assessment

In around half of the RBDs assessed, it is indicated that specific measures are taken to achieve an ecologically based flow regime.

Figure 8.14.4: Measures to achieve ecologically based flow regime

Source: RBMPs assessment

In recent questionnaires filled in by Member States for the CIS Workshop on Water Management, Hydropower & WFD (September 2011), most countries reported to have relevant legislation at national level (in a few, also on regional level) to ensure ecologically based flow at hydropower plants.[37] See table below for details.

|| There is relevant legislation || There is no legal requirement  but there is a relevant recommendation || No legal requirement or recommendation but defined in individual cases || Generally no legislative means

|| National || Regional || National || Regional

Minimum ecological flow || AT, BG, CH, CZ, DE, ES, FR, HU, IT, LT, LV, NL, NO, RO, SI || DE, IT || CZ, PT, SK, UK || UK || BE, DE, FI, IS, LU, NO, SE || FI

Table 8.14.1: Legislation to ensure ecologically based flow regime

Source: RBMPs assessment

Many countries use a static definition for minimum ecological flow (e.g. 5% to 10% of annual mean flow) (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Romania, Sweden and Slovakia) which is not necessarily linked to the achievement of WFD environmental objectives. A dynamic definition of minimum ecological flow (different fixed minimum flow values distributed over the year) is applied in Finland, The Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, and Iceland (in some cases, complemented by modelling). In other countries, static definitions of minimum ecological flow are combined with a dynamic definition and modelling determination (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, UK and Switzerland). In Latvia and Luxembourg, a static definition is combined with a dynamic definition of minimum ecological flow. Belgium (Wallonia) combines a static definition with modeling determination. In Spain, for relevant locations, double studies are carried out, using hydrological and ecological (IFIM) data. According to the results obtained, the most adequate results are used, on a case by case basis. For Hungary, no specific information was provided on the methods applied to define minimum ecological flow.

Indeed, there are different methods to define minimum ecological flow requirements and, currently, there is no standardised method or a common understanding for setting minimum ecological flow. To gain knowledge for the further development of minimum ecological flows, there is a need for monitoring the effects of minimum flow on biological quality elements.

8.14.5.   Links between uses, pressures and measures

The linkage between specific water uses, types of hydromorphological pressures and specific hydromorphological measures has been made explicit in 39% of RBDs.

In 41% of RBDs, no clear links were reported between uses, pressures and hydromorphological measures but there is partial information on links between uses and measures or between pressures and measures. For example, an RBMP may indicate the number of fish passes proposed to restore river continuity at specific barriers, but the water uses which these barriers serve are not stated (e.g. navigation, hydropower etc).

Nevertheless, even in those RBDs where explicit links between uses, pressures and hydromorphological pressures could be found, specific pressures and uses have not been addressed with all necessary measures in all cases.

In the case of hydropeaking which is a pressure related to the use of water for hydropower, the ecological status of water bodies can be improved through operational modifications that reduce the volume and frequency of artificially generated abrupt waves and avoid extreme water level fluctuations. However, operational modifications for hydropeaking have not been proposed as a measure in all RBDs which report hydropeaking as a pressure linked to hydropower (see table below for details).

In RBDs which report the interruption of longitudinal continuity (dams, weirs, impoundments) due to hydropower use, fish ladders, bypass channels or removal of structures have been proposed as measures in different combinations. However, in a few of these RBDs, none of these three measures has been proposed to counteract the interruption of longitudinal continuity.

Uses - Pressures || Relevant measure(s) (selection) || Nr. RBDs

Hydropower – Interruption of longitudinal continuity || || 39

|| Fish ladders || 27

|| Bypass channels || 23

|| Habitat restoration || 19

|| Sediment/debris management || 19

|| Minimum ecological flow || 24

|| Removal of structures || 20

Water supply & storage - Interruption of longitudinal continuity || || 21

|| Fish ladders || 16

|| Bypass channels || 13

|| Habitat restoration || 13

|| Sediment/debris management || 16

|| Minimum ecological flow || 17

|| Removal of structures || 17

Flood protection - Bank reinforcement || || 17

|| Habitat restoration || 10

|| Removal of structures || 7

|| Reconnection of meander bends || 11

|| Restoration of bank structure || 10

Hydropower - Residual Flow || || 17

|| Minimum ecological flow || 13

Hydropower - Hydropeaking || || 15

|| Operational modifications for hydropeaking || 8

|| Minimum ecological flow || 13

Flood protection – Interruption of lateral connectivity || || 15

|| Habitat restoration || 7

|| Removal of structures || 7

|| Reconnection of meander bends || 9

|| Restoration of bank structure || 9

Table 8.14.2: Selection of hydromorphological measures

Source: RBMPs assessment

Note: The combinations of uses-pressures-measures shown in this table were the most frequent ones in the RBDs assessed.

In RBDs with HMWBs designated due to hydropower, relevant measures proposed to deal with hydropower-related pressures are varying. In more than 80% of these RBDs, removal of structures and fish ladders are proposed, but only 30% of these RBDs propose operational modifications of hydropeaking.

Figure 8.14.5: Measures related to hydropower installations

Source: RBMPs

In RBDs with HMWBs designated due to navigation, relevant measures proposed to deal with navigation-related pressures are varying. In more than 60% of these RBDs, sediment/debris management and habitat restoration are proposed, but only ca. 30% of these RBDs propose reduction or modification of dredging.

Figure 8.14.6: Measures related to navigation

Source: RBMPs

In RBDs with HMWBs designated due to flood protection, relevant measures proposed to deal with flood protection-related pressures are varying. In ca. 80% of these RBDs, bank restoration is proposed, but only 30% of these RBDs propose inundation of floodplains and less than 20% retention basins.

Figure 8.14.7: Measures related to flood protection

Source: RBMPs

8.14.6.   Assessment of expected effects of measures

In 34% of RBDs, the expected improvements due to hydromorphological measures are described in the RBMPs. The information provided in this respect is quite heterogeneous and overall, it remains general. In the majority of plans, the measures are not reported for specific water bodies, thus there is no information on the expected effects of measures at water body level. In some cases, alternative indications on the geographical extent of the measures are given, e.g. km or ha of application of a measure.

Several plans describe the expected effects of specific measures on habitat and biota in a general way (in some plans, effectiveness is also specified for each BQE and type of pressures in the context of generic catalogues of measures) but there are usually no specific remarks on how measures are expected to improve the GES/GEP.

It is often argued that the biological assessment methods are not (or not sufficiently) sensitive yet to hydromorphological pressures. This has an effect on the adequateness of the current assessment of hydromorphological impacts, the selection of appropriate measures and predictions of specific expected effects on good ecological status or potential.

For 66% of RBDs, there is no description or no information found on the effects of planned hydromorphological measures and on whether they will improve the ecological status/potential.

8.14.7.   Conclusions

· Hydromorphological measures have been systematically included in the RBMPs, and in most cases, these measures are also foreseen for HMWBs.

· Only in half of RBMPs assessed is there a clear indication that specific measures are taken to achieve an ecologically based flow regime.

· Only in around 40% of the RBMPs assessed there has been reported a linkage between water uses, types of hydromorphological pressures and specific hydromorphological measures.

· It is in general not clear how the proposed measures are expected to contribute to the improvement of the ecological status or potential.

8.14.8.   Recommendations/proposals for next planning cycles

· The link between the status, the pressures and the hydromorphological measures should be clearly explained in the RBMPs.

· As more information becomes available through further investigations, hydromorphological measures should be more clearly defined and described in the plans (e.g. their geographical extent, technical details). Efforts should be made to report on proposed hydromorphological measures on water body level.

· The second RBMPs should be more precise on the expected effects of specific hydromorphological measures, especially on the way they are expected to improve the GES/GEP at water body level.

· There should be a clear distinction in the PoMs between hydromorphological measures proposed for natural and for heavily modified or artificial water bodies.

· Methods used to define ecological flow requirements (national or regional methods) should be clearly indicated in the plans. At EU level, there is a need for more standardised methods and development of a common understanding for setting ecological flow. In the Member States, monitoring programmes should target stretches where ecological flows are applied to gain further knowledge on the specific effects of ecological flow application on biological quality elements.

· The linkage between specific water uses, types of hydromorphological pressures and specific hydromorphological measures needs to be reported in a clearer and more transparent way in the plans.

· More analysis would be needed on how hydromorphological measures are expected to improve the GES/GEP and the impact of their effectiveness.

8.15.      Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

8.15.1.   Introduction

With the Water Framework Directive, it is the first time in EU environmental policy that economic principles (e.g. polluter-pays-principle), economic tools and methods (e.g. cost-effectiveness analysis) and economic instruments (e.g. environmental charges and taxes) are explicitly integrated into a piece of EU water legislation. This is based on the understanding that economic principles and instruments are potentially important tools in managing the pressures that affect Europe’s waters.

WFD[38] set three general concepts, closely related but not equivalent, each one imposing specific requirements on economics in general and water pricing schemes specifically:

· Incentive pricing deals with the way water users pay for their use and whether the right price signals are transmitted, i.e. it addresses the question how water is being paid for and how the water price affects the behaviour of water users.

· The polluter-pays-principle establishes how environmental costs should be covered among economic agents i.e. it looks at the adequacy of contributions from the different agents based on their role in causing these costs.

· Cost recovery establishes the overall amount that users are charged for water services. The WFD foresees an adequate degree of recovery, not only to the financial costs for the provision of a water service, but also of the costs of associated negative environmental effects (environmental costs) as well as forgone opportunities of alternative water uses (resource costs).

Based on the above and on the results of the assessment of the first RBMPs produced for the implementation of the WFD (plans date from 2009), it needs to be noted that while considerable efforts have been done by the Member States, the implementation of Article 9 foreseen for 2010 has yet to reach its full potential for using economic instruments for efficient water management. Only a number of Member States have changed or are considering changing their previous water pricing policies based on the work done for Article 9. The RBMPs in the majority of cases report a status quo of existing pricing policies.

More detail regarding the key elements of Article 9 forming the basis for understanding and improving the situation as regards to economics are described in the following sections.

8.15.2.   Water pricing policy providing adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently

Incentive pricing is referred to in approximately two thirds of the RBMPs. Even when it is referred to, the information is too general and does not present the situation in appropriate analytical detail. The existing tools and instruments used for creating appropriate incentives through water pricing policies are described as follows (the ones mentioned are in % of RBMPs): volumetric pricing in place for water uses (63%), water metering in place for water uses (53%) and other economic incentives (45%). The assessment of their incentive function is not reported in detail, and only general statements regarding this issue are given.

In many cases there is not sufficient information on whether water metering is in place for different water uses, information that is fundamental when considering an incentive pricing policy.

8.15.3.   Cost recovery rates calculations, including environmental and resource costs

In 16 out of 24 Member States assessed so far, a narrow definition of water services is used, meaning that mainly public water supply and waste water collection/treatment are covered.  This limits very significantly the potential impact of Article 9 provisions by reducing the scope of the analysis/cost recovery calculations to a limited number of water services.

Overall, there are varying methodologies for the calculation of cost recovery rates, which makes difficult to compare the costs among different RBMPs.

Regarding the calculation of financial costs (within cost recovery estimations) of water services, considerable work is reported in all MSs. However in 2 MSs any details on financial costs calculation was found, even if they are reported to be considered in cost recovery calculation. In general, a consensus is present over the need to cover financial costs of water services. The following financial costs are reported as being included in the calculation of cost recovery (in % of RBMPs): capital costs (70%), operating costs (68%), maintenance costs (63%), administrative costs (40%), other direct costs (10%). At the same time, it is not always clear how financial costs are calculated in the cost recovery and if all elements of financial costs are taken into account in the calculation, for example regarding capital costs (investment costs, depreciation, cost of capital, replacement costs etc.).

On the issue of subsidies/cross subsidies19 MSs report on how these are taken into account into the calculations, but in 5 cases this is lacking. An additional work is being done/planned (esp. in MSs lacking detailed information so far) in order to improve the data situation concerning financial cost recovery and a more in-depth understanding of certain issues (e.g. financial flows/subsidies).

Regarding the estimation and integration of environmental and resource costs (ERC) - which is linked to the polluter pays principle - in the cost recovery calculations, in 19 MSs there is  reference to ERC. At the same time, very different approaches for ERC estimation or lack of methodology of their estimation are reported. The main reason is the lack of practicable methodologies.

An often-shared opinion is that the ERC are already minimized though permit systems and internalized though charges and fees established (the approach found in 11 MSs). In cases in which the good environmental status is not reached in a water body due to a specific water service, the ERC of that service are assumed to be as high as the costs of the measures that would be needed to reach the good status (abatement cost approach).

8.15.4.   Adequate contribution of water uses to cost recovery of water services

In the first RBMPs limited efforts were conducted on the adequacy of the contribution of water uses to the costs of water services. While 12 MSs mention the contribution of households and industry to cost recovery, the contributions of other user groups remain unclear in an important number of RBMPs. Agriculture is often excluded (14 MSs) from the analysis of adequate contribution without a clear justification, even where agriculture constitutes an important pressure.

In all RBMPs, water uses were generally described. At the same time, the ways water uses have been identified especially in the Article 9-context is not always clear. In all, except 1 MS, at least households, industry and agriculture have been defined as water uses. Even if the pressures and impacts analysis showed that significant pressures are linked to a specific activity (e.g. agriculture), it was not always defined as a water use for Article 9-analysis. This is of importance since water uses have to contribute adequately to the costs water services, so all activities with significant impacts should be considered as water uses.

The polluter-pays-principle - of importance for taking into account the cost recovery principle (including environmental and resource costs) in general and for adequate contributions to cost recovery - is mentioned in 11 MSs only in a general way without analysing the situation in detail.

The often unclear consideration of subsidies and cross-subsidies in the cost recovery calculations is also hindering a clear view on the adequateness of contributions of different water uses to the recovery of the costs and the consideration of the polluter-pays-principle.

In only 9 MSs, social and/or environmental and/or economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic and/or climatic conditions of the region or regions affected are mentioned when implementing Article 9.

8.15.5.   Other issues: national and international cooperation regarding the application of Article 9, use of Art. 5 economic analysis

In 22 MSs Article 9 was applied following a national approach, with international cooperation only in 2 cases. At the international level, exchange of information regarding approaches used and experiences made took place through working groups/expert meetings. In 2 MSs common work was reported, but regarding only the description of water uses and summarizing the developed measures at the RB-scale.

In smaller/less federal Member States, common national approaches have been developed and used. In more federal/larger Member States, while national cooperation took place, also sub-national approaches to Art.9-implementation were used.

Regarding the use of the Art.5/Annex III economic analysis for implementing Article 9, the picture is mixed: 5 MSs refer to the economic analysis reported in 2004, 11 MSs use an updated version of this economic analysis, while 6 MSs do not make an reference/link to the economic analysis.

Figure 8.15.1: Percentage of RBMPs in which financial costs (by type of costs) were reported to be included in the cost recovery calculation

Source: RBMP Assessment

Figure 8.15.2: Percentage of RBMPs in which environmental and resource costs were reported to be included in the cost recovery calculation. It does not mean that the calculation is transparent and that the implementation is effective

Source:RBMP assessment

             

8.15.6.   Conclusions

Summarising the implementation of Article 9 hasn't yet reached its full potential by using economic instruments for efficient and fair water management. The main implementation failures can be associated with:

- diverse methodologies or lack of transparency in calculation of cost recovery and high number of RBMPs where environmental and resource costs are not included in the calculation,

- lack or insufficient use of economic instruments to incentivise water use, mainly volumetric pricing and water metering being fundamental when considering an incentive pricing policy,

- inadequate, usually too low, and unjustified contribution of different water uses, especially agriculture, to cost recovery of water services and the narrow approach to water services.

8.15.7.   Recommendations

Based on the above, there is significant room for improvement of Art. 9 implementation by the MSs for the next implementation cycle of the WFD. At the same time, the European Commission is ready to support the work done for better implementation through the CIS-process and beyond. This needs to take place in close cooperation with the MSs and the River Basin authorities and focus on implementable approaches that will support an overall better water management. Main topics that that should be in the focus of further work are:

· A “broad” definition of water services should be used for the second implementation cycle. The EU-Commission will support the practical application of a wider definition of water services as needed;

· The contributions of all relevant sectors (water users or polluters) to cost recovery, taking into account the polluter-pays-principle, needs to be shown more transparently and their adequacy compared with the pressure on water resources caused the sector needs to be further assessed. This concerns not only financial cost recovery calculation (e.g. consideration of capital costs and of subsidies/cross-subsidies), but also the way ERC are estimated with sufficient methodological accuracy and at limited cost. However, the lack of a standardised methodology of calculation ERC should not prevent further work on the issue by the MS, esp. where estimations of ERC are of importance.

· There is a need to improve the incentives of the water pricing system. This should be based on better understanding of the incentive function of economic instruments (e.g. price elasticity) and of the preconditions for their functioning (e.g. metering). Based on this, the effectiveness of changes in the water pricing policies referring to requirements of Art. 9 should be further assessed at Member State level;

· The European Commission can support the development of more consistent methodologies for calculating the degree of cost recovery and assess the effectiveness of the pricing system, that at the same time allow for consideration of the existing legal, institutional etc. differences among RBD/MS. However, the lack of standardised methodologies should not prevent further work on the issue by the Member States.

· The international cooperation in the implementation of Art. 9 needs to be fostered, moving beyond the exchange of information towards a more coherent consideration of Art. 9 requirements;

· Finally, the way the quantification and monetary valuation of ecosystem services can be integrated in the pricing system and support Art. 9 implementation should further be assessed (e.g. linked to the consideration of ERC) as well as the consequences the economic crisis can have on the contribution of tariffs, taxes and transfers to the financing of measures, and on the effectiveness of the pricing system in contributing to a more resource efficient economy. Putting a “true value” on resources has never been so important as during the current economic crisis

8.16.      Additional measures in Protected Areas

8.16.1.   Introduction

The 'additional measures in protected areas' refer to those measures needed to achieve more stringent objectives than good status required by Article 4 of the WFD. More stringent objectives are those that have been set out in the relevant Community legislation under which the individual protected areas have been established, as set in Article 4(1)(c) (see section 8.10 on environmental objectives). Article 4(2) of the WFD requires that where more than one objective relates to a given body of water, the most stringent shall apply. The timeline for the implementation of those objectives may be different than the deadline established in the WFD for achieving good status.

According to Article 6 and Annex IV, Member States should designate those protected areas of the RBD that requires special protection under specific Community legislation for the protection of surface or groundwater or for the conservation of habitats and species directly depending on water, including the protection of Natura 2000 sites and economically significant aquatic species (e.g. shellfish). The protected areas should also include all water bodies used for abstraction of drinking water and bathing waters.

A summary of the register of protected areas should be part of the RBMPs, including maps indicating the location of each protected area and a description of the Community, national or local legislation under which the protected areas have been designated.

The relevant EU legislation for the protection of water with more stringent objectives includes the following directives:

Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC, as amended by Directive 98/83/EC). Shellfish Directive (79/923/EEC). Freshwater Fish Directive (78/659/EEC). Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC). Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC).

The Freshwater Fish Directive (78/659/EEC) and the Shellfish Directive (79/923/EEC) will be repealed on 22 December 2013. The protection of the freshwater fish and shellfish waters will be ensured with the implementation of the necessary additional measures for the achieving of the more stringent objectives that Member States should have designated as protected areas under these two Directives, as required by Article 6 and Annex IV WFD.

For water bodies which are designated as a protected area, the environmental objectives set are beyond good status, as more stringent objectives have been set out for those areas in the relevant Community legislation. For those RBMPs for which it is relevant, almost 40% have clearly designated objectives for shellfish waters that go beyond the good status of water bodies and almost 20% for Natura 2000 protected sites. For drinking water and bathing water, these more stringent objectives have been identified in 14% and 13% of the RBMPs respectively. In those cases where additional objectives have been set, the RBMPs generally make reference to the specific national legal acts by which these additional objectives have been regulated.

Annex VII (7)(1) WFD requires that the RBMPs contain 'a summary of the measures required implementing Community legislation for the protection of water'. The additional measures for protected areas should be an integral part of the RBMPs in order to ensure that the requirements of those protected areas are included in the overall management of the RBDs and to ensure the coherence of the entire water planning with the objectives already established by other Community and national legislation.

The additional measures can be of the same nature as those for the WFD (e.g. measures to reduce nitrogen loss from agriculture or measures to improve the hydromorphological status in a river) but they need to reach a higher level of improvement of status. There can also be different kinds of measures targeted towards the specific objectives for the protection of the area.

8.16.2.   Protected areas

Around 66% of RBMPs do not include a clear identification of water bodies that require additional measures on the basis of their designation as protected areas.

For some Member States it is indicated that additional measures are not needed because the measures taken to reach the good ecological status according to the WFD is sufficient to reach the objectives relating to protected areas. This may be a critical assumption, as the required status for the protected areas is often stricter than the good status according to the WFD. Other types of measures are needed to protect specific habitats, species and to achieve stricter objectives on water quality.

The achievement of the good status is generally not enough to reach the objectives of other EU legislation (e.g. Habitat and Bathing Water Directives). Other examples are related to drinking water protection, where the basic and supplementary measures are not sufficient for the protection of drinking water supply, both for surface and groundwater.

Concerning the measure for protected areas in those plans that have included such measures (i.e. around one third of all RBMPs), the plans generally contain very little information on the type and the magnitude of the measures foreseen.

However, there are also good examples in some RBMPs, such as transparent designation of protected areas and clear identification of those areas failing to achieve the more stringent objectives.

Even when additional measures are incorporated into other planning instruments, these measures should also be explained in the RBMPs. The plans should contain all relevant information on all impacts, objectives and measures for all water bodies to ensure that an integrated approach is taken for the whole RBD. The limited information that has been reflected in most of the RBMPs shows that the integration of protected areas in the whole planning cycle has not been a priority in this first set of RBMPs. Some Member States have argued that the effect of the measures of the current cycle in the water status has to be assessed before any decision on introduction of additional measures is taken.

8.16.3.   Drinking water protection

The information in this section has mainly been extracted from the 'EC Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU'

Groundwater

Groundwater is the major source of drinking water in 15 Member States while surface water is the major source in 9 Member States (see Figure 8.16.1). The share of groundwater used for drinking water purposes in Europe ranges from 16% (Ireland) up to 100% (Austria, Denmark and Lithuania). At the Mediterranean islands of Cyprus and Malta, drinking water is dominantly produced from desalination of marine and brackish water.

Figure 8.16.1: Share of groundwater and surface water used for drinking water production in Europe

Source: 'Pressures and Measures study'

Drinking water safeguard zones around groundwater abstractions are commonly established in Europe. Almost all Member States have reported that such zones are already established or planned to be established. However, the design and establishment of drinking water safeguard zones is costly and is often only established for abstractions exceeding a certain quantity. Smaller abstractions are often not covered and might lack of comparable protection.

Drinking water safeguard zones in groundwater are protection zones in the recharge area of groundwater abstraction(s) covering parts or the whole aquifer. The size of safeguard zones varies considerably between different Member States, and it is often divided into different zones of protection levels, mainly dependent on the distance respectively the transport time of potential pollutants to the abstraction point. The protection measures are adapted to these different zones or levels of protection.

The measures implemented for drinking water resource protection address all kinds of diffuse and point sources of pollution, mainly from agricultural activities, urban land use, infrastructure, water abstractions and recharge.

The objective of the safeguard zones is to reduce existing but mainly to prevent potential pressures of any kind, including both diffuse and point sources of pollution. This covers all sectors and human activities causing pressures on groundwater quality and quantity which might endanger safe and secure use of groundwater for drinking water production, both on the short and on the long term.

The implementation of a safeguard zone is not a measure as such but a bundle of individual, specific and targeted rules accommodated therein. In general, measures which are established for the protection of drinking water abstractions from groundwater consist of a combination of specific measures within safeguard zones and the general measures implemented in the whole territory of a Member State, based on European and national legislation, which also contribute to the protection of drinking water. Such general provisions comprise for example the implementation of the 'prevent or limit' requirement under the Water Framework Directive and the Nitrates Action Programmes, as well as the associated codes of good agricultural practice under the Nitrates Directive.

Some direct measures implemented in safeguard zones include prohibitions and restrictions of and permits for human activities. The effectiveness of these measures strongly depends on strict monitoring, control and enforcement. Other indirect measures may be the improvement of land use or the development of codes of good practice, monitoring networks, research, awareness raising, etc.

About half of Member States implement drinking water protection related measures also outside the safeguard zones. Figure 8.16.2 shows the different measures and the occurrence in the Member States of the different protection measures for drinking water sources in groundwater.

Figure 8.16.2: Percentage of Member States in which different protection measures are applied

Source: 'Pressures and Measures study'

Concerning the costs of the measures in these groundwater safeguard zones, the public authorities and the water companies generally cover the costs of:

· the preparatory work for establishing safeguard zones like the identification of the recharge area, the conceptual model, the characterisation of the pressure situation, risk assessments etc. Such investigations and assessments might also be performed at a later stage during the operational phase

· the establishment of safeguard zones by delineation and definition of restrictions, limitations, conditions and prohibitions of activities in general

· the monitoring of groundwater quantity and quality in the safeguard zone

· improving efficiency of water use, water distribution, water saving, water reuse, awareness raising, information, advise, education

· Action Plans

· compensations to polluters if a safeguard zone and/or a condition were introduced after the polluter started his activity or to raise acceptance of a voluntary measure

The water company is mainly paying for the closure and replacement of abstraction sources.

The public is primarily covering the costs of:

· monitoring and controlling individual decisions (licenses, permits, authorisations)

· land use planning in general and the development of codes of good practice

And the potential polluter is mainly paying for:

· the establishment of individual conditions within the application procedure of licenses, permits and authorisations and also for their revision

· conditions implemented at a general level (e.g. Nitrates Action Programme, codes of good practice)

· the monetary effects of non-performing activities (or performing it at an extensive level) which are prohibited or restricted by general conditions or limited by individual conditions in a safeguard zone

Surface waters

The use of surface water for drinking water varies considerable between the Member States, from 0 to 84% (in Ireland), with an average of 34% (see figure 8.16.1).

To protect the surface waters that are source for drinking water, safeguard zones are applied or legislation on safeguard zones is in preparation in 90% of Member States. In most Member States safeguard zones are mandatory or mandatory if the abstraction exceeds certain limits.

In general the Member States legislation on drinking water protection provides regulation for inside the safeguard zones. However, there are also often measures in context to general water protection taken outside the safeguard zone will contribute to protection of drinking water.

The primary pressures for drinking water are pollution by point sources of all kinds, diffuse sources (mainly agricultural) and overexploitation of a water body. Secondary pressures are disturbances of the water body and its catchment which are not directly or potentially influencing water quality and water supply. Such as morphological changes, changes in river management or legislation in a catchment and climate change.

The legislation related to safeguard zones on surface waters zones focuses mainly on preventing and reducing impacts on the water body by human activities, as for example reducing or prohibiting economic and agricultural activities, fertilizers and pesticides and other emissions in the safeguard zones. In addition to these, other measures are often taken on monitoring of water quality and quantity and surveillance and control of activities in the field.

An important issue with the safeguard zones is that they address the pressures within the zone, when the legislation only regulates the activities within the zone. However, around half of the Member State implements protection measures also outside those safeguard zones. In general, measures outside the safeguard zone fall under general water management or other legislation. Therefore, it is crucial that the safeguard zones are taken into account in the more holistic planning of the RBDs, in order to reduce as much as possible the necessary treatment of drinking water.

A safeguard zone is considered to have an effect mainly on the chemical status of a water body. By affecting the chemical status, the biological status may be improved as well, but this is a generally secondary effect. The effect of drinking water protection measures on hydro‑morphological status of a water body is not very high.

Figure 8.16.3 shows the percentage of Member States in which the different measures to protect safeguard zones are being applied.

Figure 8.16.3: Percentage of Member States in which different protection measures are applied

Source: 'Pressures and Measures study'

The effectiveness of safeguard zone implementation depends on the related combination of measures, which differs between Member States quite significantly. Some of the measures directly impact the pressures in the area, such as, land use change and improvement of sewer systems, or some control measures such as restrictions, prohibits, permits and licences. Finally, other measures have an indirect impact on the protection of the area, e.g. research, risk assessment, proper planning and awareness raising, which may have a positive impact in the long-term.

The costs of establishing a safeguard zones are generally paid by the water company or by the final users, including the implementation and the legal embedding of the zone. Once the zone is in function, the distribution of financing is generally as follows: the compliance of restrictions and prohibitions, permits, licences and codes of good practice are generally paid by the polluter. The public finances control, monitoring and planning. And the other measures are subsidized by both the water company and the public.

Figure 8.16.4: Different groups of contributors for the protection measures in safeguard zones

Source: 'Pressures and Measures study'

             

8.16.4.   Shellfish water

The information in this section has been extracted from the Member States RBMPs and complemented with information from the 'EC Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU'

Directive 2006/113/EC on the Quality Required of Shellfish Waters is to be repealed in 2013 when the WFD must provide at least the same level of protection to shellfish waters (which the WFD classifies as protected areas) as the current Shellfish Waters Directive does. The quality of commercially harvested shellfish intended for human consumption must comply with EU Food Hygiene Regulations which set standards for the quality of the shellfish flesh according to three levels (A, B or C) of designated shellfish Production Areas. In principle, these Production Areas should correspond to the Shellfish Protection areas given in the RBMPs.

It is clear that in some of the Member States there is a relationship between Shellfish Protection Areas and Shellfish Production Areas. In these cases even if the additional measures are not clearly described, it may be inferred that a level of protection is given. In a number of RBMPs additional objectives and measures have been established above those required to achieve other WFD objectives through the establishment of for example of Pollution Reduction programmes (Ireland). For some other MS such as the UK (England, Wales or Scotland) this information was not clearly given in the RBMPs but could be implied from other sources of information or could be inferred as established though national regulation (France, Italy, Germany, or the Netherlands). These national sources also confirmed that measures undertaken within RBMPs will achieve objectives associated with Production Areas (UK). In other cases additional measures have not been defined at all as the objectives of the Shellfish Directive were assessed as having been met already (Germany). In addition in others, even if the objectives for Protected Areas had been established, there were no clear additional measures identified to reach those objectives, neither in the RBMPs nor in additional documentation. In none was there an explicit linkage with the objectives associated with Production Areas and the relevant EC Hygiene Regulations.

This also shows the need for a better integration of aquaculture policy in the water management process in order to ensure both water of good status and sustainable aquaculture growth. This is of special importance since the Commission has given aquaculture a prominent role in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform package and the proposal for a European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) reflects the commitment of the Commission to substantially reduce the impact of aquaculture enterprises on water.

8.16.5.   Conclusions

· Member States with important production of shellfish (Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK) have in general terms linked the designated Protection Areas with Production Areas. However the level of ambition and detail provided in order to safeguard shellfish from various harmful consequences by setting additional measures to those required by the WFD varies from one MS to the other. In many cases even if the measures are established this is not reflected in the RBMPs and the possibly available information needs to be extracted from other national sources or inferred by measures established under other Directive's objectives.

· In some cases objectives and additional measures were established as they come under national regulation but this was not included in the RBMPs.

8.16.6.   Recommendations

· Additional measures should be foreseen for protected areas in order to ensure the level of protection required by the relevant legislation under which these protected areas have been designated.

· The additional objectives and measures for protected areas (Shellfish, Natura, Drinking water, etc.) should be clearly described in the RBMPs. The plans are the overarching tool to ensure a proper management of all activities taking place in the RBD, and should therefore include references to the measures foreseen for the special protection of protected areas.

8.17.      Strategy to deal with water scarcity and droughts

8.17.1.   Requirements of the WFD

The WFD provides a comprehensive framework for the protection and management of water. The following elements are linked to the management of quantitative aspects[39]:

· The Directive provides a framework for the protection of waters which prevents further deterioration (Articles 1.a and 4).

· The Directive contributes to mitigate the effects of droughts (Article 1.e).

· Water quantity can have a strong impact on water quality and therefore on the achievement of good ecological status. Hence quantitative requirements are implicit in the definition of good ecological status and explicitly through the inclusion of flow regime as a supporting hydromorphological element.

· Good quantitative status is required for groundwater; a balance between abstraction and recharge must be ensured. Furthermore, groundwater levels should not be subject to anthropogenic alterations that might have impacts on surface waters and groundwater dependent ecosystems.

Sound water management requires joint management of qualitative and quantitative aspects. When developing the WFD RBMPs and associated PoMs, quantitative and qualitative aspects should be jointly considered to be coherent and to create synergies where possible. Quantitative issues should, in particular, be taken into account when making operational the objective of good ecological status and the objective of no further deterioration of current status (Articles 4.1, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7).

· In particular, actions to manage water quantity (e.g. water scarcity) should be considered as measures (basic/supplementary) when developing the RBMP and associated PoM.

· When and where needed, a specific drought management (sub)plan should be included in the RBMP (Article 13.5).

· Public participation (Article 14) should also be organised around water scarcity management issues, in basins where this is a significant water management issue, as required by the WFD.

The water scarcity and drought phenomena can be understood in the following way[40]:

· Drought is a natural phenomenon. It is a temporary, negative and severe deviation along a significant time period and over a large region from average precipitation values (a rainfall deficit), which might lead to meteorological, agricultural, hydrological and socioeconomic drought, depending on its severity and duration.

· Water scarcity is a man-made phenomenon. It is a recurrent imbalance that arises from an overuse of water resources, caused by consumption being significantly higher than the natural renewable availability. Water scarcity can be aggravated by water pollution (reducing the suitability for different water uses), and during drought episodes.

· If droughts or water scarcity pass certain thresholds, they can significantly affect the environment (terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, air, soils), the economy (agriculture and water uses) and society (e.g. public water supplies, welfare, recreational activities, cultural and aesthetic concerns).

A specific Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council for addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union[41] has given further indication on the key measures that should be promoted in the RBMPs and other tools in order to reduce the impacts of both phenomena. The Commission has assessed progress in implementing the Communication and based on the findings reviewed the policy on water scarcity and droughts. Further details can be found in the Annexed Commission Staff Working Document Supporting the Review of the Water Scarcity & Droughts Policy.

8.17.2.   Findings at EU level

The screening exercise based on the RBMP assessment and complementary information covers 111 European RBDs[42]. The following conclusions can be drawn.

Water scarcity and droughts (WS&D) are relevant across the EU territories. Water scarcity is reported for all the Mediterranean area some areas in Central, Eastern and Northern Europe. In this sense 9 RBDs reported river basin-wide water scarcity, 32 RBDs local or sub-basin water scarcity, 14 RBDs droughts and water scarcity affect part of the basin, but not clearly distinguished. 41% of the screened RBMPs do not consider water scarcity relevant. Drought is reported for a wide range of RBDs across Europe: 10 RBMPs face RBD-wide drought spell, 27 RBDs at local or sub-basins levels, and 40% (44 RBDs) of the RBMPs assessed, do not consider drought relevant.

In general, the analysis around water quantity issues is not adequate. Some misconception around the phenomena and their causes is present in the current plans. In a significant number of these basins, both WS&D are not clearly distinguished. This later statement is supported by the fact that only around a 30% of the WS-affected RBDs recognise past and current over allocation of resources as a driver for WS situations. In addition to this, a significant number of RBMPs affected by drought spells do not apparently include information on the causes of the phenomenon.

Figure 8.17.1: Occurrence of water scarcity (above) and droughts (below)in the EU Member States as reported in the RBMPs

Source: Commission Staff Working Document Supporting the Review of the Water Scarcity & Droughts Policy

The general lack of an adequate analysis around WS&D is also highlighted by the insufficient datasets provided for the water management planning scheme. This statement could be reflected by the fact that data on water demand trend scenarios are presented only for a 35% and for water availability trend scenarios in less than 25% of the RBMPs. Regarding the quality of data, although in almost 45% of the assessed RBMPs the sources of data for present water consumption and for water availability are explicitly mentioned in only around 20% of the plans, projections of future water demand and water availability are based on explicit assumptions.

For only 20% of the assessed plans, uncertainty of data is made explicit in the dataset used and, when relevant, the time span of the dataset is made explicit. For less than 10% of the screened RBMPs, the sources of funds to implement the PoMs are specified for each measure separately, and for only 5% of the RBMPs the uncertainty of data is taken into consideration when stating the expected results in the PoMs.

Regarding measures, the 5 most present measures includes: 1) Reduction of groundwater abstraction; 2) Training, education and capacity building in water saving; 3) Studies, research and pilot projects; 4) Reduction of leakages; and 5) Modification of water pricing. Measures to ensure the achievement of the WFD environmental objectives via enhancing the resilience of the ecosystems are included in 45% of the RBMPs. Only a few basins out of the more than 40 RBDs that face water scarcity include restrictions to new water-consuming developments as a high priority in their RBMPs.

Only for 6 RBDs, the influence of other sector policies on the reduction of water scarcity and the mitigation of drought effects is described, and measures are proposed to harmonise those policies with that reduction/mitigation. For more than 55% of the RBMPs, the information is not relevant or unclear, or simply no information has been found. For only 12% of the assessed RBMPs, the pressures on water resources by sector at present and in the future are identified.

Figure 8.17.2: Influence of other sector policies on reduction of water scarcity and droughts as reported in the RBMPs

Source: Commission Staff Working Document Supporting the Review of the Water Scarcity & Droughts Policy

In international basins there is still a major gap to deal with water quantity in a way that reduces conflict risks and contributes to the WFD environmental objectives. Out of the 65 screened national parts of international RBMPs, in more than 60% of the plans the information is not clear, no information found or not relevant and only around 5% of the RBMPs include co-ordinated measures for the entire international RBD.

8.17.3.   Conclusions

· Water scarcity and droughts are recognised in many RBMPs as relevant issues across the EU, but the two phenomena are not well differentiated.

· Water quantity issues are not sufficiently addressed in the RBMPs, the quantitative datasets are incomplete in many plans, and they are insufficient for pro-active planning. Water demand and availability trend scenarios were not identified in most of the plans.

· The majority of measures applied by Member States target pressures, state and impacts and only very few measures target key drivers. The sources of funds to implement the relevant measures are not specified in the majority of the RBMPs.

· Restrictions to new water-consuming developments are envisaged as a high priority in the RBMPs of only a few basins that face water scarcity.

· The influence of other sectoral policies on the reduction of water scarcity and the mitigation of drought effects is not sufficiently addressed.

· In the case transboundary river basins there is still a major gap in dealing with water quantity, very few of the international river basins include co-ordinated measures between the neighbouring countries.

8.17.4.   Recommendations or proposals for improvement in the next planning cycles

· Droughts and water scarcity should be clearly differentiated in the next RBMPs cycle, including DPSIR relations. This is particularly relevant for understanding the (different) causes of water scarcity and for drought and the different measures and their effectiveness. A common understanding of water scarcity and droughts has been reached in the framework of the CIS process. This needs to be fully considered in the next RBMPs[43].

· When and, where needed, a specific Drought Management Plan or sub-plan should be developed taking into consideration the CIS report on Drought Management Plan that serves as guideline for developing such plans. 

· Trend assessments should be completed in the second RBMP cycle and, if needed, trend reversal assessment should also be considered.

· The establishment and enforcement of adequate ecological flows for all water bodies in Europe is essential for dealing efficiently with WS&D issues.

· In drought-prone areas, drought uncertainties and variations (e.g. of the water availability) should be considered in the RBMPs’ baseline and not be interpreted as unexpected natural climate extremes.

· Datasets should be improved, including better forecasting of water availability, use and consumption. Data should also be more transparent, revealing uncertainties, time spans, and sources.

· The PoMs provided in the RBMPs still need to improve significantly in order to develop coherent and effective sets of measures to tackle WS&D. In particular, major efforts should be taken to address drivers and pressures with a coherent and compact package of measures, thus establishing also clearer buy-in from other sectors (agriculture, tourism, energy, etc.). Implementation risks related to funding, social or transboundary conflicts should be better stated, monitoring and control should be put in place. Better measures with specified timing are also required to ensure the environmental objectives of the different water bodies under water scarcity and drought conditions.

· Quantitative and qualitative aspects should be jointly considered when developing the plans and programmes.

· In the case of transboundary water bodies international co-ordination should be improved.

8.18.      Adaptation to climate change

8.18.1.   Introduction

Floods, droughts and water scarcity have already affected large parts of the European Union and have an important impact on socio-economic developments[44]. In the future, climate change will probably increase both the number and magnitude of these hydrological extremes. Further changes in annual river flows are projected. Flows might decrease in many parts of southern and south-eastern Europe and increase in northern and north-eastern Europe. Projections state strong changes in seasonal run-offs with lower flows in the summer and higher flows in the winter. Consequently, droughts and water stress will increase in the summer season. Low water conditions will also have an impact on water quality due to increased water temperature and less possibility for dilution of discharged substances[45]. In order to mitigate these effects, long term investments might be needed. Therefore it is important to consider climate change in water management at an early stage.

The WFD does not explicitly refer to adaptation to climate change. However, when drafting the CIS guidance document No. 24 River Basin Management in a Changing Climate Member States agreed that from the second planning cycle onwards climate-related threats and adaptation planning should be incorporated in their RBMPs. This is reinforced by the fact that almost all the elements which are included in the definition of WFD qualitative and quantitative status are sensitive to climate change and due to the step-by-step cyclical approach are well-suited for adaptation action. The requirements include:

· Assessing direct and indirect (primary and secondary) climate pressures in order to provide information for the pressures analyses.

· Assessing monitoring programmes to ensure early climate impact signal detection.

· Close monitoring of climate impacts in reference sites (sites with limited anthropogenic modification).

· Integration of potential additional pressures, impacts and constraints caused by climate change in the economic analysis of WFD.

· Undertaking a ‘climate check’ of the PoMs by applying a transparent and fully documented methodology.

· Outlining of specific adaptation measures with preference of robust no-regret actions is further recommended.

8.18.2.   How is climate change included in the plans?

Even if the WFD does not explicitly refer to climate change, it is mentioned as being linked to nearly all RBDs (87.5%) in various ways. Only 16 out of 112 RBDs do not mention climate change. 40% (45 out of 112) of the RBMPs dedicate a separate chapter to the topic of adaptation to climate change. In 9 Member States all RBMPs address the issue in a separate chapter and 3 further Member States have addressed the issue in at least part of their RBMPs. Seven Member States have chosen the approach of embedding the climate change and adaptation issues within other relevant chapters, e.g. as a pressure arising from human actions in the threats and pressures assessment, as part of state of water and future trends analyses, or within the discussion on objectives or PoMs. In 14 cases a ‘mix’ of separate chapters and embedding climate change in other chapters was found. It should be noted that the Member States which have not submitted their RBMPs so far are most likely to be significantly impacted by climate change.

69.6% (78 out of 112) RBMPs present future climate change scenarios focusing on temperature and/or precipitation projections. Flooding is the most often cited climate change threat (75 cases), followed by changes in water demand and availability (71 cases), threat of drought (65 cases), as well as impacts on water quality and biodiversity (65 cases) (See Figure 8.18.1 for details).

Figure 8.18.1: Inclusion of climate change risks and pressures in RBMPs (absolute values of RBMPs)

Source: RBMPs

The most comprehensive climate change pressures and risk assessments covering all or most of the potential impact categories are consistently provided in RBMPs by Slovenia, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Germany and the UK.

8.18.3.   Has a climate check of Programme of Measures been carried out or planned?

The ‘climate check’ of the PoMs is supposed to carry out a sensitivity analysis of the proposed measures based on a fully transparent methodology to evaluate long-term effectiveness and cost-efficiency under changing climatic conditions. The results of the climate check should be integrated in other RBMP processes.

A climate check of PoMs has been carried out in 41% of the RBMPs (46 out of 112) and 31 of those also give details on the methodology applied. The methodologies employed for climate checking of the PoMs are predominantly qualitative.

In 17.9% (20 out of 112 RBMPs) the climate check of PoMs had some influence on other steps in the process of developing RBMPs. The indications that exist point to influences on the processes of the choice of measures (17%, 19 RBMPs), definition of the extent and magnitude of measures (10.7%, 12 RBMPs) as well as objective setting (7.2%, 8 RBMPs). Additionally 1 RBMP points out that the climate checking of PoMs has led to identification of future research needs and alterations in monitoring planning.

In spite of these indications it remains unclear in most of the cases how the climate check influenced other steps of the process in practice.

Some Member States have provided a comprehensive climate check of the PoMs of their RBMPs and also clearly outlined the methodology. Nevertheless it is difficult to see how the results influenced other RBMP processes or it is clearly stated that this has not been possible in the first cycle. Some examples of the different considerations can be found in Table 8.19.1.

MS || Method for climate proofing of measures

Finland || Qualitative assessment has been carried out. The check has been carried out in relation to the pressures, risks of flooding and/or droughts. All measures have been assessed regarding climate change: measures that weaken climate change effects, neutral, measures that increase climate change effects. Most of the measures are evaluated having neutral effect and some are supposed to reduce the negative effects, so it seems that no further action was required.

Malta || First a screening of the measures was conducted, guided by the following principles: 1. Measures should be resilient to a wide range of future predicted climate scenarios. 2. The outcome of measures should be beneficial regardless of the eventual nature of climate variability and change to avoid irreversible decisions and investments that may not be cost effective under changing climatic conditions. Afterwards, each measure was assessed against a second set of criteria: a. Does the measure address climate change impacts? b. Does the measure address the predicted changes in pressures due to climate change? 3. Is the measure likely able to cope with a range of future conditions including changes in temperature, precipitation, sea level rise and storm surges? 4. Is the measure flexible in a way that it can be changed in the future? For each criterion the potential outcomes (positive, negative, neutral and uncertain) were assessed. This made an overall classification of each measure as either being win-win, low regret, flexible or regret possible. No new measures have been added, but some should be modified due to the recommendations of the Climate Check. For example with regard to the measure 'Maintenance and management of valleys', the recommendation is as follows: 'It is recommended that any infrastructure related to this measure takes climatic changes into account, particularly the predicted increase in heavy rainfall spells and potential changes in water flow.' The extent to which such recommendations will be implemented cannot be concluded from the documents at this stage, however.

UK || Measures and main actions outlined in the PoM have been screened to check how they will perform under future climate conditions. Each action has been designated an adaptation option of win-win, no regrets, low regrets, flexible adaptation or regrets. Measures have been screened in terms of their performance under changing climate conditions. It is noted that certain existing actions (measures) relating to those pressures may require adaptation to be effective under future climate conditions and that new actions may be required. Most have been identified as no-regret measures. A few have been identified as regret measures but there is no evidence that these measures will not be subsequently implemented. It is stated that the Environment Agency (England and Wales) will not incorporate actions (measures) related climate change in the first cycle.

Ireland || The programme of measures was checked in terms of predicted climate change and impacts on water environment and water dependent habitats and species. Measures were climate-checked rather than climate-proofed because of the level of uncertainty in predicted climate change and its impacts. Each of the identified pressures, their associated measures and their significance in the context of climate change were qualitatively assessed in turn. Pressures were assessed in terms of the relative severity of the effect of climate change on the pressure: very high, high, medium and low. In addition areas which requiring particular attention were identified (e.g. protected areas and high status sites, abstractions, and physical modifications), as the impacts of climate change on these areas are predicted to be very high. Measures were assessed with an indication of potential climate adaptation for each and then categorised as win-win, no-regrets, regrets and adaptation actions. There is no information as to whether these considerations led to changes in selected measures. The plan states that during the period of this plan, preparations will be made for more detailed climate-proofing of actions in the next plan.

Table 8.18.1: Examples of methods for climate checking of measures

Source: Assessor's summary based on the RBMPs

             

8.18.4.   Are there specific climate change adaptation measures planed?

46.4% (52 out of 112 RBMP) of the RBMPs in one way or another address specific adaptation measures to climate change. The methodology, types, scope and coverage of the measures vary greatly: from quoting the development of a national climate policy as an adaptation measure to adding wording ‘consider climate change’ to general measures. Some list specific measures for adaptation or outline measures to be considered in future.

Understandably measures diverge due to the differences in climate change risks faced in different river basins, the state of knowledge and political developments as regards adaptation in each region. 11 of 25 Member States can be considered as actively working on the identification and development of climate change adaptation measures as part of RBMPs.

For example, Sweden is actively working on improved climate change predictions, improved mapping of water abstraction, research on impacts and more monitoring, including groundwater-surface water interactions, revision of water and sanitation plans, establishment of water protection areas. The new data will be used as a basis for consideration of revisions of monitoring programmes, environmental objectives, PoMs and RBMPs.

Another example is Malta where it is planned to i) establish a specific advisory service for the farming community ii) carry out a study related to possible application of treated wastewater iii) develop a nationwide awareness campaign on national water issues iv) raise awareness on value of water and water conservation in primary and secondary schools v) prepare and implement a full information campaign on the good agriculture practices.

8.18.5.   Is the national climate change strategy referenced by the plan?

To date 11 Member States have developed National Adaptation Strategies[46], however, interestingly, the majority of those Member States do not refer to those Strategies in the RBMPs while many other Member States quote various national adaptation initiatives in the RBMPs. Often, this remains at a reference level without real integration of the provisions of national strategies into RBMPs.

There are also good examples, like Hungary, where a National Climate Change Strategy was adopted in 2008 and recommendations of this Strategy related to water management are included in the PoMs of the RBMPs.

8.18.6.   How does the plan address climate change in the next planning cycle?

As already stated earlier, almost all RBMPs already refer to the issue of climate change. Only 26 out of 112 RBMPs (23.2%) outline clearly how they will address the issue in the second and third planning cycles. In 40 out of 112 cases (35.7%) it is unclear, and no information has been provided in the remaining RBMPs. Those RBMPs which present an insight to the next cycle mainly refer to the inclusion of adaptation measures, better monitoring and increased research on the impacts.

8.18.7.   Conclusions

Even if the WFD does not explicitly refer to climate change, it is already included in nearly all RBMPs in various ways, mostly focussing on impacts. This provides a good basis for  more specific considerations that are expected to be included in the second RBMPs. For example climate change could not be considered in the assessment of pressures and impacts and monitoring programmes in the first RBMP cycle, but this expected starting from the second planning cycle.

General measures to adapt to the impacts of climate change were however already considered. A climate check of PoMs has been carried out for 41% RBMPs. In about 18% the climate check of PoMs was reported to influence other steps in the process of developing RBMPs but it remains unclear in most of the cases how this was done in practice.

National adaptation strategies do not seem to be well connected to RBMPs as they are not even referenced in the RBMPs in most of the cases.

Only 23% of the RBMPs outline clearly how they will address climate change in the next planning cycles.

A guidance document on climate change considerations in RBMPs and good practice examples on selected aspects in some Member States already exist and can serve as guidance and learning sources for those Member States that have not yet fully integrated climate change facets in their RBMPs.

8.18.8.   Recommendations

· Almost all the elements, which are included in the definition of WFD qualitative and quantitative status, are sensitive to climate change therefore it is recommended to consider climate change in water management at an early stage. Planning should consider a time period that is longer than the RBMP six-year cycle.

· Use CIS guidance document No. 24 River Basin Management in a Changing Climate as a reference for the activities in the second and third RBMP cycles.

· Member States are requested to demonstrate how climate change is considered in the assessment of pressures and impacts, monitoring programmes and appraisal of measures (climate checking of PoMs) from the second RBMP cycle.

· It can be useful to integrate the potential additional pressures, impacts and constraints caused by climate change in the WFD economic analysis.

· Climate check of PoMs should be further developed, paying attention to clearly and transparently describing the methodology and integrating the results in other processes of RBMP development.

· Better harmonization and integration with national adaptation initiatives is recommended.

· It is recommended to better identify and describe specific adaptation measures.

· Further research and monitoring is needed to reduce uncertainty and enable early detection of climate impacts on European river basins.

· Information exchange on already existing good practice examples should continuously take place among Member States and stakeholders.

             

8.19.      Flood risk management

Although the full requirement to co-ordinate the preparation and implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive[47] will only be applicable from the second cycle of river basin management planning, the first RBMPs included various aspects of flood risk management as a part of their integrated water management. Most aspects have already been referred to above, and this section summarises these findings.

In synergy with the WFD, the Floods Directive (FD) applies equally to inland floods and to coastal floods. Many aspects of the WFD implementation is relevant for the implementation of the FD, such as the monitoring of hydromorphological quality elements, coherence between the objectives of both Directives, and the use of exemptions justified by an over-riding public interest to protect human safety as set out in the WFD. As for the WFD, integrated management at the catchment level is important for flood risk, as well as in international catchments. The units of management for the FD are the RBDs, apart from in two Member States where smaller units of management have been designated following the hydrological boundaries (Italy, Ireland).

In 20 of the 27 Member States, the same Competent Authority is responsible for WFD and for flood risk management. 38 of the 112 RBMPs assessed refer to flood protection in the more detailed sub-plans.

Flood risk management is included in existing international river basin agreements or in on-going work, or will be included in most international river basin co-operation. Several Member States report that the existing international co-operation structures will also be used for international co-ordination of the FD.

Flood risk protection measures are the third most important reason for the designation of heavily modified water bodies after navigation and energy production, with 78% of RBMPs citing such reasons. Figure 8.6.4 furthermore cites the different types of physical modifications, many of which can be used for flood risk management, such as weirs, dams, reservoirs or embankments or land drainage. When describing the significant adverse effects of restoration measures, socio- economic losses as a result of decreased flood protection capacity is often cited. Better environmental options considered also include measures such as relocation of property to other areas to reduce risk from flood.

Hydromorphological pressures from urbanisation, hydropower, navigation as well as flood protection are also some of the main drivers behind the application of exemptions in addition to agriculture.

Article 4(6) provides a specific possibility for temporary deterioration of the status of water bodies, for example in the case of extreme floods that could not necessarily have been foreseen. This has in only been used in 5 RBMPs (Spain, Bulgaria, France and Belgium) but it is expected to be more used a posteriori following RBMPs.

Article 4(7) exemptions due to new modifications of water bodies have not been extensively applied in the first RBMPs. There is a statement that Article 4(7) will be applied for specific projects in only 12 RBMPs (in Slovenia, Poland, France, Romania and the UK. Flood protection (7 cases) is the most common stated cause. In 4 cases it is unclear.

Among the hydromorphological measures proposed, there are measures such as inundation of flood plains (18% of RBMPs), creation of retention basins (12%) remeandering of formerly straight rivers (32%) and restoration of back structures (52%) which can be linked to flood risk management. The key concern with flood protection measures such as bank restoration is the interruption of lateral connectivity.

In RBDs with HMWBs designated due to flood protection (79 out of 112 RBDs), relevant measures proposed to deal with flood protection-related pressures are varying. In ca. 80% of these RBDs, bank restoration is proposed, but only 30% of these RBDs propose inundation of floodplains and less than 20% retention basins.

Figure 8.19.1: Measures related to flood protection (source: 79 RBDs with HMWB due to flood protection.)

Source: WISE

Floods are also an integral part of the considerations of climate change in the first RBMPs.  70% of RBMPs present future climate change scenarios focusing on temperature and/or precipitation projections, and flooding is the most often cited climate change threat (75 RBMPs).

8.19.1.   Conclusions

· Flood risk management is already an integral part of integrated river basin management in the EU, notably in relation to physical modifications of measures. In some cases the flood protection measures are seen as obstacles to ecological restoration to achieve environmental objectives. Flood protection measures are the most common reason for new modifications.

· Floods are natural phenomena that provide important ecosystem functions, and some of the challenge of integrated water and flood management is to retain those functions whilst ensuring lives are saved.

· Floods can also cause pollution (from flooded waste water treatment plants, chemical pollution from point sources, spreading of contaminated sediment etc).

· The impact of climate change on the nature of flooding is feared to become more important in the near future.

8.19.2.   Recommendations

· More efforts are needed to identify and implement flood risk management options that provide win-win solutions for water quality and quantity management as well as flood risk reduction.

· Optimal use needs to be made in the preparation of the second RBMPs of information on areas likely to be inundated, flood hazard and risk maps, consultation on significant water management issues. Co-ordination with the flood maps and the second cycle characterisation is required by the FD.

· The flood risk management plans need to be fully integrated in the next cycle of RBMPs. It is recommended to fully integrate and co-ordinate the consultation and preparation phases for the RBMPs and flood risk management plans (starting at the latest end 2012) to prevent them being prepared as separate plans.

· Finally, although the co-ordination requirements between both Directives are set out in the Floods Directive only, they apply equally to water managers and to flood risk managers. All actors are therefore recommended to make full use of the synergies between the two Directives as soon as possible and to ensure real integrated water management at the river basin scales.

9.           List of Abbreviations

BQE                Biological Quality Element

CIS                  Common Implementation Strategy

E-PRTR           European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register

EQS                 Environmental Quality Standard

GWB               Groundwater Body

IPPC                Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

MS                  Member State

NGO               Non-Governmental Organisation

PoM                Programme of Measures

QE                   Quality Element

RBD                River Basin District

RBMP             River Basin Management Plan

SCG                Strategic Coordination Group

SWB                Surface Water Body

WFD               Water Framework Directive

WISE               Water Information System for Europe

[1]               See Figure 3.2 in EEA/ETC Thematic assessment of Ecological and Chemical status and pressures

[2]               See Figure 3.4 in EEA/ETC Thematic assessment of Ecological and Chemical status and pressures

[3]               Sebastian Birk, Wendy Bonne, Angel Borja, Sandra Brucet, Anne Courrat, Sandra Poikane, Angelo Solimini, Wouter van de Bund, Nikolaos Zampoukas, Daniel Hering, 2012. Three hundred ways to assess Europe’s surface waters: An almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive, Ecological indicators, 18: 31-41.

[4]               http://www.reformrivers.eu

[5]               'Pressures and Measures study' - report for Specific pollutants.

[6]               For further information see EEA State-of-Water 2012 report (see figure 3.2 in the draft report on Ecological status and pressures http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-eionet-freshwater/library/public-section/2012-state-water-thematic-assessments/ecological-and-chemical-status-draft-feb2012

[7]               See figure 3.4 in the EEA/ETC draft report on Ecological status and pressures http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-eionet-freshwater/library/public-section/2012-state-water-thematic-assessments/ecological-and-chemical-status-draft-feb2012

[8]               Intercalibration decision COM/915/2008

[9]               The WFD Committee approved guidelines on how to translate the results of the intercalibration exercise into national types at their meeting in May 2008.

[10] Reference to CIS Technical guidance document on deriving EQS.

[11]http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/guidancesnos4sheavilysmo/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[12]             See overview of provisional identification of HMWB per Member State in the Commission Staff Working Document COM(2007) 128 final SEC(2007) 363 available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2007_0362_en.pdf

[13] http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/gds04shmwbspolicyssummar/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[14]             Some of the Information has been provided by the MS in EU questionnaires on HMWB designation for the CIS HMWB Workshop (12-13 March 2009). See workshop discussion paper at http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_conventio/modified_brussels_12-13&vm=detailed&sb=Title

[15]          Some of the Information has been provided by the MS in EU questionnaires on HMWB designation for the CIS HMWB Workshop (12-13 March 2009). See workshop discussion paper at http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_conventio/modified_brussels_12-13&vm=detailed&sb=Title

[16] Some of the Information has been provided by the MS in EU questionnaires on HMWB designation for the CIS HMWB Workshop (12-13 March 2009). See workshop discussion paper at http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_conventio/modified_brussels_12-13&vm=detailed&sb=Title

[17]             Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive 2003: Guidance Document No. 4. Identification and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies. Produced by Working Group 2.2-HMWB.

[18]             As described in the conclusions of the Workshop on WFD and hydromorphology held in Prague in October 2005, see section 5.3 in http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_conventio/hydromorphology/hydromorphology/_EN_1.0_&a=d and  the conclusions of the Workshop on Heavily Modified Water Bodies held in Brussels in March 2008, see section 2.3 in http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_conventio/modified_brussels_12-13/conclusions_2009pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[19]             Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive 2006: Good Practice in managing the ecological impacts of hydropower schemes; Flood protection works; and works designed to facilitate navigation under the Water Framework Directive. 30 November 2006. Final version.

[20]             Federal State of Bavaria.

[21]             Most German States have used the mitigation-measures approach to define GEP. In most States (e.g. Schleswig-Holstein, North Rhine-Westphalia), the steps of the approach have been followed quite closely but numerical biological values at GEP could not be estimated.

[22] In a few Federal States (e.g. Baden-Württemberg, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania), it is unclear to what extent and which steps of the mitigation-measures approach have been followed.

[23] In few Federal States (e.g. Saarland, Thüringia).

[24] In few Federal States, no specific method was applied and GEP was considered equal to GES for the 1st planning cycle.

[25] Research on the issue of BQE sensitivity to hydromorphological alterations is ongoing. For the purpose of this assessment, the following BQEs have been assumed as most sensitive: rivers (fish, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes), lakes (fish, macrophytes), transitional (fish, angiosperm, macroalgae) and coastal waters (macroinvertebrates, angiosperm, macroalgae).

[26] CIS Guidance Document No. 20: Guidance on exemptions to the environmental objectives

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/documentn20_mars09pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[27]             Unknown status: ES, PT and EL not included because of the lack of RMBPs

[28]             Ecological status: countries that have not reported RBMPs, that have not reported exemptions or that reported high unknown status are not included. 

[29]             Chemical status: More than 40% of the surface water bodies are reported as "unknown chemical status" and for the rest of WBs the assessment is not comparable.

[30]             Numbers do not include FI and SE which have large number of small WB in good status

[31]             Sweden reported all surface water bodies as failing to achieve good chemical status due to pollution by Mercury, and applied an exemption for less stringent objectives under Article 4(5) to all water bodies.

[32]             Ref. to EEA report on pressures and status

[33] Herbke, et al., 2006, Kampa, et al., 2009, Dworak, et al., 2010

[34] Austria, Belgium (the Flemish Region and the coastal waters), Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Spain (one RBD), Finalnd, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, UK

 

[35] NOTE:    Atmospheric deposition of many chemical substances directly to water bodies and indirectly via deposition to watersheds and subsequent input to those water bodies has been conclusively shown to be important in EU and worldwide.

[36] http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/guidance_document_2/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[37] http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_conventio/hydropower_september/issue_paper/issue_paper_finalpdf/_EN_1.0_&a=i

[38]             These central principles are set out in Article 9 in WFD as follow: Member States shall ensure by 2010 that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently, and thereby contribute to the environmental objectives of this Directive, An adequate contribution of the different water uses disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture, to the recovery of the costs of water services based on the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III and taking account of the polluter pays principle. Member States may in so doing have regard to the social environmental and economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the region or regions affected.

[39] extracted from MED Joint Process WFD/EUWI Water Scarcity Drafting Group (2006): Water Scarcity Management in the Context of WFD (2006:109-110)

[40] based on Schmidt, J.J. Benítez & C. Benítez (2012) Document: Working definitions of Water scarcity and Drought. Version 4, and taken note by Water Directors (4 June 2012)

[41] European Commission (2007) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union {SEC(2007) 993} {SEC(2007) 996}/* COM/2007/0414 final */

[42] a full report has been prepared

[43]             Working definitions of Water Scarcity and Drought , CIS EG on WS&D, April 2012

[44] EEA (2010a) Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe An overview of the last decade. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available online: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/mapping-the-impacts-of-natural

[45] Flörke, M.; Wimmer, F.; Laaser, C.; Vidaurre, R.; Tröltzsch, J.; Dworak, T.; Stein, U.; Marinova, N.; Jaspers, F.; Ludwig, F.; Swart, R.; Giupponi, C.; Bosello, F.; Mysiak, J; (2011): Climate Adaptation – modelling water scenarios and sectoral impacts.

[46] According to CLIMATE-ADAPT database: http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu

[47]             Directive 2007/60/EC of 23 October 2007of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of flood risks. OJ L288, 6.11.2007, p.27.

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Malta has a population of 0.4 million and a total surface area greater than 316 km2. Malta is a group of seven islands in the Mediterranean Sea. Only the three largest islands - Malta, Gozo and Comino - are inhabited. The terrain is low and rocky with coastal cliffs.

Malta has identified one river basin district[1]. It is 316 km2 and covers the country’s territory[2].

The Malta RBD does not share catchments with other Member States or with other countries.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance 2.1 Adoption of the RBMPs

In Malta the RBMP is adopted by the Malta Resources Authority and the Malta Environment and Planning Authority.

The Maltese RBMP was adopted in March 2011.

2.2 Key strengths and weaknesses

A strength of Malta’s RBMP is that the document is well-structured, the pressures and impacts are clearly identified and described. Public participation was carried out extensively including the active involvement of the relevant stakeholders.

The measures to be undertaken are described in the RBMP in sufficient level of detail and the costs of the PoM are clearly stated and calculated. The measures included in the PoM were assessed as to their usefulness in tackling climate change ('climate checked') based on a transparent methodology.

A range of weaknesses exist, however. The weakness of monitoring and the status assessment and the justification for the exemptions are particularly worrying.

· Inland surface waters were excluded from the RBMP; no inland surface waters were designated.

· There are no data available to determine the status of the water bodies required by the WFD as the monitoring programme for coastal waters (i.e. the only designated surface water category) was not yet operational when preparing the first RBMP. Therefore GES is established only according to a draft methodology and assessment methods for BQEs and other QEs are described generally or not at all.

· Private groundwater abstractions as a major pressure on GW bodies and GW tables are not monitored adequately.

· "Technical feasibility" is used as a reason to apply exemptions; however, the definition of technical feasibility is insufficient.

· The problem of water scarcity or over-abstraction is not considered a concern in the RBMP, although 4 groundwater bodies (26%) are in poor quantitative status and water abstraction for agriculture is deemed to be a significant pressure in 5 groundwater bodies.

3. Governance 3.1 RBMP Timelines

The date of publication of RBMP is March 2011: this is behind the due dates set, inter alia, in Article 14 of the WFD.

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

There are two competent authorities in Malta, the Maltese Resource Authority (MRA) that is responsible for inland waters including groundwater and the Maltese Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) that is responsible for coastal waters and protected areas. The co-ordination mechanisms that were in place during the preparation of the river basin management plan (RBMP) between the two main competent authorities are unclear as well as any co-ordination with other Ministerial departments.

After the adoption of the RBMP an Interministerial Water Committee was established for co-ordination of the implementation of the plan, but the composition of this Committee was not reported.

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

There is a national approach in Malta in RBM planning.

There is one sub-plan attached to the main document dealing with climate change.

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was carried out in a separate document (Environmental report). It is not clear whether it had any influence on the RBMP.

The Ministry of the Environment adopts the RBMPs with a Decision.  As regards the legal status of the RBMP, it is a planning document and does not have the status of a law. It is adopted by government authorities (the executive) and not the parliament (the legislature). Nevertheless, it originates from a legal obligation and is instrumental to the fulfilment of EU requirements. It is reasonable to state that water policy should be consistent with the RBMP and it could therefore be seen to have some form of legal value that gives it a higher status than that of other acts of the competent authority such as guidelines and decisions. However, the legal effect of the RBMP is not regulated although the RBMP itself states that it has ‘legal value’. It leaves it up to a co-ordinated and integrated approach being adopted in practice by the competent authorities. The relationship between the RBMP (environmental objectives) and other individual decisions is as a rule not regulated. There are no legal provisions that would ensure that timelines for the revision of permits are aligned with the revision of the WCMP. The fact that the relevant authorities and stakeholders involved in the implementation of WCMP and decisions in other sectors such as industrial installations are the same could ensure that these are in line with the environmental objectives in practice. This however is not a sufficient guarantee.

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

Public participation was carried out extensively including the active involvement of the relevant stakeholders.

The public was consulted via internet, media and an international trade fair. The draft RBMP was available through the internet and also sector specific workshops and ad-hoc meetings were held.

The following sectors were involved in the procedure: agriculture, ports/navigation, water suppliers, NGOs, fisheries/aquaculture, local authorities, transport and tourism.

Figure 3.4.1: Sectors involved in public consultation

After the consultation, changes were made regarding some specific measures and the competent authorities committed themselves to take action in the next cycle. As mentioned above, an Interministerial Committee was set up to oversee the implementation of the plan up to 2015.

3.5 Legal issues

In the case Commission vs. Malta (Case C-351/09) the Court ruled against Malta on 22.12.2010 because of a bad application of monitoring networks. Malta did not identify inland surface waters, did not establish a network of monitoring for them and failed to submit a summary report to the Commission. In this ruling, the Court found that even if the Maltese inland surface water bodies are small, there is a need to ensure monitoring.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

Inland surface waters were excluded from the RBMP, no inland surface waters were designated. The designation of water bodies contains coastal waters and groundwater.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

MTMalta || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies, typology of surface waters and reference conditions

Coastal waters are the only designated surface water bodies. The typology of coastal waters has not been checked against biological data. Exposure and depth were used as factors for the typology.

Reference conditions have only been identified for Posidonia, not for any other quality element. It is not clear why the reference sites for Posidonia are not used for other biological quality elements.

Malta has not reported surface water body types except for 4 coastal water body types.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Number || Number || Number || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

MTMalta || 0 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 44 || 15 || 24

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

The plan does not include concrete thresholds or criteria to define significant point sources other than using the UWWTD, IPPC, E-PRTR and expert judgement.

For diffuse sources, only expert judgement has been used.

RBD || No Pressures || Point Source || Diffuse Source || Water Abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River Management || Transitional And Coastal Water Management || Other Morphological Management || Other Pressures

No || % || No || % || No || % || No || % || No || % || No || % || No || % || No || % || No || %

MT Malta || 3 || 33.33 || 5 || 55.56 || 6 || 66.67 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 33.33 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 44.44

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

There is no information provided on economic sectors that create pressures.

4.5 Protected areas

In Malta, 29 protected areas have been designated, according to information provided to WISE. 7 of those protected areas are associated with groundwater bodies.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

MTMalta || 7 || - || 3 || - || - || 9 || - || 1 || 1 || - || 8

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[3]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

No monitoring sites were reported for surface waters as there were no water bodies delineated except for coastal waters where 5 surveillance and 6 operational monitoring sites were reported. 54 monitoring sites were reported for groundwater. Malta has not established monitoring of rivers, lakes and transitional waters in the first RBMP cycle.

RBD || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Quant

MTMalta || 34 || 34 || 21

Total by type of site || 34 || 34 || 21

Total number of monitoring sites[4] || 54

Table 5.1: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

Malta has not established monitoring of rivers, lakes and transitional waters in the first RBMP cycle, these activities started only after the 2010 Court ruling.

The monitoring programme for coastal waters (i.e. the only designated surface water category) was not yet operational when preparing the first RBMP.

In coastal waters it appears that since then phytoplankton, seagrass (Posidonia) and benthic invertebrates are monitored, but only Posidonia is used for the assessment of status. Others are planned to be monitored from 2011 onwards.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

Malta has established surveillance and operational monitoring of groundwater and there is also a specific monitoring programme for drinking water protected areas.

The link on how the parameters selected respond to different pressures is unclear.

No explanation is provided on how the groundwater chemical monitoring programmes are designed to detect trends.

Private groundwater abstraction as a major pressure on groundwater bodies is not monitored adequately.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

Malta has established a specific monitoring programme for drinking water protected areas. In WISE only 2 monitoring stations for bathing water and one for habitats were reported.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

MTMalta || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 15

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas[5].

Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

5 surface water bodies in Malta have been assessed as being at good or better ecological status. 1 surface water body is in poor status regarding ecological status.

RBD || Total No. SWBs || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

MTMalta || 7 || 4 || 57.1 || 1 || 14.3 || 1 || 14.3 || 1 || 14.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total No. SWBs || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

MTMalta || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50 || 1 || 50 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

For all the 9 surface water bodies the chemical status is unknown according to the information reported to WISE.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

MTMalta || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 100

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

MTMalta || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 100

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

Only 2 groundwater bodies have good chemical status while 13 of them (87%) are in poor status.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

MTMalta || 15 || 2 || 13.3 || 13 || 86.7 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

73% of the GWBs are assessed at good quantitative status, but 4 GWBs are in poor status.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

MTMalta || 15 || 11 || 73.3 || 4 || 26.7 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

There is no information about the increase of good status of SWBs between 2009 and 2015 because surface water bodies were not delineated.

2 groundwater bodies were assessed as being of good status in 2009. One more GWB is expected to reach good status by 2015, but 12 of them (80%) will still be in poor status (see the table below)

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

MTMalta || 9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 100 || 9 || 100 || 9 || 100 || 9 || 100 || 22 || 11 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[6]

Water bodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Water bodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Water bodies with unknown/unclassified/not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

MTMalta || 7 || 5 || 71.4 || 6 || 85.7 || 14.3 || 7 || 100 || 7 || 100 || 14.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[7]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

MTMalta || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[8]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

MTMalta || 15 || 2 || 13.3 || 3 || 20.0 || 6.7 || 7 || 46.7 || 11 || 73.3 || 60 || 27 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[9]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

MTMalta || 15 || 11 || 73.3 || 13 || 86.7 || 13.3 || || || || || 13 || 7 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[10]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

MTMalta || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 50 || 50 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[11]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

MTMalta || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[12]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters 7.1 Ecological status assessment methods, their application and ecological status results

There are no data available to determine the status of the water bodies required by the WFD as the monitoring programme for coastal waters (i.e. the only designated surface water category) was not yet operational when preparing the first RBMP. Therefore, good ecological status is established only according to a draft methodology based on the angiosperm Posidonia and assessment methods for BQEs and other QEs are described generally or not at all. This is a weak assessment of the ecological status.

The supporting physico-chemical parameters are not monitored. There are no river basin specific pollutants identified, although some of the significant pressures are likely to produce risks due to pollution by chemicals (e.g. pesticides in agriculture, industrial discharges, anti-fouling practices).

There was no information found on confidence, precision or uncertainty of the results.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

MTMalta || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

7.2 River basin specific pollutants

There was no information found in the RBMP about river basin specific pollutants.

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage of Heavily Modified and Artificial water bodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

Two heavily modified water bodies have been designated in Malta. These are two coastal water bodies that have been designated as HMWB due to impacts from harbours. This designation appears to be based on a screening of pressures and expert judgement.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

Good ecological potential has not been defined due to the delay in the implementation of the monitoring programmes.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters

The assessment of chemical status is not based on monitoring data, but on expert judgement.

The assessment of chemical status only covers coastal waters, in particular two water bodies, and it judges the dilution may be sufficient to disperse most contaminants of concern in the water column to reach concentrations below the required EQS. There appears to be no further justification behind this statement.

The plan classifies these two water bodies as poor chemical status on the basis of the precautionary principle, whereas WISE report indicates unknown status.

In any case there is no quantitative information reported at all and no indication of potential substances causing problems.

It is also unclear whether there has been any assessment of inland surface waters.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

Information on groundwater bodies (GWBs) at risk is provided: 13 GWBs are at risk because of Nitrates, 5 GWBs for seawater intrusion and 6 GWBs because of groundwater abstraction.

The plan seems to contain contradictory information about the relevance of the link between groundwater and surface waters. On the one hand it is stated that there are no surface waters associated to groundwater, but on the other hand groundwater abstraction is identified as a significant driver behind the altered surface water flows. Probably this last statement is linked to Natura 2000 areas that have not been designated as water bodies. There are indeed two groundwater dependent ecosystems identified in the plan, although there is no indication that the status of these were considered in the classification of (chemical and quantitative) status of related groundwater bodies, as required by the WFD.

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

There is contradictory information in the RBMP and in WISE about the number of GWBs in poor quantitative status (2 or 4).

The only criterion considered for determining groundwater quantitative status is that the available resource is not exceeded by the long-term abstraction.

With regard to the balance between recharge and abstraction of groundwater, there are simple figures for inflow and outflow provided for every groundwater body.

There is no indication that groundwater dependent ecosystems were considered in the quantitative status assessment.

Private groundwater abstraction as a major pressure on groundwater bodies is not monitored adequately.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

The establishment of threshold values (TVs) clearly consider the criteria required by GWD: the risks of not meeting WFD objectives and the pollutants listed in Annex II GWD.

Environmental quality objectives used for TV establishment are usage criteria (drinking water and irrigation quality standards) as well as saline intrusions.

Natural background levels of pollutants were considered for sodium, chloride and fluoride.

There are no TV exceedances reported in the 2 GWBs that are in good chemical status.

Trend analysis was carried out regarding nitrate concentration only in two groundwater bodies due to the lack of availability of chemical data in other water bodies. The RBMP states that full analysis of trends in all water groundwater bodies is expected for the second RBMP cycle.

10.3 Protected areas

From the 7 protected areas that are reported in WISE to be linked to GWB, 6 are failing to achieve good status by 2015.

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

MTMalta || 1 || 6 || 0

Table 10.3.1: Status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

An overview of the information for coastal water bodies is provided below. 3 exemptions have been identified.

RBD || Total no. of SWBs || Percent of SWBs at good status || SWB exemptions

Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027 || Art. 4.4 || Art. 4.5 || Art. 4.6 || Art. 4.7

MTMalta || 9 || 6 || 6 || 9 || 9 || 2 || 1 || - || -

Table 11.1: Objectives and exemptions for surface water bodies

Source: WISE

For groundwater bodies Malta’s RBD, 11 exemptions have been identified.

RBD || Total no. of GWBs || Percent of GWBs at good status || GWB exemptions

Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027 || Art. 4.4 || Art. 4.5 || Art. 4.6 || Art. 4.7

MTMalta || 15 || 2 || 2 || 7 || 11 || 9 || 2 || - || -

Table 11.2: Objectives and exemptions for groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

Protected Areas have been identified for drinking water and nature/habitats, but no additional objectives have been set. There is no assessment on whether the WFD objective of good status would be sufficient to achieve the objectives under the legislation that triggered the designation of these areas.

Bathing waters have not been identified as WFD protected areas. The reasons behind this are unclear.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

There is no clear indication of the drivers or impacts causing the application of exemptions Article 4.4 (extension of the deadline for meeting good status) and 4.5 (lower objective).

In total, 3 exemptions have been reported for 9 coastal water bodies in Malta. Exemptions are under Articles 4.4 and 4.5.

No exemptions under Articles 4.6 and 4.7 were reported.

11 exemptions for 15 GWBs were reported.

Under Article 4.4, technical infeasibility is the reason for 2 coastal water exemptions. Under Article 4.5, natural conditions cause the exemption.

The justification of exemptions due to technical feasibility refers to two aspects:

a) the delay in the implementation of monitoring programs that are required to define ecological potential, and

b) the management measures to improve status will be implemented primarily through the issuing of environmental permits for all industrial installations that will require significant investments from industry and whose full implementation will extend beyond 2015.

There is no proper justification of these two reasons.

The justification of exemptions due to natural conditions is related to the relatively long response times of the GW bodies in Malta. This is stated in the plans without further justification.

Article 4.7 for new modifications is not applied. It is unclear if there are indeed no projects foreseen that would likely affect the status of water bodies.

RBD || Global[13]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

MTMalta || 2 || - || - || - || - || 1

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of WFD Article 4. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[14] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with WFD Article 18.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

The measures to be undertaken are described in the RBMP in sufficient level of detail. However, the programme of measures in Malta seems not to be based on the assessment of status, which is largely missing or weak.

The costs of the PoM are clearly stated and calculated. There is no assessment of cost-effectiveness of measures though.

According to the plan the cost of measures will be mostly born by the public national budget. It is stated that the participation of industrial and tourism sectors is very low, measures are projected to cost about 0.009% and 0.05% of the gross value added of the industrial and tourist sectors respectively. This is in strong contradiction with the statements that are used to extend the deadline for the achievement of objectives (see point b in section 11 above). The agriculture sector is not even mentioned as contributor for sharing the costs of measures. The reason behind this approach is unclear.

Most of the supplementary measures are voluntary and there is no justification or explanation on why the Maltese authorities believe the measures will be taken up by the different sectors and be effective in reaching the objectives.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Self-abstraction from groundwater is considered as the major pressure from agriculture. Point source pollution is not considered as significant. No pressures are reported on hydromorphology either.

Measures applied in the RBMP include those for reducing pesticide and fertiliser input and those addressing water saving including water pricing. Erosion due to agriculture is not identified as an issue.

A very accurate zoning of the agricultural measures can be found in WISE.

Malta put in place a very advanced discussion with the farmers when elaborating the RBMP and the Programme of Measures.

It is not clear how these measures will be funded, in particular there is no link made with the Rural Development programmes and especially with the WFD specific funding mechanism under Article 38 of the Rural Development Regulation.

Measures || MTMalta

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices ||

Measures against soil erosion ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü

Technical measures for water saving ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover ||

Co-operative agreements ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || ü

Nutrient trading ||

Fertiliser taxation ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü

Institutional changes ||

Codes of agricultural practice ||

Farm advice and training || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || ü

Certification schemes ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) ||

Specific action plans/programmes || ü

Land use planning ||

Technical standards ||

Specific projects related to agriculture ||

Environmental permitting and licensing ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

Hydromorphological pressures are identified in the RBMP Malta, and consist of:

· dredging and hydromorphological alterations in two harbours (heavily modified water bodies)

· hydromorphological changes or physical modifications of surface water environments brought about by urban development.

However, there is only one measure which explicitly targets hydromorphological pressures: "Develop and implement planning and environmental guidance on major coastal engineering works". This is applied to the 2 coastal HMWB (harbours). The guidance, though, seems to be more oriented towards new developments than to improve the existing situation by taking some mitigation or restoration measures.

In addition, altered flow regimes are seen as a significant impact due to groundwater extraction and urban development, and there are two measures listed to better understand the problem and cope with it ("Carry out a pilot project to promote integrated valley management" and "Establish ecological flows within sub-catchments supporting Natura 2000 sites"); however, there are no guidelines/regulations on the definition of an ecologically based flow regime.

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

Measures to prevent inputs of hazardous substances were not reported, because no pressures deriving from hazardous substances are reported.

Measures to limit inputs of non-hazardous substances tackle nitrate pollution from agricultural pressures.

Quantitative measures have been included in the plans as supplementary measures (no basic quantitative measures were reported, however some of the supplementary measures can be considered as basic measure). They cover regulation of private water supply operators, metering of private groundwater abstraction sources, reduction of losses in the municipal distribution system, increasing the capacity of rainwater runoff storage facilities, pilot projects on water demand management and supply augmentation measures and modelling of the mean sea level aquifer systems.

Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were not considered although two of them were identified.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

There is no assessment of chemical status and no EQS set for river basin specific pollutants, therefore there is little information to base the measures on.

This, despite the fact that the pressures analysis identifies a number of significant pollution sources such as industrial discharges, agriculture, anti-fouling practices and some specific pollutants such as PAHs and heavy metals. Still, the plan contains some generic measures that could help reducing chemical pollution.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

The most important water uses identified in respect to Article 9 in Malta are agriculture, households and industry.

There is a narrow approach to water services. Water supply and waste water treatment in general and self abstraction for retail to third parties are identified as water services. The identification of water services is not precise and it is not clear whether water supply and waste water treatment cover all sectors or not. Other water services are not included e.g. impoundment, storage, self-abstraction and irrigation.

Despite the following statement 'Potable water tariffs are sufficiently disaggregated to ensure adequate contribution to the recovery of costs from the domestic, agricultural and industrial/commercial sectors', it is not clear how an adequate contribution by the different water users to the recovery of the costs of water services is ensured. Contribution to cost recovery is calculated for water distribution (80%), but it is not disaggregated into different water users separately, at least for households, industry and agriculture.

Incentive pricing is in place including metering and volumetric pricing. It is not clear whether incentive pricing is set up for agriculture.

Self-abstraction was not charged until 2010, but it was planned to be charged from 2011. There is no confirmation whether it took place or not.

The RBMP refers to the polluter pays principle in general. However it seems that environmental and resource costs have not been included in the cost recovery calculation.

The RBMP mentions that that there are no cross-subsidies. Government subsidies are taken into account while contribution to cost recovery is calculated.

A wide range of financial costs are included in cost recovery calculation: M&O costs, depreciation, and opportunity costs of capital. Subsidies are considered within the calculation.

Flexibility provision is applied concerning social water tariffs.

There is no information in the RBMP on the application of Article 9(4) of the WFD.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

Although one of the objectives of the RBMP and of the programme of measures is to support the objectives of other relevant Directives in protected areas (Birds, Habitats, Shellfish, Fresh Water Fish or Bathing Water Directives), they do not include any specific measures to reach the more stringent objectives of those Directives.

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts and flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

The problem of water scarcity or over-abstraction is not considered as significant in the RBMP, although 4 groundwater bodies (26%) are in poor quantitative status and water abstraction from agriculture is deemed to be a significant pressure in 5 groundwater bodies.

Although water scarcity is not considered a concern, there are measures in the PoM that can be related to tackling water scarcity although these are not specified as such.

Agriculture is a significant pressure for several water bodies but no measures were found that could be related to improvement of the efficiency of agricultural water uses.

The sources and uncertainty of data are clearly mentioned in the RBMP, but there are no future estimates in the plan of demand and availability.

Droughts are also not seen as significant problems for the time being, however it is stated that they will become relevant in the future.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Risk of floods is not mentioned in Malta RBMP.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

Altogether Malta is a good example of the consideration of climate change in the 1st reporting cycle.

A short chapter and a technical background document deal with adaptation to climate change covering most of the relevant topics (though. water scarcity, for example, is not mentioned).

The measures included in the PoM were assessed as to their usefulness in tackling climate change ('climate checked') based on a transparent methodology, a very detailed system of criteria and classification of each measure (win-win, low regret, flexible or regret possible). As a result of the climate check no new measures have been added, but some have been modified.

Box 1: Methodology of climate check in Malta First a screening of the measures was conducted, guided by the following principles: 1. Measures should be resilient to a wide range of future predicted climate scenarios 2. The outcome of measures should be beneficial regardless of the eventual nature of climate variability and change to avoid irreversible decisions and investments that may not be cost effective under changing climatic conditions. Afterwards, each measure was assessed against a second set of criteria: 1. Does the measure address climate change impacts? 2. Does the measure address the predicted changes in pressures due to climate change? 3. Is the measure likely able to cope with a range of future conditions including changes in temperature, precipitation, sea level rise and storm surges? 4. Is the measure flexible in a way that it can be changed in the future? For each criterion the potential outcomes (positive, negative, neutral and uncertain) were assessed. This made an overall classification of each measure as either being win-win, low regret, flexible or regret possible. No new measures have been added, but some should be modified due to the recommendations of the Climate Check. For example with regard to the measure 'Maintenance and management of valleys', the recommendation is as follows: 'It is recommended that any infrastructure related to this measure takes climatic changes into account, particularly the predicted increase in heavy rainfall spells and potential changes in water flow.' The extent to which such recommendations will be implemented cannot be concluded from the documents at this stage, however.

Decreased groundwater recharge is also mentioned in the context of adaptation to climate change.

A national strategy for climate change adaptation was not developed, this gap is mentioned in the RBMP.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· Inland surface waters should be designated.

· A good monitoring network should be established in order to carry out an appropriate status assessment of surface waters.

· Private groundwater abstraction as a major pressure on groundwater bodies should be adequately monitored.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· Methodologies and assessment methods for BQEs and other QEs should be established for good ecological status.

· River basin specific pollutants will need to be identified, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status.  It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.  

· All the substances listed in the EQSD will need to be monitored in all surface water body categories to allow full assessment of chemical status in relation to the EQS listed in the EQSD. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived. The reporting of chemical status in WISE and the RBMP should be consistent. Trend monitoring in sediment or biota for several substances as specified in EQSD Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.

· While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans.

· It is unclear whether there are new physical modifications planned in RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so the approach to achieve the objectives is clear and the ambition in the PoM is transparent. All the relevant information on basic and supplementary measures should be included in the summary of the PoM to ensure transparency on the planned actions for the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in the WFD.

· The problem of water scarcity and over-abstraction that are significant pressures and cause poor quantitative status should be tackled with appropriate measures.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resources in Malta. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately advised and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

[1]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMP. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMP and WISE.

[2]     European Commission - http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/malta/index_en.htm

[3]     This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[4]     The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[5]     Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[6]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[7]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[8]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[9]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[10]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[11]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[12]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[13] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[14]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin Districts

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE

Bulgaria has a population of 7.6 million[1] and a total surface area greater than 111910 km2. The north of Bulgaria is dominated by the vast lowlands of the Danube and the south by the highlands and elevated plains. In the east, it is bounded by the Black Sea.

Bulgaria has four river basin districts.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || Countries sharing borders

BG1000 || Danube || 47235 || CS, RO

BG2000 || Black Sea || 19004 (terrestrial) / 6358 (marine) || RO, TR

BG3000 || East Aegean || 35230 || EL, TR

BG4000 || West Aegean || 11965 || CS, EL, MK

Table 1.1: Overview of Bulgaria’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[2]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/bg/eu/wfdart13

A number of catchments are shared with other Member States (Romania and Greece) and with third countries (Turkey, Serbia, FYR Macedonia) and there is a varying degree of co-operation with them.

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing borders || Co-ordination category

1 || 3 || 4

km² || % || km² || % || km² || %

Danube || BG1000 || RS, RO || 47235 || 5.8 || || || ||

Rezovska / Mutludere || BG2000 || TR || || || 184 || 24.9 || ||

Veleka || BG2000 || TR || || || 792 || 80 || ||

Mesta-Nestos || BG4000 || EL || || || 2785 || 49.6 || ||

Struma-Strymonas || BG4000 || EL, RS, MK || || || || || 8545 || 47.2

Maritsa-Evros_Meric || BG3000 || EL, TR || || || 35230 || 66.0 || ||

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Bulgaria[3]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance 2.1 Adoption of the RBMPs

In Bulgaria, the river basin management plans were adopted by an order of the Minister of Environment and Water dated 22 March, 2010. The RBMPs were reported to the Commission on 30 March, 2010. Re-submission of several data corrections into the WISE system was made in 2011.

2.2 Key strengths and weaknesses

A common strength for Bulgaria’s RBMPs is that the RBMPs are well structured and they present a good basis for further development in the next planning cycles. Significant efforts were made to secure the participation of the public in the process of development of the RBMP. The Plans as well as the PoMs make a clear statement on the objectives both at RBD and single water body level. The economic analysis of the water use is very detailed and well structured, in compliance with the WATECO guidelines. It has used the available information and at the same time indicates what is still to be done.

However, a range of weaknesses exist:

· There was limited co-ordination in the river basin management between the basin and state level, and between river basin districts. Therefore, common approaches and methodologies have only been partially used in the four RBDs.

· There is a significant gap in the intercalibration and the development of methodologies. There is no fully developed and formally adopted classification system for the assessment of the ecological status.

· Expert judgement is used extensively in the assessment of different aspects in the four RBMPs. In most of the cases this is explained by the lack of methodology or insufficient data collected. Moreover, often there are no criteria to support/justify the expert judgement and if they exist they are different for each of the RBDs, meaning that results are not comparable. At the same time measures to fill in these gaps are rarely provided in the programme of measures. Consequently, it is questionable whether the environmental objectives have been properly established and whether they form a sound basis for taking appropriate measures and if the measures proposed will allow the achievement of the WFD objectives.

· For some of the surface water bodies there is not enough monitoring data relating to biological and chemical elements. This is also a reason for a low confidence in the assessment of their status.

· The assessment of chemical status is not complete as there are no methodologies in place for the analyses of some of the priority substances.

· There international co-operation/co-ordination mechanisms established are not comprehensive.

· The identification of exemptions appears to be incomplete.

· A common approach to ensure adequate incentives for efficient water use, and an adequate contribution from different water users was not in place by 2010.

· The links between the Programmes of Measures, the impacts of human activities and the objectives are not clearly presented in the RBMPs.

It is clear though that Bulgaria is aware of the shortcomings and is extensively working on carrying out studies as regards both the harmonisation of the methodologies used and the collection of the data required as well as to raise the certainty of the assessments.

3. Governance 3.1 RBMP timelines

All RBMPs were reported on 30 March 2010, according to the deadlines established in Article 14 of the WFD. No re-submissions were made. Some additional information was reported to WISE in November 2011.

The following table shows the dates of consultations on the work programme, the significant water management issues (SWMIs), and draft RBMP (from WISE section 1.3.2).

RBD || Timetable || Work programme || Statement on consultation || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Final RBMP

Due dates || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009

BG1000 || || 22/12/2006 || || 28/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 30/03/2010

BG2000 || || 22/12/2006 || || 22/06/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 30/03/2010

BG3000 || || 01/11/2006 || || 22/03/2008 || 22/12/2008 || 30/03/2010

BG4000 || || 18/12/2006 || || 20/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 30/03/2010

Table 3.1.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: WISE

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

The competencies of the competent authorities are divided at national level (responsibilities of Ministry of Environment and Water - MoEW, Water Directorate; Executive Environmental Agency under MoEW) and RBD level (responsibilities shared geographically among 4 RBD Directorates/competent water authorities under MoEW) in compliance with the requirements of Bulgarian Water Law.

The co-ordination between the competent authorities is the responsibility of the competent water authority.

The River Basin Directorates play a key role in the water management. They are in charge of the development and implementation of the RBMPs, as well as all permitting procedures and public involvement in water management.

Water monitoring is organised and implemented by the Executive Agency on Environment and Water.

The stakeholders’ involvement in the water management process, at basin level, is organised through the River Basin Councils. The members of the Council are 20% state administration employees, 30% municipal administration, 30% water users and 20% representatives of non-profit organizations and academia. The establishment of the Councils follows the provisions of the Water Law and the Rules of Procedure which are enacted by an order of the Minister of Environment and Water.

3.3 RBMPs - structure, completeness, legal status

The four RBMPs in Bulgaria follow the general structure recommended by the WFD. The only structural difference is that two of the RBDs have developed a single, integrated RBMP; the other two RBDs have developed also plans on sub-basin level.

'Sub plans' were also established for different economic sectors. There are 'sub plans' produced for different sectors in the 4 RBDs.

There was only a limited national approach during the preparation of the RBMPs. A common approach and methodology has only been used in the following areas: a) part of the economic analysis of water use (demographic forecasts, water use forecasts, an analysis of the recovery of the costs etc.); b) definition of groundwater threshold values; c) determining the ecological status of surface water based on the classification system developed (but the results have been applied to varying degrees in the four RBDs); d) establishment of the chemical status of surface water bodies.

The Plans are complete as far as their structure is concerned; however, there are sometimes gaps and omissions within the structural units.

The RBMPs in Bulgaria are developed and adopted following the requirements of the national Water Law. The RBMPs are approved by the Minister of Environment and Water. According to the 2010 amendments in the Bulgarian Water Law, the second RBMPs are to be approved by the Council of Ministers of Bulgaria with a Governmental decision providing priority financing to the implementation of the measures. The commitment for funding of the PoMs is renewed on a yearly basis by the adoption of the Law on the National Budget.

As regards their legal status, the RBMPs are planning documents. The decision for adoption is a sub-legislative act, and therefore cannot contradict laws. It covers a specific river basin and as such should respect nation-wide planning documents such as the National Environmental Strategy and the National Strategy for management and development of the water sector (both adopted by the National Assembly).

RBMPs should be ‘connected’ to other plans within the scope of the relevant territorial division, including regional development plans, spatial development, forest management, park management and other such plans. Any plan which does not conform to the Water Act and to the RBMPs could be modified in the future by the Council of Ministers on the basis of a proposal from the Minister of Environment and Water. While the term ‘connect’ involves a form of mutual obligation (RBMP should conform to other plans and these should conform to RBMP), the second provision clearly gives precedence to RBMPs as it provides for the possibility to amend other plans which are not in conformity with the RBMPs.

As regards the legal effect, there is a general obligation to take into account (for water body use) and conform (for permits) with the RBMP. The administration, when taking relevant decisions related to water issues, should conform to the RBMPs. There is no specific provision on the binding effect on third parties. However, when permits (for water abstraction and water body use) are issued, these need to take into account the RBMPs. Consequently, there is an indirect binding effect for permit users (incl. industry, agricultural users, etc.). No explicit provision is in place requiring the review of existing permits in line with environmental objectives, nor there is a timing specified.[4]

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is integrated in the RBMPs. SEA has influenced the selection of certain measures. The SEA was, however, applied on the draft RBMP which has changed quite significantly thereafter.

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

Significant efforts were made to secure the participation of the public in the process of development of the RBMP. There was a national approach to the co-ordination of public information on draft RBMP. The approach was also proactive at RBD and local level.

In all RBDs, the draft RBMPs were available via web sites, public meetings were held and interested parties also had the opportunity to submit written comments for 6 months.

The stakeholders and the general public have been approached through the media, internet communications, direct contact with selected groups and organisations, meetings in RBD Directorates’ offices or a number of municipalities within the RBDs.

There were regular meetings held with stakeholders. Sectors involved in all RBDs included: water supply, sanitation, energy, fisheries, NGOs, local/regional authorities. Sectors involved in some RBDs included: agriculture and industry (Danube, Black Sea and East Aegean RBDs), navigation/ports and tourism (Black Sea RBD). Stakeholders that were partially involved included consumers who were involved in the process of public participation through a telephone survey and a poll of random users.

The contacts with the stakeholders groups and the general public resulted in a number of proposals, given as annexes to the RBMPs. The results of the consultation process are clearly indicated as contributing to the development of both the RBMP and PoM.

The changes due to consultation can be seen in the selection and adjustment of measures. Additional information and further research needs are also included.

There was no international co-ordination of public participation.

The River Basin Councils have also had a role to play in the process of contributing and approving each step of the RBMP development, especially after the formulation and reporting of the plans, providing a mechanism to maintain the contacts between the different stakeholders.

3.5 International co-operation and co-ordination

All four RBDs in Bulgaria are part of international RBDs, although the Black Sea RBD was initially not designated as international despite the river basins being shared with Turkey. The Bulgarian authorities have confirmed they will change this designation.

Bulgaria is a member of the International Commission for the Protection of Danube River (ICPDR). However there is very limited information on this international co-operation in the RBMP of the Danube RBD. Some bilateral activities are also on-going for the management of the shared groundwater bodies with Romania.

The Black Sea RBMP does not make any reference to the Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea and the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution and its Protocols.

There is no co-ordination mechanism and formal international agreement in place aiming at development of an international RBMP in the East Aegean and West Aegean RBDs. Links to the planning and other activities in Turkey and Greece in the East Aegean, and with Greece in the West Aegean RBDs, are limited to some data and information exchange based mainly on the Helsinki Convention provisions.

There were no steps taken to co-ordinate with Greece when preparing the RBMPs. The first contact was made after the RBMP reporting in 2010, but no particular action towards joint river basin management planning has been envisaged to date.

Bulgaria has undertaken bilateral meetings in respect of co-ordination with Macedonia and Turkey.

3.6 Integration with other sectors

The Ministry of the Environment and Water is supported by the National Consultative Water Board, where the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, Ministry of Economy, Energy and Tourism, Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ministry of Transport and Communications, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Interior and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences are represented. The functions and responsibilities of all these Ministries, together with the responsibilities of the Municipal Councils and Mayors are described in the Water Law.

The RBMPs comprise a register of all other relevant plans and programmes (municipal plans and programmes, regional strategies, national and sectoral documents and plans and programmes for protected areas). There is no detailed information on the links between the RBMP and the other plans, programmes and strategies listed, nevertheless a clear statement is made that their objectives have been taken into consideration in the development of the RBMPs. Special reference is made to spatial and land use planning, and the plans for management of forest and protected areas.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

Three of Bulgaria's RBMPs (Danube, East Aegean, West Aegean) are landlocked, therefore include only two water categories (rivers and lakes) while the fourth RBMP (Black Sea) includes all four water categories (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters).

Work is on-going on the validation of biological and chemical information for identifying the typologies of transitional waters. Generally, the transitional waters are coastal lakes or estuaries with very high variability of salinity throughout the year.

The coastal waters are delineated in the one-mile coastal zone.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

BG1000 || 22 || 6 || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 9 || 3 || 5 || 6

BG3000 || 10 || 5 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 17 || 4 || 0 || 0

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

Different approaches have been taken regarding the characterisation of the surface water bodies in the different RBDs. There is no national approach adopted.

The typology for surface waters has been developed for rivers, lakes and coastal waters and for transitional waters.

By the time of development of the RBMP, there was no approved national methodology for the analysis and assessment of the biological quality elements (BQEs) in place in Bulgaria. As a result, the compulsory three-year monitoring with a view to defining reference conditions was not implemented. Therefore, in the first RBMP the reference conditions have been specified as potential reference conditions. Currently monitoring of BQEs is carried out in accordance with the methodology based on these potential reference conditions.

The RBMP for the Danube RBD uses a typology based on the non-revised System “B” that is the basis of the latest typology developed at national level. This typology has been reported in 2007 and it is planned to be validated over the period 2010-2015 on the basis of monitoring data.

A revised version of System “B” has been used in the Black Sea and the East Aegean RBDs, partly validated by biological data. The process is still on-going and will be completed during the period of the first RBMP. The biological elements used are fish, macrozoobenthos, macrophytes and phytobenthos for rivers; phytoplankton, macrophytes, macrozoobenthos and fish fauna for lakes.

For the transitional waters in the Black Sea RBD, reference conditions and a classification system have been developed for some quality elements but not for others (e.g. macrozoobenthos in river estuaries). They are not yet validated. In respect of coastal waters the process of specifying and validating the classification system is on-going but has not yet been completed. Biological elements used are phytoplankton, macrozoobenthos, macrophytes and angiosperms.

The typology adopted in the West Aegean RBD is based on the non-revised System “B” and it was practically invalidated by biological data. Since the end of 2001 the revised system has been introduced and the process of validation has been initiated.

The reference conditions for the revised typology system “B” are defined based on direct validation with biological and hydro-morphological data. An inventory of all types has been developed in part of the basin directorates, not including the transitional waters. Whenever problematic waters are dealt with, the benchmark conditions method is applied.

4.3 Delineation of surface water and groundwater bodies

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

BG1000 || 153 || 44 || 13 || 2 || 0 || || 0 || || 50 || 1471

BG2000 || 122 || 49 || 3 || 1 || 15 || 7 || 13 || 110 || 40 || 712

BG3000 || 291 || 36 || 17 || 2 || 0 || || 0 || || 48 || 816

BG4000 || 122 || 19 || 10 || 1 || 0 || || 0 || || 39 || 380

Total || 688 || 37 || 43 || 2 || 15 || 7 || 13 || 110 || 177 || 882

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

Overall, Bulgaria has designated 759 surface water bodies. Of these, 688 are river water bodies.

There is a different approach in considering small water bodies in the 4 RBDs.

No small water bodies have been identified in the Danube RBD. Water bodies of size below the threshold of 10 km2 of catchment area (for rivers) and 0.5 km2 size for lakes have been included as part of contiguous water bodies of the same category and type.

The RBMP for the Black Sea RBD does not contain the concept for small water bodies.

With a view to protecting surface waters used for the abstraction of drinking water, in the East Aegean RBD the water bodies of category ‘rivers’ with catchment area of less than 10 km2 have been identified as ‘drinking water bodies’ if they are used for the abstraction for drinking water. In order to protect water bodies of the category 'lake', small mountain lakes of importance for the respective river basin district were identified and grouped into a larger water body.

In the West Aegean RBD, small mountain lakes of importance for the river basin district have been identified and grouped into a larger water body. For surface water bodies of the category ‘river’ in the West Aegean RBD no small water bodies with catchment area of less than 10 km2 have been identified.

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

There are substantial differences in the approach to determine significant pressures and impacts in the four basin districts, but mostly expert judgement is used.

In the Danube RBD a system of criteria is based on the magnitude of the pollution load (mainly urban and industrial wastewater), type and effectiveness of the water treatment and the availability of permits. The most important sources of pollution are untreated urban waste water, industrial waste waters discharged into lagoons and agricultural activities. For water abstraction a threshold of 150 000 m3 is used (drinking water abstractions not included).

In the Black Sea RBD point sources are assessed as significant when they fail to meet the emission standards. It is reported that there is no methodology for the assessment of the diffuse sources and it has been based on expert judgement. Water abstraction is assessed by the ratio of the abstracted volumes compared to the water flow or water volume of the reservoir; no numeric criteria were reported. There was no data reported on hydromorphological criteria. Specific other pressures considered were bottom trawling and invasive species.

In the East Aegean RBD, point and diffuse sources are assessed as significant when they have influence on the water status and change it. There is a general definition for significance of the point and diffuse sources, the types are similar to those in the previous two RBDs. There are numeric criteria for the assessment of the significance of water abstraction, the used threshold is 150 000 m3. The regulation activities and hydromorphological alterations are described in detail, but no numeric criteria are presented. Specifically the transfer of water among river basins is defined as criterion for significant pressure. Other pressures mentioned are old mines and erosion.

In the West Aegean RBD, a general approach for assessment of the pressures is given; the definition of the significant ones has been made by expert judgement. The water abstraction is assessed as a percentage of the water flow/volume, but no numeric criteria are reported. Hydromorphology is described in detail, but there is no information on how exactly it is used in the definition of significant pressures. A specific other pressure in this RBD is soil erosion.

Navigation and related activities, such as port development, dredging, etc., were not considered in the plan as a water use or pressure. Dredging was assessed as a potential significant pressure for the coastal waters in the Black Sea RBD.

Diffuse sources are a significant pressure for 42% of surface water bodies, and point sources for 35%. Water abstraction is a significant pressure for one fifth of surface water bodies. Almost a fourth of all surface water bodies are not subject to significant pressures. Significant differences are seen across the RBDs: Diffuse source pollution shows the highest percentage in the Black Sea RBD while water abstractions affect a high percentage of surface water bodies in the West Aegean RBD. In the Danube RBD all the pressure categories are significant for a relatively high proportion of water bodies.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

BG1000 || 18 || 10.84 || 75 || 45.18 || 87 || 52.41 || 58 || 34.94 || 72 || 43.37 || 40 || 24.1 || 0 || 0 || 20 || 12.05 || 19 || 11.45

BG2000 || 37 || 24.18 || 48 || 31.37 || 109 || 71.24 || 2 || 1.31 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 1.96

BG3000 || 114 || 37.01 || 108 || 35.06 || 82 || 26.62 || 9 || 2.92 || 14 || 4.55 || 23 || 7.47 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 38 || 12.34

BG4000 || 12 || 9.09 || 31 || 23.48 || 40 || 30.03 || 86 || 65.15 || 1 || 0.76 || 9 || 6.82 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0.76

Total || 181 || 23.85 || 262 || 34.52 || 318 || 41.9 || 155 || 20.42 || 87 || 11.46 || 72 || 9.49 || 0 || 0 || 20 || 2.64 || 61 || 8.04

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

The RBMPs identify a list of economic sectors that contribute significantly to chemical pollution; this includes industrial emissions (direct and indirect discharges), households (including waste water treatment plants), atmospheric deposition and the transport network.

4.5 Protected areas

In Bulgaria, nearly 1000 protected areas have been designated, according to information provided to WISE.

331 of these areas are for drinking water abstraction under Article 7 of the WFD.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

BG1000 || 115 || 1 || 47 || - || - || 110 || - || - || 1 || - || 14

BG2000 || 40 || 89 || 25 || - || 106 || 48 || - || 57 || 2 || 8 || 4

BG3000 || 107 || 3 || 21 || - || - || 48 || - || 45 || 1 || - || 3

BG4000 || 69 || - || 18 || - || - || 25 || - || 1 || - || - || 1

Total || 331 || 93 || 111 || - || 106 || 231 || - || 103 || 4 || 8 || 22

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[5]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The following table indicates the quality elements monitored, as reported to WISE.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

BG1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BG2000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BG3000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BG4000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

BG1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BG2000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BG3000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BG4000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

|| || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

Bulgaria has reported the number of monitoring sites for its RBDs. In total, 527 sites were reported for surface waters, and 605 sites for groundwater.

A higher number of river and groundwater monitoring sites are reported compared to those provided for the European Commission’s 2009 report on monitoring in the EU. The number of lake and coastal water monitoring sites reported has decreased.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

BG1000 || 97 || 59 || 40 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 98 || 22 || 236

BG2000 || 10 || 18 || 9 || 14 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 3 || 57 || 36 || 54

BG3000 || 12 || 74 || 8 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 53 || 63 || 41

BG4000 || 27 || 67 || 5 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 33 || 0 || 35

Total by type of site || 146 || 218 || 62 || 22 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 3 || 241 || 121 || 366

Total number of monitoring sites[6] || 428 || 89 || - || 10 || 605

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE and BG

The selection of monitoring parameters has been based on the different types of pressures and the possible impacts.

The development of the monitoring continued after the finalization of the RBMPs. In 2011 the development of the monitoring system for hydromorphology began. The following new BQEs were introduced as a first step of the monitoring system improvement: phytoplankton in lakes, macrophytes in rivers and lakes, macrozoobenthos in lakes, phytobenthos in rivers, and fish fauna in rivers and lakes. The monitoring of the coastal waters has been assigned to the Institute of Oceanology under the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

Many quality elements are not being monitored. Prior to the preparation of the RBMP, the only data available for rivers was macrozoobenthos and only the biological indicator Chlorophyll-A has been monitored in lakes. For the remaining BQEs, single data and assessments from 2009 have been used.

The development of the monitoring of the biological quality elements is still in progress. Currently phytoplankton is monitored in the Danube RBD and in lakes, whilst fish fauna is monitored in rivers and lakes through an on-going contract with a scientific organisation. Regular sampling has been carried out so far only for Chlorophyll-A, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos in lakes, and phytobenthos in rivers. A decision has been made to exclude some of the quality elements in the littoral zone (macrozoobenthos and macrophytes) in reservoirs with highly variable surface level, and also the fish fauna in the reservoirs, where practically all water bodies of this kind are being used for fish breeding, aquaculture development and sport fishing. The detailed justification is currently under development and is not yet included in the RBMPs. All physicochemical QEs are being monitored. Regarding hydromorphological quality elements, the information is not complete on river continuity, except for the rivers Struma, Maritsa and the rivers in the Black Sea RBD. The development of the national system for monitoring of the hydromorphological elements was initiated in 2011. Eighty four monitoring stations have been selected.

An operational monitoring programme has been established. Expert judgement is widely used to select the relevant BQEs.

Not all priority and other river basin specific pollutants are monitored because of a lack of availability of methodologies for analysis and assessment. Work in this field is currently on-going.

All 4 RBDs in the country should be considered as international ones, but this is not reflected in the RBMPs. As far as the monitoring is concerned, there is a good co-operation for the Danube co-ordinated by the ICPDR and the monitoring in this RBD was designed to serve both national and international information and assessment needs; some reporting also takes place in the Black Sea RBD to the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution. No specific action towards the establishment of international river basins has been taken so far in the river basins shared with Greece and with Turkey.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

A quantitative groundwater monitoring programme has been established based on metering water levels or water flow where appropriate.

A surveillance monitoring programme and an operational monitoring programme have been established for groundwater in all 4 RBDs. The parameters in the operational monitoring programme have been chosen based on an expert judgement and taking into consideration the existing pressures. The groundwater monitoring is reported to be sufficient and used to detect significant and sustained upward trends.

International monitoring activities related to groundwater take place in the Danube RBD within the international Danube river basin and bilaterally with Romania in the North-East part of the region. There is no international co-ordination in respect of transboundary groundwater bodies and monitoring programmes with Greece, Turkey and Macedonia.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

There is a specific programme for monitoring of the drinking water protected areas, both for surface and groundwater.

Bulgaria’s submissions to WISE provide information on the number of monitoring sites associated with protected areas; the number of the monitoring stations by RBD is presented below.

For most of the categories the new data shows an increased number of monitoring stations since the last reporting in 2007.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

BG1000 || 81 || 91* || 0 || 43 || 1 || 83 || 112 || 0 || 218 || 73

BG2000 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 36 || 26 || 17 || 38 || 3 || 67 || 23

BG3000 || 19 || 0 || 3 || 42 || 0 || 110 || 76 || 0 || 119 || 134*

BG4000 || 17 || 2* || 0 || 22 || 0 || 45 || 25 || 0 || 23 || 19

Total || 120 || 93 || 3 || 143 || 27 || 255 || 251 || 3 || 427 || 249

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas[7].

Note: *Number of monitoring sites reported at programme level.

Source: WISE and BG

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

Almost 40% of all surface water bodies in Bulgaria have been assessed as being at good ecological status and nearly 5% are at high status. One fourth of the surface water bodies are in poor or bad status. There are differences across RBDs, the highest proportion of poor and bad status WBs can be found in the Eastern Aegean RBD.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

BG1000 || 111 || 2 || 1.8 || 57 || 51.4 || 35 || 31.5 || 10 || 9.0 || 7 || 6.3 || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 108 || 11 || 10.2 || 48 || 44.4 || 36 || 33.3 || 12 || 11.1 || 1 || 0.9 || 0 || 0

BG3000 || 205 || 15 || 7.3 || 65 || 31.7 || 69 || 33.7 || 32 || 15.6 || 24 || 11.7 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 108 || 5 || 4.6 || 48 || 44.4 || 37 || 34.3 || 11 || 10.2 || 7 || 6.5 || 0 || 0

Total || 532 || 33 || 6.2 || 218 || 41.0 || 177 || 33.3 || 65 || 12.2 || 39 || 7.3 || 0 || 0

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

BG1000 || 55 || 0 || 0.0 || 25 || 45.5 || 18 || 32.7 || 9 || 16.4 || 2 || 3.6 || 1 || 1.8

BG2000 || 45 || 3 || 6.7 || 13 || 28.9 || 15 || 33.3 || 6 || 13.3 || 8 || 17.8 || 0 || 0

BG3000 || 103 || 0 || 0 || 26 || 25.2 || 25 || 24.3 || 28 || 27.2 || 24 || 23.3 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 24 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 45.8 || 7 || 29.2 || 1 || 4.2 || 5 || 20.8 || 0 || 0

Total || 227 || 3 || 1.3 || 75 || 33.0 || 65 || 28.6 || 44 || 19.4 || 39 || 17.2 || 1 || 0.4

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

More than three-quarters of Bulgaria’s surface water bodies are in good chemical status and only 2% are in poor chemical status according to the information reported to WISE.

However, it has to be noted that there are strong differences across the RBDs: three quarter of surface water bodies in the Black Sea RBD and one third of the surface water bodies in the Western Aegean RBD are in unknown status.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

BG1000 || 111 || 109 || 98.2 || 2 || 1.8 || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 108 || 27 || 25.0 || 0 || 0 || 81 || 75.0

BG3000 || 205 || 196 || 95.6 || 8 || 3.9 || 1 || 0.5

BG4000 || 108 || 69 || 63.9 || 0 || 0 || 39 || 36.1

Total || 532 || 401 || 75.4 || 10 || 1.9 || 121 || 22.7

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

BG1000 || 55 || 52 || 94.5 || 2 || 3.6 || 1 || 1.8

BG2000 || 45 || 28 || 62.2 || 0 || 0 || 17 || 37.8

BG3000 || 103 || 92 || 89.3 || 11 || 10.7 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 24 || 23 || 95.8 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 4.2

Total || 227 || 195 || 85.9 || 13 || 5.7 || 19 || 8.4

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

Bulgaria has reported that more than two thirds of its groundwater bodies have good chemical status while 30% of them are in poor status. There are large differences across the RBDs, for example, all groundwater bodies in the Western Aegean RBD are in good status whereas 42% of the groundwater bodies in the Black Sea RBD are in poor status. All groundwater bodies have been assessed.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

BG1000 || 50 || 32 || 64 || 18 || 36 || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 40 || 23 || 57.5 || 17 || 42.5 || 0 || 0

BG3000 || 48 || 29 || 60.4 || 19 || 39.6 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 39 || 39 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 177 || 123 || 69.5 || 54 || 30.5 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

Nearly all groundwater bodies are assessed at good quantitative status according to Bulgaria’s reporting, there are only 7 groundwater bodies in poor status in the Danube RBD out of the total 170 in Bulgaria. All groundwater bodies have been assessed.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

BG1000 || 50 || 43 || 86 || 7 || 14 || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 40 || 40 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG3000 || 48 || 48 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 39 || 39 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 177 || 170 || 96 || 7 || 4 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

In total nearly one third of Bulgaria’s surface water bodies were assessed as being of good status in 2009; according to the information reported to WISE and later corrected by the Bulgarian authorities the number of surface water bodies of good status is expected to increase by 34% in 2015 reaching good status for nearly two third of the surface water bodies. There are differences across the RBDs.

Two thirds of the groundwater bodies were assessed as being of good status in 2009. There is a slight improvement expected in the Black Sea RBD by 2015, but no improvement is expected in the Danube RBD (currently 64% of the groundwater bodies are in good status) and in the Eastern Aegean RBD (60% of groundwater bodies are in good status).

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BG1000 || 166 || 84 || 50.6 || 118 || 71.1 || 20.5 || 146 || 88 || 161 || 97 || 165 || 99.4 || 165 || 99.4 || 27 || 2 || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 153 || 21 || 13.7 || 125 || 81.7 || 68 || 140 || 91.5 || || || 153 || 100 || 153 || 100 || 18 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG3000 || 308 || 103 || 33.4 || 188 || 61 || 27.6 || 298 || 96.8 || 304 || 98.7 || 308 || 100 || 308 || 100 || 39 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 132 || 36 || 27.3 || 71 || 53.8 || 26.5 || || || || || || || || || 17 || 5 || 0 || 3

Total || 759 || 244 || 32.1 || 502 || 66.1 || 34 || || || || || || || || || 28 || 1 || 0 || 1

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[8]

Water bodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Water bodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Water bodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE and BG (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BG1000 || 111 || 59 || 53.2 || 87 || 78.4 || 25.2 || 103 || 92.8 || 111 || 100 || 18.9 || 2.7 || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 108 || 60 || 55.6 || 94 || 25.0 || 32.4 || 101 || 93.5 || 108 || 100 || 14.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG3000 || 205 || 80 || 39.0 || 149 || 96.1 || 33.7 || 198 || 96.6 || 205 || 100 || 27.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 108 || 53 || 49.1 || 84 || 63.9 || 28.7 || || || || || 20.4 || 4.6 || 0 || 3.7

Total || 532 || 252 || 47.4 || 414 || 77.8 || 30.6 || || || || || 21.4 || 1.7 || 0 || 0.8

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[9]

Source: WISE and BG (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BG1000 || 111 || 109 || 98.2 || 109 || 98.2 || 0 || 109 || 98.2 || 111 || 100 || 0.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 108 || 27 || 25.0 || 27 || 25.0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG3000 || 205 || 196 || 95.6 || 197 || 96.1 || 0.5 || 203 || 99 || 205 || 100 || 3.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 108 || 69 || 63.9 || 69 || 63.9 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 532 || 401 || 75.4 || 402 || 75.6 || 0.2 || || || || || 1.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[10]

Source: WISE and BG (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BG1000 || 50 || 32 || 64.0 || 32 || 64.0 || 0 || 32 || 64 || 50 || 100 || 22 || 14 || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 40 || 23 || 57.5 || 25 || 62.5 || 5.0 || 36 || 90 || 40 || 100 || 28 || 3 || 8 || 0

BG3000 || 48 || 29 || 60.4 || 29 || 60.4 || 0 || 29 || 60 || 48 || 100 || 40 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 39 || 39 || 100 || 39 || 100 || 0 || 39 || 100 || 39 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 177 || 123 || 69.5 || 125 || 70.6 || 1.1 || 136 || 76.8 || 177 || 100 || 23 || 5 || 2 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[11]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BG1000 || 50 || 43 || 86.0 || 43 || 86.0 || 0 || 49 || 98 || 50 || 100 || 2 || 12 || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 40 || 40 || 100 || 40 || 100 || 0 || 40 || 100 || 40 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG3000 || 48 || 48 || 100 || 48 || 100 || 0 || 48 || 100 || 48 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 39 || 39 || 100 || 39 || 100 || 0 || 39 || 100 || 39 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 177 || 170 || 96.0 || 170 || 96.0 || 0 || 176 || 99.4 || 177 || 100 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[12]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BG1000 || 55 || 25 || 45.5 || 31 || 56.4 || 10.9 || 44 || 80 || 54 || 98.2 || 41.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 45 || 16 || 35.6 || 33 || 73.3 || 37.8 || 39 || 86.7 || 45 || 100 || 26.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG3000 || 103 || 26 || 25.2 || 43 || 41.7 || 16.5 || 100 || 97.1 || 103 || 100 || 61.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 24 || 11 || 45.8 || 23 || 95.8 || 50.0 || || || || || 4.2 || 4.2 || 0 || 0

Total || 227 || 78 || 34.4 || 130 || 57.3 || 22.9 || || || || || 43.6 || 0.4 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[13]

Source: WISE and BG (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

BG1000 || 55 || 52 || 94.5 || 52 || 94.5 || 0 || || || 54 || 98.2 || 3.6 || 1.8 || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 45 || 28 || 62.2 || 28 || 62.2 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG3000 || 103 || 92 || 89.3 || 92 || 89.3 || 0 || 101 || 98.1 || 103 || 100 || 10.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 24 || 23 || 95.8 || 23 || 95.8 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 227 || 195 || 85.9 || 195 || 85.9 || 0 || || || || || 5.7 || 0.4 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[14]

Source: WISE and BG (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

A national approach for the assessment of the ecological status of surface waters has been developed under a specific technical assistance project, but it is not yet officially adopted. The methodology has been partially applied by two out of the four RBDs during process of development of the RBMPs; most of the work on the ecological status definition was based on an insufficient amount of data, and expert judgement.

The ecological objectives defined are of a very general character, except for the East Aegean RBD. There are no quantitative dimensions nor are there easily measurable and verifiable criteria for monitoring of their achievement.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

The initial assessment was based on the QEs in the table below; the other elements were either not used, or excluded, or taken into consideration by expert judgement.

Water category || Quality elements

Rivers || Macrozoobenthos, physicochemical elements

Lakes || Chlorophyll-A , physicochemical elements

Transitional || -

Coastal || Phytoplankton, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos

Table 7.1.1: QEs used in initial assessment

Source: RBMPs

The biological assessment methods used are able to detect some of the major pressures. The biotic index for rivers is sensitive to organic and general pollution but gives a relatively weak reaction to some of the specific priority substances and the bioaccumulation of heavy metals, and is not suitable for assessment of the hydromorphological parameters. Chlorophyll-A was used in lakes to assess the nutrient load and eutrophication.

The standards for physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements in support of the biological assessment have not been set and the supporting QEs are considered in ecological status classification only by expert judgement.

EQSs have not been set for all relevant river basin specific pollutants and the methodology of Annex V 1.2.6 WFD was not used.

There is a methodology for assessing confidence and precision in the different parts of the classification system for ecological status (only for macroinvertebrates in rivers, physico-chemistry and Chlorophyll-A). The assessment of ecological and chemical status of most of the WBs in the Danube RBD and East Aegean RBD was estimated as being of low confidence. In the West Aegean RBD the results were estimated as being of low confidence, except for rivers, where approximately 60% of the WBs were assessed as medium confidence. No specific results were presented for the Black Sea and East Aegean RBDs.

The RBMPs do not present explicit information on whether or not ecological status assessment methods have been developed for all national surface water body types or whether there are gaps. Currently these methods have been developed for most of the river types. Methods have been developed for some lake types. Problems exist with the reservoirs, some of the alpine lakes and riverine wetlands. Methods for coastal waters also exist. All these methods are expected to be included in a specific regulation that is being developed by the environmental authorities.

With regard to the results of the intercalibration of phase 1 (published in COM Decision 2008), there are very limited cases where a relationship with the Bulgarian assessment system is possible.

Bulgaria has successfully participated in the intercalibration of phase 2 (2008-2011) with phytobenthos in rivers, macroinvertebrates (macrozoobenthos) in rivers (some river types), macrophytes in rivers and lakes (some types), and partially with fish fauna in rivers/lakes, and with macroinvertebrates (macrozoobenthos) in lakes, as well as with BQEs for coastal waters (phytoplankton, marine benthic macrophytes – macroalgae and angiosperms, benthic macroinvertebrates).

The biological quality elements that have not yet been intercalibrated are:

· Phytoplankton (composition, abundance and biomass) in lakes and the Danube River;

· Fish fauna in lakes (composition, abundance and age structure);

· Certain problems with intercalibration of benthic macroinvertebrates (macrozoobenthos) in lakes.

A background document or national/regional guidance document is not yet available.

Currently a new assessment system for rivers and lakes is being developed to be proposed to the authorities. It is expected that it will be enacted by a specific regulation.

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

In the RBMPs for the Danube RBD and the West Aegean RBD only a few BQEs (mostly macrozoobenthos in rivers and Chlorophyll-A in lakes) have been used in ecological status assessment. General physico-chemical parameters have also been used, with some old classification systems (not validated by biological data). For the Black Sea RBD and the East Aegean RBD, all BQEs have been used in ecological status assessment. However, the hydromorphological QEs have been missed from the ecological status assessment, except for some non-validated expert judgements. The Black Sea coastal zone has been covered by all required BQEs (phytoplankton, marine benthic macrophytes – macroalgae and angiosperms, benthic macroinvertebrates) and supporting physico-chemistry. The hydromorphological QEs have not yet been methodologically developed for coastal waters.

After the finalisation of the RBMPs, there were some further developments: ecological status assessment methods were established for rivers (all BQEs, physico-chemical QEs and river basin specific pollutants) and partially for lakes (phytoplankton, macrophytes, physico-chemical QEs and river basin specific pollutants). These are cases where ecological status methods have been developed but not fully applied yet. The fish fauna and benthic macroinvertebrate fauna (macrozoobenthos) in lakes have not been used in ecological status assessment of surveillance monitoring sites. Such assessment methods are under preparation and testing. The ecological status assessment methods of hydromorphological QEs are not yet developed.

The substances which are supposed to cause failure of ecological status are dissolved inorganic nitrogen and heavy metals (Cd, Pb, Ni) especially in East Aegean RBD. Zn and Cu concentrations in the Black Sea RBD as well as the river basin specific pollutants in surface water of category 'lake' in the West Aegean RBD were assessed after the approval of the RBMPs.

Currently a proposal for EQSs for the river basin specific substances has been prepared by complying with the requirements of the procedure set out in Annex V Section 1.2.6 WFD. These standards have yet to be validated.

In general, the most sensitive biological quality elements for ecological status assessment were not selected for operational monitoring sites. In many cases BQEs for which assessment methods are available have all been included in operational monitoring programmes to assess the general trends or any changes in the status of such bodies resulting from the programmes of measures.

The existing pressures are not being sufficiently detected, particularly where complex pressure factors exist, e. g. combined pollution from diffuse and point sources, or combined pressures by pollution and hydromorphological alterations.

The information on confidence and precision or uncertainty has not yet been provided for the ecological status. With regard to the operational monitoring, it is not clear whether the selected monitoring sites are geographically representative, how severe is the impact etc.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

BG1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

BG2000 || - || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BG3000 || - || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

BG4000 || - || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Table 7.2.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs and BG

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage of Heavily Modified and Artificial water bodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

The number of HMWBs and AWBs in Bulgaria is reported in WISE and given in the table below. 24% of the surface water bodies in Bulgaria has been designated as HMWBs or AWBs.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

BG1000 || 42 || 13 || - || -

BG2000 || 32 || 3 || 10 || 0

BG3000 || 89 || 14 || - || -

BG4000 || 18 || 6 || - || -

Total || 181 || 44 || 10 || 0

Table 8.1.1: Number of HMWBs and AWBs

Source: WISE and BG

There is general information on the methodology given in the RBMPs where the water uses of the heavily modified water bodies in the respective RBDs are given. These water uses are water abstraction and storage for drinking water supply and power generation as well as water regulation. The most frequent physical modifications are dams, reservoirs, dredging, channelization/straightening, bank reinforcement, river bed corrections. Both numeric criteria and expert judgement were used. In the information presented in the RBMPs there is no direct link to these uses and modifications at WB level. The methodology used is presented in the RBMPs in a very simplified way and it is reported to follow the stepwise approach of the CIS Guidance nº4 until step 6. Step 7 was followed only in Black Sea and East Aegean RBD, and step 8 only in Black Sea RBD.

The uncertainty in relation to the designation of HMWB is not mentioned in the RBMPs. Indirectly, the lack of sufficient data for hydromorphological elements, together with certain problems with the hydromorphological monitoring as a whole, are mentioned. Currently the situation is improving by the commencement of the hydromorphogical monitoring in three out of the four RBDs in 2011.

In the Danube and West Aegean RBDs the significant adverse effects of restoration measures have not been defined for every water body. In the Black Sea and East Aegean RBDs, the approached is based on expert judgement.

In the Danube and West Aegean RBDs no alternatives for achieving the beneficial objectives by other means have been analysed (a significantly better environmental option, technical feasibility and disproportionate costs). In the Black Sea and East Aegean RBDs, the approached is based on expert judgement.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

GEP has been defined for all RBDs in Bulgaria. The approach used is similar to the reference-based method but it is not fully harmonised in all RBDs in Bulgaria therefore the results are not always comparable and consistent.

By the time of development of the RBMP there was not enough hydromorphological monitoring data and hydromorphological monitoring was not carried out therefore expert judgement was used in all RBDs.

The same methodology is used for ecological status and GEP i.e. there is no difference between natural and heavily modified water bodies. For lakes (reservoirs) GEP has been defined based on Chlorophyll-A and transparency, but it is questionable how this relates to the hydromorphological alterations. Some mitigation measures are planned for all RBDs, but for the Danube and the West Aegean RBDs the ecological benefits have not been assessed.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

Bulgaria has reported assessment results for HMWBs and AWBs, but their confidence is generally low. The reliability is expected to improve after the introduction of the first hydromorphological monitoring data in 2012 and the planned approval of the assessment methodologies for more BQEs.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters

No national methodology for assessing the chemical status has been adopted at the RBD level. The methodology for assessing chemical status at the RBD level has been described in each RBMP.

Generally, it was declared that all standards of the Directive 2008/105/EC have been used to assess the pressure within the RBDs. EQSs pursuant to Directive 2008/105/EC have been applied for those priority substances, for which there were results from monitoring. More stringent EQSs for water have not been applied.

In some RBMPs, only the sampling frequencies are given. At least six of the 33 priority substances have not been monitored in any of the RBDs because of the lack of analytical methods and reference materials in Bulgaria.

All EQSs of the Directive 2008/105/EC have been directly transposed in the national water legislation. The standards which are used match those listed in Annex I of the EQSD.

Standards and a programme for monitoring sediments and biota has not been developed or applied. The background concentrations and bioavailability factors have not been considered in the chemical status assessment.

Mixing zones have not been used in the RBMPs, technical guidelines on their identification were published in 2010.

The RBMPs provided information on substances causing failures to achieve good chemical status in only two of the RBDs: BG1000 and BG3000.

RBD || CAS Number || Name of substances || Number of water bodies failing good chemical status || % of water bodies failing good chemical status

BG1000 || 7439-92-1 || Lead || 4 || 3.25

7439-97-6 || Mercury || 1 || 0.81

7440-02-0 || Nickel and its compounds || 1 || 0.81

BG3000 || 7439-92-1 || Lead || 10 || 3.25

7440-43-9 || Cadmium and its compounds || 4 || 1.3

7440-02-0 || Nickel and its compounds || 7 || 2.27

Table 9.1: Substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status

Source: RBMPs

10. Assessment of groundwater status 10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

The assessment of the quantitative status of the groundwater bodies follows a national approach, based on the objective that the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long term annual average rate of abstraction.

The needs of the terrestrial groundwater dependent ecosystems have not been considered in the assessment of the quantitative status. There is not enough information on the links to the associated surface water bodies.

The intrusion of saline waters is also taken into consideration in the coastal area in the Black Sea RBD.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

The assessment of the chemical status of the groundwater bodies was carried out by water body using conceptual models of the hydrogeological systems/aquifers and analyses of the data on the chemical parameters of the groundwater bodies.

The assessment of the chemical status is carried out in single monitoring sites for different pollutants. If one or more pollutants exceed the threshold values, poor status is determined. If there is not enough confidence in the results, some pollutants might be excluded from the assessment. The general assessment of the groundwater bodies is made through a comparison of the relevant values and the threshold values (TVs). In most of the cases TVs are calculated based on the drinking water standards.

There is a general statement that all substances of Annex II Part B of the GWD have been taken into account. The methodology for the establishment of threshold values is described in detail in the RBMPs; Directive 2006/118/EC and the CIS Guidance Document No. 18 have been taken into consideration when establishing the methodology.

Background levels have been reported to be considered in the assessment. The groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems are reported to be considered in the assessment of chemical status in the Danube and the East Aegean RBDs, but not in the Black Sea and West Aegean RBDs.

Trend assessments have been performed in the Danube and Black Sea RBDs, the information is unclear in the East Aegean and the West Aegean RBDs. Trend reversals seem not to have been performed yet.

Transboundary groundwater bodies have been identified with Serbia and Romania. No information was provided on the co-ordination of TVs in transboundary groundwater bodies.

10.3 Protected areas

The main sources of risk of not achieving good status are associated with diffuse pollution: inappropriate agricultural practices, old landfills and also untreated wastewaters.

Bulgaria reported information in WISE on the status of groundwater drinking water protected areas, more than two thirds of them are reported to be in good status.

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

BG1000 || 31 || 18 || 0

BG2000 || 17 || 15 || 0

BG3000 || 29 || 19 || 0

BG4000 || 32 || 0 || 0

Total || 109 || 52 || 0

Table 10.3.1: Status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

The percentage of surface and groundwater bodies in Bulgaria that will meet the criteria for good or higher status by RBD and planning cycle is presented in the following tables as well as the percentage of the exemptions applied. According to the reporting, all water bodies would reach good status by 2027.

RBD || Total no. of SWBs || Percent of SWBs at good ecological status || Percent of SWBs at good chemical status

Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027 || Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027

BG1000 || 166 || 44% || 72% || 89% || 100% || 98% || 98% || 98% || 100%

BG2000 || 153 || 49% || 82% || 92% || 100% || 36% || 100% || 100% || 100%

BG3000 || 308 || 33% || 61% || 97% || 100% || 94% || 95% || 99% || 100%

BG4000 || 132 || 49% || 82% || 100% || 100% || 100% || 70% || 100% || 100%

Table 11.1: Objectives for surface water bodies

Source: WISE and BG

RBD || SWB exemptions (percent of all SWBs)

Art. 4.4 || Art. 4.5 || Art. 4.6 || Art. 4.7

BG1000 || 27% || 1.8% || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 18% || 0 || 0 || 0

BG3000 || 39% || 0 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 19% || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 11.2: Exemptions for surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total no. of GWBs || Percent of GWBs at good quantitative status || Percent of GWBs at good chemical status

Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027 || Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027

BG1000 || 50 || 86% || 98% || 100% || 100% || 64% || 90% || 100% || 100%

BG2000 || 40 || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% || 58% || 63% || 90% || 100%

BG3000 || 48 || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% || 60% || 60% || 60% || 100%

BG4000 || 39 || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100% || 100%

Table 11.3: Objectives for groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || GWB exemptions (percent of all GWBs)

Art. 4.4 || Art. 4.5 || Art. 4.6 || Art. 4.7

BG1000 || 24% || 22% || 0 || 0

BG2000 || 28% || 3% || 8% || 0

BG3000 || 40% || 0 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 11.4: Exemptions for groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

The environmental objectives and justification of the exemptions are given for each groundwater body (chemical status) and for each surface water body (ecological and chemical status) where impacts and drivers are described. A comprehensive analysis of the drivers causing the application of exemptions is provided.

The application of exemptions Article 4.4 (later deadline) and 4.5 (lower objective) was not carried out for transboundary groundwater bodies.

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

Additional objectives have been defined for protected areas for drinking water, bathing water and Natura 2000, but their application varies across the RBDs. No additional objectives were established for shellfish.

No additional objectives were defined in the Danube and Black Sea RBDs.

For the East Aegean and West Aegean RBD, individual additional objectives have been identified for each protected area, as well as the year by which they are expected to be implemented. In the East Aegean RBD such objectives have been identified both for the drinking water protected areas, for the bathing water areas and for the Nature 2000 areas. In order to achieve the specific objectives the Programme of Measures contains specific measures corresponding to the requirements for the respective protected area specified by water body.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

Most of the exemptions in Bulgaria are applied under Article 4(4) (extension of the deadline for meeting good status) and only a few under Article 4(5) (lower objective).

Most exemptions relate to technical infeasibility and natural conditions.

Applying the argument of technical feasibility is based on expert judgement and justification is only given in the Eastern Aegean RBD.

The approach to the application of the exemption of natural conditions (i.e. ecological recovery time) is varied across RBDs: it is used for 44 surface water bodies in the Danube RBD whereas natural conditions are only applied to groundwater bodies in the East Aegean RBD.

The unavailability of a technical solution is one of the reasons to formulate exemptions, basically when good potential is to be achieved in HMWBs or AWBs within the "lake" category where intensive fish farming is taking place.

Another reason for the exemptions is that in some problematic areas a long application period for certain measures is required. It is envisaged that investigative monitoring programmes will start for these water bodies. This is related to the cases of poor status of the biological quality elements where there is high concentration of chemical pollution and the source of the pollution is unknown.

The justification of disproportionate cost is used in some WBs of the Black Sea RBD. When assessing disproportionate costs, the methodology is based on the comparison of the overall costs for the PoM to the estimated funding, including the expected income from water services. Basic measures are not excluded from the calculations. Because of the lack of criteria and indicators for cost-effectiveness of the measures adopted at national level, no cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken (reflecting indirect costs and incidental expenses). Disproportionately high costs have been estimated on the basis of expert judgement, by comparing the costs for the execution of the measure with the costs for other similar measures and evaluating the benefits for society (i.e. the expected social implications), as well as the length of execution, without carrying out a detailed, reasoned analysis with the necessary comparative calculations.

RBD || Global[15]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

BG1000 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 44 || 0

BG2000 || 6 || 0 || 7 || 0 || 27 || 0

BG3000 || 121 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

BG4000 || 23 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 150 || 11 || 7 || 0 || 71 || 0

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

Article 4(6) is referred to for 3 groundwater bodies in the Black Sea RBD. As a result of natural causes, sea water intrusion and unprotected and highly permeable upper layers are identified. Due to the lack of sufficient data this is assumed to be temporary. However, Article 4.6 should be used for a temporary deterioration only in case of unforeseen events, which does not seem to be the case in these 3 groundwater bodies. Also strict conditions should be followed when applying this exemption, but there is no information on specific conditions in the RBMP.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

According to the information received from the Bulgarian authorities there are new modifications planned in every RBD. Some of them were not foreseeable at the time when the RBMPs were prepared; some others are planned for the second cycle. For the ones that were known at the time of RBMP preparation it seems that the exemption of Article 4(4) was used instead of the exemption under Article 4(7).

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

The exemptions concern polluted waters, as a result of historic human activities and require more detailed investigation on the spreading of pollution in the aquifers. There is very limited information provided on the reasons for these exemptions; for most of the groundwater bodies natural reasons are indicated to be the cause. Typical pollutants are nitrates, sulphates, iron, manganese and sodium.

No information is reported on the exemptions applied in drinking water protected areas.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[16] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

All of the RBMPs include a Programme of Measures (PoM).

There is no national approach as regards the PoMs for surface waters and groundwater. Moreover, in most cases there is only an indirect link between the measures taken and the pressures they are supposed to respond to, but it is not clearly indicated in all RBMPs. The measures are mainly targeted to the sectors, but not to the substances responsible for the pollution. No analysis of the expected ecological effect is presented therefore there is no indication of uncertainties in the effects of the measures taken.

The definition of the measures varies across RBDs in Bulgaria. The approach taken in the Danube basin is based on the legal grounds: the measures are structured based on the need to meet the requirements of the EU Directives and the national legislation. The PoM for the Black Sea RBD is based both on the legal instruments and some groups of pressures while in the other two RBDs the measures are designed entirely to respond to the pressures identified. In all RBMPs there are annexes presenting information on the measures attributed to every single water body together with data on its status and water body specific objectives.

Measures could be implemented at RBD, sub-basin and WB level. Most often they are defined at basin level. The responsibility of their implementation is shared between the national, regional and municipal authorities, enterprises and professional groups. The responsible bodies are identified in the RBMPs on measure-by-measure basis.

Costs are defined for some groups of measures at basin level. Funding sources are identified for all measures. These are the national and municipal budgets via some national programmes as the one for construction of WWTPs in agglomerations of more than 2000 population equivalent, improvement of the water cycle and water utilities in the regions, for good agricultural practices etc. The funding includes EU funds through the Operational Programmes 'Environment' and 'Regional Development Fund'. The RBMPs are approved by the Minister of Environment and Water. The commitment for funding of the PoMs is renewed on a yearly basis by the adoption of the Law on the National Budget.

The timing of the PoMs is frequently presented by planning cycles, and usually the deadline is 2015 so that it is not quite clear whether all measures will be operational by the end of 2012.

No international co-ordination mechanisms exist except for the joint activities in the Danube basin under the ICPDR, to some extent the Black Sea Commission (the Black Sea RBMP makes no reference to it) and some bilateral activities that started after the approval of the RBMPs.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

According to the RBMP, agriculture is identified as a source of significant pressures in three RBDs in Bulgaria (the exception is the West Aegean RBD), both for surface and groundwater:

· On the water quality: nitrogen and phosphorus from diffuse sources, eutrophication, pesticides from point and diffuse sources.

· On water quantity: over-abstraction from surface water bodies.

· On the hydromorphology: significant impact of engineering activities (bank reinforcement, dams, flow regulation, weirs, drainage systems), significant soil erosion.

It has to be noted that monitoring data on phosphorus and nitrogen are lacking in many cases and the significance of pollutants is defined based on expert judgement. This makes it extremely difficult to correctly identify all agricultural pressures, and consequently the appropriate measures.

Farmers have been identified as a target group during the consultation process for the development of the Black Sea and East Aegean RBMPs. The plans provide evidence for the involvement of all relevant stakeholders’ groups in the discussions and presentation of proposals. The Danube RBD consultations were organized on a geographical basis, but farmers could take part in the consultations. The farmers were not identified as stakeholders in the West Aegean RBD because agriculture is not a significant pressure there.

The scope of the measures to address the pressures varies depending on the measure type and might be RBD-wide, WB-specific or sector specific.

The Programmes of Measures identify a broad range of measures to address pressures arising from agriculture but the measures applied significantly vary across RBDs.

There is only partial information on how and when these agricultural measures will be implemented. The information on the timing is limited in most of the cases to the respective planning cycle.

There is very limited information on the funding resources and the costs associated to part of the measures. A general description of the main funding sources for the PoM is given, but no specific information can be found on the measures related to agriculture. The only exception concerns the measures for introduction of good agricultural practices (most of all training) which will be supported with the Rural Development programme.

The RBMPs do not mention mechanisms to follow up the implementation of the agricultural measures.

Measures || BG1000 || BG2000 || BG3000 || BG4000

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || || ü || || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || || ü || ü ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || ü || ü || ü

Measures against soil erosion || ü || || ü || ü

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü || || ü || ü

Technical measures for water saving || ü || ü || ü || ü

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || ü || || ü

Nutrient trading || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || || || || ü

Institutional changes || || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || || || || ü

Farm advice and training || ü || ü || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü || ü || ü || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || ü || ü || ü ||

Certification schemes || || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || || || ||

Land use planning || || || ||

Technical standards || || || ||

Specific projects related to agriculture || || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || || || ü ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

All the Bulgarian RBMPs include measures related to hydromorphology, but the 4 RBMPs each take a different approach.

In the Danube region the plan provides a comprehensive analysis of the issue; a lot of information on the hydromorphological alterations is given in the Black Sea plan, but without presenting criteria for the assessment of the significance of the pressures. In the East and West Aegean RBMPs there is information on the water uses when describing the reasons for heavily modified water bodies, but these uses are not directly linked to pressures.

The water uses considered are navigation, irrigation, hydropower production, flood protection, fish breeding, drinking water supply, urban development and recreation. At the same time there are measures in the PoM that are clearly related to water flow regulations and morphological alterations of the surface water bodies, but the links between the water use, the hydromorphological pressure and the concrete measure are not considered and analysed. No assessment of the expected effects has been carried out, but an approach for the assessment of effects is included into the Eastern Aegean RBMP.

Measures are also envisaged for the HMWBs; they are listed by water bodies in the PoM.

Measures for achieving an ecologically based flow regime are taken under an order of the Minister of Environment and Water that establishes an ecological minimum flow in the rivers. In the East Aegean RBD the environmental minimum flow is determined for water bodies in protected areas in relation to the provision of the necessary amount of water for biodiversity. Guidance for the hydromorphological monitoring has been developed recently, but is not yet adopted. An assessment methodology is still missing.

Measures || BG1000 || BG2000 || BG3000 || BG4000

Fish ladders || ü || ü || ü || ü

Bypass channels || ü || || ü || ü

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || || ü ||

Sediment/debris management || ü || || ü || ü

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || ü || || ü ||

Lowering of river banks || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü || || ü || ü

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ü || ü || ü || ü

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || || ü ||

Inundation of floodplains || ü || ü || ||

Construction of retention basins || || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || ü || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || ü || || ü ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || ü || || ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

Different groundwater measures are used in the different RBDs in Bulgaria (no national approach). Basic and supplementary measures are listed for both chemical and quantitative status in all RBDs, but they are different everywhere (also the level of detail is different).

The basic measures in terms of quantitative status are related to restrictions of water use and the review and updating of the permits issued, and the introduction of water saving practices predominantly in agriculture. There are also a large number of water abstractions for individual use (daily volume less than 10 m3) which, according to the national legislation, is under the registration procedure. Currently, it is agreed that they do not present a significant pressure on the groundwater bodies' quantitative status.

The supplementary measures identified by the RBMPs are related to: the control of the permit compliance, the recharge of the groundwater bodies, keeping a register of the water abstraction facilities for groundwater, the permitting regime for use, water uses prioritised by objectives, control mechanisms, sanctions and fines for non-compliance, the development of hydrogeological numerical models for the most used groundwater body, additional studies on the interactions between the surface and groundwater, reducing the amounts of sulphates, research on the impact of mining activity in soils, groundwater and distribution of heavy metals, the collection and mapping of information for leakage of mining water, and the promotion of organic farming.

The needs of the groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were considered when designing the PoM. The PoM refers to measures related to groundwater within protected areas under the Birds and the Habitats Directives.

In terms of chemical status, measures are applied to: decrease pollution from point and diffuse sources; for WWTP and sewerage construction and upgrades; to establish safeguard zones; and permit compliance procedures. Significant pollution is caused by leakages of the sewerage systems and old storages of pesticides.

The selection of measures is related to limiting the input of pollutants into groundwater from household, industrial or agricultural sources. In cases where pollution has been established but the source has not been identified, investigation is planned in view of discovering the source of pollutants and their effects.

There are measures in the PoM of relevance to the prevention of inputs into groundwater of hazardous substances from diffuse or point sources except for the Black Sea RBD. These measures are: control on the application of fertilizers and pesticides; introduction of good agricultural practices; periodic review and update of the wastewater discharge permits to regulate point-source pollution; and compliance control for the integrated permits. These measures will also contribute to the limitation of the inputs of non-hazardous substances. 

The measures in the PoM are associated with concrete water bodies and take into consideration their chemical status. The information is also identified by its geographical scope. Measures are also taken in groundwater bodies in good status where exceedance of the threshold values has been observed (local and temporary exceedances of the quality standards for nitrates, ammonium, sulphates in less than 30% of the groundwater bodies).

The RBMPs present clear evidence that international RBDs have not been established and there has been no co-ordination with the neighbouring countries on the development of the RBMPs. This is expected to be done in the future; currently attention is given to the monitoring stations in the boundary region and information exchange. An exception is the co-operation with Romania on the management of a shared groundwater body in the Dobrudzha region (Danube RBD).

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

The inventory of sources of chemical pollution includes priority substances and certain other pollutants, non-priority specific substances, deoxygenating substances, and nutrients. These groups of pollutants have been widely used in the pressures assessment. The significant sources of pressure identified are: WWTPs in urban areas; industrial sources not fitting into the specific effluent limits; rivers with significant input of pollutants to the coastal waters; small settlements without sewerage systems; and landfills not meeting the EU standards.

The measures related to chemical pollution from industry are mainly in the field of re-construction and/or upgrade of the treatment facilities and improvement of the maintenance and control, the study and mapping of different types of pollution, and the assessment of the impact of airborne pollution. For the urban areas the measures include wastewater collection and transportation, the re-construction and upgrade of WWTP and resolving the problems related to the solid waste, including closing of old or non-compliant landfills and resolving the problems coming from illegal waste dumping in river beds and reservoirs.

The measures provided to reduce/phase out the emissions including priority substances and specific substances are formulated in a very general way and never make reference to a concrete pollutant except for nitrogen and phosphorus. The measures relevant are the development of integrated permits for construction of new or the operation of existing industrial installations, the review and updating of the permits, including modification of the effluent limits applied and introduction of new ones whenever appropriate, the regulation of the emission standards for hazardous substances, discharge permits and their review, and modification, monitoring and self-monitoring programmes.

Plans make reference to the national legislation, namely the Water Law, providing for the termination of the discharge of hazardous substances and development programmes to phase out the discharge of priority substances into the water environment.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

In the RBMPs a general, broad definition of the water services is used, which is based on the Bulgarian Water Law: "Water services are all services to provide water for the households, public institutions, and any economic activity by water abstraction, accumulation, collection in reservoirs, treatment and supply of surface or groundwater, as well as the collection, transportation and treatment by treatment facilities of the wastewater, with subsequent discharge into surface water bodies".

For the purposes of the economic analysis, the definition of water services covers services related to water supply, wastewater treatment and discharge, irrigation, energy and tourism in the following sectors: industry (including hydro-energy), households, agriculture and services (including tourism). However for the purpose of the cost recovery calculation the definition of water services is limited to water supply and waste water treatment only.

The RBMPs include analyses of the significant water uses.

The contribution of the different water uses to the recovery of the costs for water services is calculated based on an economic analysis according to Annex III and with partial consideration of the polluter pays principle, using financial, resource and ecological costs. There is a clear statement that the objective of the assessment is to guarantee that the main water users (households, industry, and agriculture) make an adequate contribution to the recovery of the costs. The analyses in the RBMPs present the rate of cost recovery by sectors (households, agriculture, industry, public services, and tourism). The assessment itself is carried out by comparison of the profit and loss for each service by sectors. The methodology of the cost recovery rate calculation is not described in full detail, but it is claimed that financial, environmental and resource costs were taken into account (with the exception of resource and ecological costs, which have not been taken into consideration in the development of the RBMP for the East Aegean RBD because of the lack of sufficient data).

Resource costs are calculated based on statistical data on the population, together with the water supply regime, the water consumption and the average price of the water in those regions. The environmental costs are calculated using the method of ‘assessment based on costs’.

In the application of the cost recovery principle, the condition of common access and social affordability is observed. The water prices for household water supply are subject to administrative regulation under the Law on the regulation of the water and sanitation services. By this law a specific administrative body is established and restrictions to the price increase are imposed in view of its social affordability, based on the average monthly income for the region. In this context the flexibility provisions of Article 9 were applied.

There is a set of measures in the RBMPs aimed at the implementation of incentive water policies in the water services which include: the development of taxation preferences for the introduction of mechanisms and practices for water efficiency; decreasing water losses in the water supply networks; water metering; and volumetric pricing etc.

The funding of significant part of the programmes of measures in the RBMPs in Bulgaria will be achieved through subsidies from the EU financial instruments and the Enterprise for Environmental Protection activities management (EEPAM). There are a limited number of cases of cross-subsidising when the fees collected in one sector are re-directed to investments in another one (for example water - solid waste). The subsidies are included in the calculation of the profit of the water service providers used for the cost recovery calculations.

The RBMPs include measures and actions aiming at the centralisation of some of the water development related funds, a clear differentiation between the financial resources and structures at national and regional level, the management of the financial resources following the strategic programs and plans, minimising the inexpedient use of these resources, the development of a clear system for the control of the raising and spending of the funds, and the protection of the public interest against the natural monopolies. Other measures provide for the development of additional studies and analyses where all measures would be assessed and considered, and a full analysis of the costs associated with the PoM, clarifying the structure of their funding and the shares of the state budget and excluding grant funding, etc.

The measures described are supporting the pricing policies. Any direct pricing policy change could happen at national level as the water prices are regulated the Law on regulation of the Water Supply and Sewerage Services and under a national body.

All measures and actions on the implementation of Article 9 provisions are taken at national level.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

The RBMPs clearly identify the water bodies where additional measures need to be applied. However it is sometimes unclear whether the additional measures are especially designed for the protected area.

Information on the type of measures is provided, but there are no details on the magnitude. The quality objectives are formulated following the WFD provisions. There are also ‘sub-objectives’ in some of the plans, defined especially on the protection of water in the protected areas, but they are not quantified therefore it is not possible to assess whether they are more stringent objectives relating to protected areas.

The RBMPs make reference to safeguard zones around drinking water abstraction facilities, areas related to Natura 2000 (Birds and Habitats Directives), fish and shellfish, sensitive and vulnerable areas. Links to other specific programmes are also provided.

The typical additional measures to protect drinking water include the establishment of safeguard zones, making provision for additional conditions in the wastewater discharge permits aiming at sustaining the good status of the water body, provisions for the improvement of the waste collection and transportation in the region, more stringent control on the status of the protected areas, afforestation, administrative measures implementing the prohibitions and restrictions on activities in order to preserve the condition of the protected area. All measures related to the design, establishment or re-establish the safeguard zones are included in the PoM as basic measures.

The bathing waters are not considered in the PoMs in the Danube, East Aegean and West Aegean RBDs as the reason for introducing specific measures. They are very important for the Black Sea RBD and a number of basic measures are identified there; these are urban WWTP and sanitation development and upgrade, deep sea discharges, moving the discharges outside the bathing water use areas; the additional measures are related to development and implementation of educational programs and general public awareness.

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts AND flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity and droughts are typical phenomena in the Continental - Mediterranean climatic region that also covers significant parts of Bulgaria, mainly the south parts of the Maritsa and Tundzha watersheds and the basin of Arda river together with the east slopes of Rodopi mountain, and the Struma and Mesta rivers. This area is characterised by drought spells in the second half of summer and the beginning of autumn. The impact of climate change results in increased temperatures, a decrease in precipitation, and negative changes of the river flows and the dependent ecosystems. This impact on the waters, ecosystems and the different socio-economic activities is not sufficiently studied, but the available results already show some problems in certain regions, for example, these related to the so-called 'temporary rivers' in the downstream part of the sub-basins of the Maritsa, Tundzha, Arda and Byala rivers.

Water scarcity and droughts are practically always considered together in the RBMPs; the RBMPs make reference to a number of other national and sector plans and programmes.

The Black Sea RBD is an exception. The RBMP for this RBD makes a clear distinction between the two phenomena and identifies droughts as an issue, but not water scarcity, based on analysis of the water availability, including unfavourable conditions.

Limited statistical information on drought periods is presented in the RBMPs. There is no information on the impact of the past and expected water scarcity and drought periods over the water uses and the water status in the different RBDs. No clear link is given between the general statement of the expected increase of the water scarcity and droughts in the future and the other parts of the Plans. In the Eastern Aegean RBD there is information on precipitation and temperature patterns and pressures related to water scarcity and droughts. Measures in the PoM are connected to those pressures. Obviously some of the measures in the PoM address these issues, such as the re-construction of water supply networks to diminish the water losses, control over the water use permits, construction of new dams, reduction of groundwater abstraction, water re-use in the industry.

It is mentioned in the text of the RBMP that the climate change, causing water scarcity and droughts might have an impact on the future water needs for the households and agriculture. In part of the RBDs, the PoMs provide for a number of additional studies on the issue (reassessment of the water needs and efficient resource management, optimizing of the water transfer to/from other RBDs).

There are no trend scenarios for water availability and demand in view of water scarcity and droughts. The RBMP itself does not contain projections of the demand and availability in view of the climate change, water scarcity and droughts, etc.

Water scarcity and drought issues have not been internationally co-ordinated.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods are addressed in the RBMPs as a pressure and specific measures are provided. They are also mentioned as a reason for HMWBs designation. No exemptions have been applied under article 4(6) or 4(7).

The measures in the RBMPs include renewal and maintenance of dams and river bed corrections, cleaning up of river beds, removal of obsolete facilities, restrictions on the gravel extraction in the river beds and terraces, control of the erosion of the banks, warning and decision support systems, and public awareness and information. Climate change is always mentioned as a factor to be taken into consideration.

The RBMPs make direct link to the Floods Directive and the work on flood management plans is in progress. The preliminary assessments of flood risk were performed in all RBDs.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

Climate change is included in the plans in a general way. They contain preliminary considerations of climate change impact on the water status and other pressures and risks of water scarcity, droughts and floods.

The general analyses identify the main impacts of the climate change on the different sectors and pressures. There is a clear statement that trends of climate change are taken into account in the analysis of pressures and measures related to agriculture, both in terms of the agricultural practices in place and the water needs (water saving practices) for irrigation. The decrease of the water resource and hydropower production potential, the increase in the need for electricity, risks for the energy infrastructure, drinking water supply and the aquatic and water dependent ecosystems are specially mentioned.

The section on environmental objectives also makes reference to climate change as it is included in the main objective of the RBMP (reaching good status and mitigating the harmful effect of the climate change). The climate change aspects are not considered directly in the economic analysis.

The measures planned for saving water include changes in irrigation methods, upgrade of irrigation facilities, water cycles and re-use and water saving technologies in industry, water saving practices in households, water saving campaign in all sectors, decreasing of water losses in water supply and irrigation, adaptation of agriculture in regions with water scarcity by changing the crops, afforestation and resolving erosion problems in the watershed, development of a methodology for fiscal incentives for water efficiency, and the development of water resource management plans in case of droughts. Measures are defined in a very general and descriptive way and not given at water body level.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD therefore, it is recommended that:

· Co-ordination during the RBMP development between the basin and state level as well as among RBDs should be improved in the next RBMP cycle. Elaboration of common methodologies would be necessary.

· Monitoring should be strengthened as there is not enough monitoring data related to biological and chemical elements and this is also a reason for low confidence in the assessment of their status.

· The existing pressures are not being sufficiently detected, particularly where complex pressure factors exist, e.g. combined pollution from diffuse and point sources, or combined pressures from pollution and hydromorphological alterations. Pressures should be sufficiently detected.

· There is a significant gap in the intercalibration and the development of methodologies, the expert judgement approach is often used. There is no fully developed and formally adopted classification system for the assessment of the ecological status. These gaps should be filled.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.   

· The ecological objectives defined are of a very general nature, there are no quantitative dimensions and easily measurable and verifiable criteria for monitoring their achievement. Ecological objectives should be better specified.

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived. Biota EQS should also be considered for other substances where analysis in water is problematic. Trend monitoring in sediment or biota is specified for several priority substances in Directive 2008/105/EC Article 3(3) and will need to be reflected in the next RBMP.

· Groundwater trend assessments should be carried out at all RBDs.

· There are insufficient international cooperation/coordination mechanisms established with neighbouring countries like Greece and Turkey in international river basins. This cooperation needs to improve significantly. The river basins shared with Turkey should be correctly designated as international RBDs.

· The identification of exemptions is incomplete and should be completed in the next RBMP cycle. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans.

· It is unclear whether there are new physical modifications planned in RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resources in Bulgaria. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farming community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately advised and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

[1]    European Commission - http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/bulgaria/index_en.htm

[2]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[3]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[4]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1)

[5]     This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[6]     The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[7]     Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[8]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[9]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[10]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[11]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[12]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[13]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[14]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[15] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status

[16]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is surrounded by Belgium, France and Germany. The total population is 0.5 million and the total surface area is 2.597 km2. Most of Luxembourg (97.3%2) belongs to the International Rhine River Basin District (IRBD), or Saar-Mosel sub-basin of the Rhine IRBD. The remaining 2.7% (70 km2) are part of the International Meuse RBD.

Although there are 7 sub-basins (‘study areas’), 6 of these belonging to the Rhine IRBD, there is one national River Basin Management Plan, focusing on the Rhine RBD, and providing some details of the Meuse RBD. There are no sub-basin or other sectoral plans.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || Countries sharing RBD

LU2000 (also LU RB_000) || Rhine (also Mosel) || 2527 || BE, CH, DE, FR, NL

LU7000 also (LU RB_001) || Meuse (also Chiers) || 70 || BE, DE, FR, NL

Table 1.1: Overview of Luxembourg’s River Basin Districts

Note: RBD codes LU2000 and LU RB_000 are used for the Rhine RBD, also sometimes referred to as the Mosel RBD. RBD codes LU7000 and LU RB_001 are used for the Meuse RBD, also sometimes referred to as the Chiers RBD.

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[1]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/lu/eu/wfdart13

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

1 ||

km² || % ||

Rhine || LU RB_000 || BE, CH, DE, FR, NL || 2350 || 1.0 ||

Meuse-Maas || LU RB_001 || BE, DE, FR, NL || 65 || 0.2 ||

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Luxembourg[2]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: 'Pressures and Measures study'[3]

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

The final national River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) was published on 22 December 2009 and submitted to the Commission on 26 November 2010 via the EIONET Central Repository (CDR)[4]. The Plan was adopted by the Government Council on 23 July 2010 but the legal procedure is still undergoing. No further information is available about its formal legal adoption (see Section 3.3).

The main strengths and weaknesses of the Luxembourg RBMP are listed below:

2.1 Strengths

· There have been considerable efforts to involve all relevant stakeholders and the general public in the consultation of the draft RBMPs. Important steps have been taken in order to ensure an adequate WFD implementation.

· There is a well established international co-ordination in both the Rhine and the Meuse RBDs, and Luxembourg plays an active role in such co-operation.

· There are specific monitoring networks for groundwater and protected areas.

· Several studies have been carried out over the past few years on issues related to water scarcity and droughts, with the focus on water planning. These have provided significant amount of trend data on intensity and frequency of precipitation, and may constitute a good complement for water management in future planning cycles.

2.2 Weaknesses

· The RBMP lacks structure and clarity. The plan has a national approach, with some separate paragraphs on the Rhine and Meuse RBDs. However, it is often unclear whether information relates to the Rhine or the Meuse RBD or both.

· The threshold for the adverse effects to the use in the designation of heavily modified water bodies have been set to zero. In addition to this, the methodology to establish the good ecological potential for heavily modified water bodies has not been defined in this first RBMP, as the assessment of biological elements had not been finalised and verified. These two issues have led to a lack of driver for restoration and improvement of the existing pressures from hydromorphological modifications.

· There are many discrepancies between the information in the RBMPs and what has been reported into WISE, both concerning figures and methodologies. Further efforts in the reporting in WISE will be advisable for the next cycle.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

The national RBMP (covering Rhine and Meuse RBDs) was submitted on 26 November 2010. Publication and consultation information obtained from a combination of WISE data (1.3.2) and the RBMP (Chapter 9) is summarised below.

Date || Due date || Description

05/11/2007 || 22/12/2006 || Publication of Timetable and Work Programme 1st Public Hearing on draft overview of Significant Water Management Issues (SWMIs), and formation of 3 stakeholder working groups (WG), to address (i) physical environment of water courses, (ii) diffuse pollution sources and (iii) urban pressures

26/05/2008 || || 2nd Public Hearing on consolidated SWMIs and first draft of Measures, incl. meeting of the 3 WGs to co-ordinate their work, and to ensure co-ordination with International Commissions for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR), the Meuse (ICM) and the Mosel-Saar (ICPMS)

02/12/2008 08/12/2008 || 22/12/2006 || Publication of Statement on Consultation of Measures to be taken 3rd Public Hearing on the Draft RBMP

22/12/2008 || 22/12/2008 || Draft RBMP made available on internet for public comments (to be received by 22/06/2009)

16/12/2009 || || 4th Public Hearing on the final RBMP

22/12/2009 || 22/12/2009 || Publication of final RBMP

Table 3.1: Timeline for work programme, consultations and publication of national RBMP

Source: WISE

3.2 Administrative arrangements 

Only one competent Authority is listed in the RBMP, i.e. the Ministry for Home Affairs and the Greater Region (Ministère de l'Intérieur et à la Grande Région). This Ministry brought together all activities related to water management by setting up the Water Management Agency (Administration de la Gestion de l’Eau) in 2004.

However, the management of protected areas (PAs) under the Birds and Habitats Directives and Natura 2000 falls in the competence of a different authority, the Environment Department of the Ministry for Sustainable Development and Infrastructure (Ministère du Dévelopement Durable et des Infrastructures). There is co-ordination between these authorities in terms of monitoring, but there is no information on specific measures for these PAs in the RBMP (see sections 11.1 and 12.7)

The overall approach is national and there is only one national RBMP, which covers both the Rhine and the Meuse RBDs. The RBMP only names one national competent authority, which has overall responsibility (except for PAs, see above) and there is no information on any regional or local authorities or their roles.

3.3 RBMP - Structure, completeness, legal status

The RBMP is not very well structured and generally the information is difficult to find. The plan has a national approach, with some separate paragraphs on the Rhine and Meuse RBDs.  However, it is often unclear whether information relates to the Rhine or the Meuse RBD or both. Information in the WISE reporting system is particularly confusing as it frequently lists information for two RBDs but repeating the same information in both (mainly relating to the Rhine RBD). In some chapters (e.g. monitoring) it refers to the Mosel RBD (one of 6 sub-basins of the Rhine RBD), although it seems to relate to the entire Rhine RBD.

The RBMP includes Annexes but much detailed information is missing. For example the Methodology Annex includes many references to its own Annexes, which have not been reported to the Commission, nor are any links to further information provided. and on the whole it focuses on what needs to be done (based on a series of documents produced by the German Working Group on water issues of the Federal States and the Federal Government (Bund/Länder-Arbeitsgemeinscaft Wasser – LAWA – German guidance document)  but it is often not clear what was actually done.

No supplementary information or links are provided (except for one government website referred to in WISE 1). Although both RBDs are part of International RBDs with International RBMPs (Rhine and Meuse), there is little information on how the international plans have been translated to the national plan, except from an indication that co-operation took place, and some monitoring in the Luxembourg national part of the IRBD is part of international monitoring programmes.

The RBMP does not contain any information on its legal status.  However, EIONET CDR (26/11/2010) includes the following comment:  ‘RBMP plan approved by Government Council on 23rd July 2010 but still on legal procedure’. The RBMP must be declared compulsory through a Grand-Ducal Regulation. However this does not mean that the RBMP acquires the legal status of Grand-Ducal Regulation'[5].

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

Luxembourg has made a considerable effort to involve the public including four public consultation meetings between 2007 and 2009. The draft RBMP was sent to community administrations and available on a website for comment from December 2008 to June 2009.

The public consultation was done at two different levels, general public and interested stakeholders. On one hand, there has been a wide information exercise for the general public

There was an active involvement of stakeholders in the preparation of the PoM. This was done through the formation of three working groups comprising interested parties and stakeholders, to address the main water management issues (i) physical environment of water courses, (ii) diffuse pollution sources and (iii) urban pressures. These working groups were also involved in the public consultation meetings and the co-ordination of proposed measures between the groups. The outcome of this group was the proposed measures of a 'Catalogue of Measures', which was taken into account by the 'Water Management Agency' for the drafting of the RBMP and the preparation of the PoM.

The RBMP states that consultation with interested parties and stakeholders generated many ideas, demands for changes and corrections and helped to develop the strategy. However, there are no details provided of the actual impact of this process on the final RBMP adopted by Luxembourg. Therefore, despite wide stakeholder and public involvement, the process has not been completely transparent as regards the changes that the consultation has brought about in the RBMP.

3.5 International cooperation and coordination

Both the Rhine and the Meuse RBDs in Luxembourg are part of the International RBDs Rhine (Mosel/Saar sub-basin) and Meuse, with neighbouring countries being Germany, France and Belgium.

Luxembourg has representatives in the International Commissions on these RBDs, but there is only a very brief mention of co-ordination of measures with the International Commissions for the protection of the Mosel/Saar (ICPMS), the International Commission for the protection of the Rhine (ICPR), and the International Commission for the Meuse (ICM), mainly in relation to the working groups producing the 'Catalogue of Measures'. Although there is no indication of shared management, some of the monitoring is part of international monitoring programmes and there is an indication that there was also co-ordination of the measures to be adopted in national Programmes of Measures (PoM).

Some procedures have been adopted from those applied in Germany, i.e. the Methodology and Typology Annexes are based on LAWA (Germany) documentation (see section 3.3).

3.6 Integration with other sectors

There is no reference to other sectoral plans in the RBMP, apart from voluntary agricultural measures relying on farmers' participation in agro-environment and regional development programmes.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

There is only one category of surface water, i.e. rivers. There is no distinction between river and lake water types, although there are a number of small lakes that are apparently included as river water bodies. Luxembourg is a land-locked country and therefore there are no coastal or transitional waters.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

The methodology to establish the typology of water bodies has been adopted from the German approach LAWA[6], defining six river water types and all except one include reference sites in Germany. It is not clear whether the typology has been tested against biological data.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

LU RB_000 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 4.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

The background document 'Participation aux travaux nécessaires à la mise en place de la Directive Cadre dans le domaine de l'eau au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg' describes the methodology for the assessment of macrophytes for the typology of surface waters. It also integrates other relevant scientific reports, in particular on analysis of diatoms related to the typology of water, and the typology developed at EU level.

Some of the methods were developed after the adoption of the first RBMP (i.e. macrophytes RC3, RC4 in 2010 and 2011) or are still under development (macrophytes RC6, RC1 in 2012), or the intercalibration at EU level has not been yet been finalised (RC5 in 2013).

The RBMP indicates that some reference conditions have been established and adapted to Luxembourg, but there is no information on methodology or validation with biological data (no national background/guidance document referred to or provided). All the other reference conditions have not been established in the first RBMP, but according to information received from Luxembourg, are being developed over the past few years, also integrating the results of the second phase of the intercalibration exercise.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

Overall, 99 surface water bodies have been identified in the Rhine RBD, and 3 in the Meuse RBD (no lake water bodies have been identified; transitional and coastal are not relevant); there are 5 groundwater bodies, all in the Rhine RBD.

The RBMP states that small water bodies (catchments smaller than 10 km2) were not considered but the 99 water bodies in the Rhine and the 3 in the Meuse RBDs include 8 and 1 water bodies smaller than 10 km2, respectively. It seems that there has been no aggregation of small water bodies, except from some small lakes that have been aggregated to river water bodies (see section 1.7).

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

LU RB_000 || 99 || 0 || 0 || || 5 || 535

LU RB_001 || 3 || 0 || 0 || || 0 || 0

Total || 102 || 0 || 0 || || 5 || 535

Table 4.2: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

The main pressures (national level) are point sources from urban (and to a lesser extent industrial) wastewater, diffuse sources from agriculture and hydromorphological alterations. The main impacts are nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus and organic carbon) and pesticides inputs into surface water and groundwater, and modifications of the hydromorphological natural conditions, including lack of continuity of surface waters.

The assessment of point source pressures was based on urban wastewater and industrial effluent data, diffuse source pressures on soil usage and livestock units, and water abstraction on data from water meters for public water supply and 'other' (not defined). 

There is only very general information on hydromorphological pressures in the RBMP. Water flow regulation and morphological alterations and ecological continuity were assessed as part of anthropogenic activities and the capacity for development of water courses (in relation to the designation of HMWB). Flow data was monitored as part of a monitoring network and continuity was assessed on the basis of the national continuity register (prepared in 2009). Standard parameters for the assessment of hydromorphological pressures will be included in the updated characterisation of water bodies in 2013.

Agriculture (diffuse sources) and urban wastewater (point sources) are the main sectors contributing to chemical pollution.

The evaluation of the pressures was carried out using calculation of weighted averages of the different pressures in relation to river length, followed by expert judgement. The definition on whether the pressures are 'significant' has been done with expert judgment. The intensity of point source pollution has been established in relation to the necessary measures established in the PoM. The intensity of diffuse source pollution has been derived from the intensity of agriculture in the RBD.

There are no significant pressures related to surface and groundwater abstractions, given the climatology and meteorological characteristics of the country (the recharge of groundwater aquifers is enough to cover all anthropogenic extractions over the year).

The characterisation of 2004 was limited to the pressures at RBD level, and no information was provided on the significant pressures at water body level.

4.5 Protected areas

Protected areas (PA) as reported in WISE are summarised below.  

Although WISE lists protected areas for drinking water abstraction (groundwater only) under Article 7 of the WFD, the RBMP makes it clear that these are provisional designations and legislation is expected to be in place by 2015. Moreover, the WISE monitoring information also lists monitoring stations for PAs at surface water abstraction sites.

The Protected Areas under the Nitrates (Vulnerable Zones) and UWWT (Sensitive Areas) Directives cover the whole area of Luxembourg (Note: the Nitrates Directive has not been fully implemented and Luxembourg is under an EU Court Proceedings[7].

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates[8] || Shellfish || UWWT[9]

LU RB_000 || 84 || 4 || 11 || || || 28 || || || 1 || || 1

LU RB_001 || || || 2 || || || 2 || || || 1 || || 1

Total || 84 || 4 || 13 || || || 30 || || || 2 || || 2

Table 4.3: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[10]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring 5.1 General description of the monitoring network

 Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The monitoring networks have been expanded considerably since the 2009 implementation report, especially for operational monitoring, summarised below. The stations reported to WISE differ from those reported in the RBMP, and it is not clear how the total number of surface water monitoring sites can be much higher than the total surveillance and operational monitoring sites, unless other (special) programmes have been included. International monitoring programmes are also referred to (International Commissions for the Rhine - Mosel/Saar and Meuse IRBDs). All relevant quality elements are now monitored, including priority and non-priority specific pollutants.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

LU RB_000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LU RB_001 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

RBD || Rivers || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

LU RB_000 || 4 (3) || 128 (16) || 54* || 54 || 31 (19)*

LU RB_001 || 1 || 3 (-) || - || - || -

Total by type of site || 8 (4) || 131 || 54 || 54 || 31 (19)

Total number of monitoring sites || 192[11] || 54 (31)

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category [12]

Surv = Surveillance

Op = Operational

Quant = Quantitative

Note: Numbers in brackets as reported in RBMP (different from those reported in WISE)

Source: WISE and RBMP

* For groundwater monitoring LU has, as described in the RBMP, 31 surveillance monitoring stations and 19 quantitative monitoring stations. For the surveillance monitoring stations, the remaining 23 stations are belonging to the supplementary monitoring programmes for nitrates and pesticides.

5.2 Monitoring of surface waters

All relevant quality elements (QEs) are being monitored, though not all of them at all sites. In addition to surveillance monitoring, an operational monitoring programme has been established. An explanation is given for the selection of QEs in terms of a matrix of pressures against the sensitivity of different QEs, although it is not clear how this has been applied.  

Relevant priority substances and other specific pollutants are being monitored in surface water, but only one in sediment, and none in biota. These chemical parameters are selected on the basis of emission data, though only 7 sites, which are claimed to be representative, include such substances. It is not clear which substances are monitored, although some substances are listed as being monitored at specific sites and some in terms of causing failure to achieve good chemical status or associated to a relevant pressure.

The EQS Directive[13] was transposed in the national law on 30 December 2010, and therefore later than the adoption of the RBMPs. According from information received from Luxembourg, targeted measurement is being carried out, and will serve to have checked chemical data for the update on the characterisation for next RBMP (to be done by 2013).

There is no information on whether there has been grouping of water bodies for the purpose of monitoring and status assessment, although Luxembourg has confirmed that no grouping of water bodies has been done, and that there are more than one monitoring sites for some of the water bodies.

Some programmes are indicated as part of international monitoring programmes (International Commissions for the Rhine, Mosel/Saar and Meuse, ICPR, ICPMS and ICM), but there is no detail on co-ordination with the relevant international commissions.

The number of surface water monitoring stations has increased significantly compared with the 2007 Monitoring Programme[14], i.e. surveillance monitoring increased from 5 to 8 sites, and operational monitoring increased from 17 to 131 (nationally).

5.3 Monitoring of groundwater

Surveillance, operational and quantitative groundwater monitoring programmes have been established. It is not clear how parameters in the operational monitoring programme were chosen to detect existing pressures, since the operational programme includes all 5 groundwater bodies and all quality elements (except GE2-1 Oxygen), although the significant pressures (diffuse sources, agriculture and urban) only affect 2 groundwater bodies in terms of failing good chemical status. There are, however, some special, supplementary monitoring programmes for nitrate and pesticides, presumably aimed at monitoring the impact of the most significant pressures, and in support of the exemptions as applied to 2 groundwater bodies on the basis of nitrate and pesticides. 

Some trend information on chemical parameters was reported, i.e. a significant upward trend in nitrate concentrations in 2 water bodies (classified as bad chemical status) and a downward trend since 2006 in one water body (of good chemical status); these results were obtained from 'trend analyses, including standard deviation, where sufficient time line data were available or supplemented by pollutant input data where data sets were limited', but there is no information on actual monitoring design to achieve the objective of trend analysis.

All 5 groundwater bodies are part of the international Rhine RBD. Both the quantitative and chemical monitoring programmes, as well as the supplementary nitrate monitoring programme, are referred to as part of international programmes (ICPR/ICPMS), but no details of co-ordination with the International Commission for the Protection of the Mosel/Saar (ICPMS) and the Rhine (ICPR) are presented. There is a brief reference to participation in the creation of a map of transboundary groundwater bodies (one in Luxembourg) with the ICPR, in relation to an exemption. 

The number of groundwater monitoring stations seems to have increased significantly compared with the 2007 Monitoring Programme, i.e. from a total of 31 to 54 sites[15], with surveillance monitoring increased from 31 to 54, operational monitoring increased from 0 to 54; and quantitative monitoring.

5.4 Monitoring of protected areas

Specific monitoring programmes for protected areas (PAs) are in place for Bathing Waters (bacterial pollution), the Birds and Habitats Directives and Natura 2000 (no details given, responsibility of the Ministry for Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, Department of the Environment), Fish (salmonid and cyprinid waters), Nitrate (surface water and groundwater) and Drinking Water Abstraction (groundwater PA provisional designation). The latter focuses on compliance with the Drinking Water Directive.

However, there is little information on additional monitoring for the above, except for bathing waters which focus on bacteria, and drinking water abstraction sites, where monitoring focuses on drinking water standards; it is not possible to comment on compliance with the provisions of Annex V 1.3.5 of the WFD.    

The number of surface water monitoring stations associated with PAs is shown below.  In addition, there are 18 groundwater monitoring sites at drinking water abstraction points (provisionally designated PAs). The number of monitoring stations has increased significantly since 2007 Monitoring Programme, but there is conflicting information between different parts of WISE and the RBMP, e.g. monitoring sites for fish and surface water abstraction PAs are listed, although no PAs seem to have been designated.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water[16]

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

LU RB_000 || 6 || 0 || 20 || 56 || 0 || 147 || 189 || 0 || 189 || 18

LU RB_001 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 10[17] || 5 || 0 || 5 || 0

Total || 6 || 0 || 20 || 60 || 83 || 157 || 194 || 0 || 194 || 18

Table 5.3: Number of monitoring sites in protected areas[18]

Source: WISE

Note: Please note that these data are the monitoring stations located IN PAs and not FOR PAs especially for Nitrates and UWWT Directives as the whole country is declared as sensitive area

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

The ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies (Rhine and Meuse RBD, no lake, transitional or coastal water bodies), chemical and quantitative status of groundwater bodies (all in Rhine RBD), and overviews of the status for surface water and groundwater expected in 2005 are shown in the tables below.    

It is clear that the highest proportion of river water bodies are in moderate, poor or bad ecological status, whilst a small proportion are in good status and none in high status. Similarly, there are no river water bodies of high chemical status, but a higher proportion are of good status (around two third of water bodies) and about one third in less than good status.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

LU RB_000 || 88 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 6.8 || 46 || 52.3 || 25 || 28.4 || 11 || 12.5 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 90 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 6.7 || 48 || 53.3 || 25 || 27.8 || 11 || 12.2 || 0 || 0

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

LU RB_000 || 11 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 9.1 || 4 || 36.4 || 2 || 18.2 || 4 || 36.4 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0

Total || 12 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 8.3 || 4 || 33.3 || 2 || 16.7 || 5 || 41.7 || 0 || 0

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Note: ecological potential for HMWBs, GEP not established (see Section 8)

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

LU RB_000 || 88 || 65 || 73.9 || 23 || 26.1 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 90 || 67 || 74.4 || 23 || 25.6 || 0 || 0

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LU RB_000 || 11 || 4 || 36.4 || 7 || 63.6 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0

Total || 12 || 4 || 33.6 || 8 || 66.7 || 0 || 0

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

For groundwater (all groundwater bodies are in Rhine RBD), 3 water bodies (of total of 5) are in good chemical status and the other 2 are in poor status. In terms of total surface area the proportions are different, i.e. only 38.4% good status, and 61.6% poor status. All groundwater bodies are of good quantitative status. 

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LU RB_000 || 5 || 3 || 60 || 2 || 40 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5 || 3 || 60 || 2 || 40 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

LU RB_000 || 5 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 40 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

An improvement in overall status for surface water to good or better is expected by 2015; this is expected to rise to 28% in the Rhine RBD (from 7 to 28 water bodies), and 67% in the Meuse RBD (from zero to 2 water bodies); the proportion in terms of surface area considerably lower, i.e. 22 and 23% surface area good or higher status for the rhine and Meuse, respectively.

For groundwater bodies no improvements are expected by 2015.

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LU RB_000 || 99 || 7 || 7.1 || 28 || 28.3 || 21.2 || || || || || || || || || 70 || 2 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 3 || 0 || 0.0 || 2 || 66.7 || 66.7 || || || || || || || || || 0 || 33 || 0 || 0

Total || 102 || 7 || 6.9 || 30 || 29.4 || 22.5 || || || || || || || || || 68 || 3 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[19]

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LU RB_000 || 88 || 6 || 6.8 || 26 || 29.5 || 22.7 || || || || || 69.3 || 1.1 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 100 || 100 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 90 || 6 || 6.7 || 28 || 31.1 || 24.4 || || || || || 67.8 || 1.1 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[20]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LU RB_000 || 88 || 69 || 69.7 || 74 || 74.7 || 5.1 || || || || || 20.5 || 1.1 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 2 || 2 || 66.7 || 2 || 66.7 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 90 || 71 || 69.6 || 76 || 74.5 || 4.9 || || || || || 20.0 || 1.1 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[21]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LU RB_000 || 5 || 3 || 60.0 || 3 || 60.0 || 0 || || || || || 40 || 0 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5 || 3 || 60.0 || 3 || 60.0 || 0 || || || || || 40 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[22]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LU RB_000 || 5 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[23]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LU RB_000 || 11 || 1 || 9.1 || 3 || 27.3 || 18.2 || || || || || 63.6 || 9.1 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

Total || 12 || 1 || 8.3 || 3 || 25.0 || 16.7 || || || || || 58.3 || 16.7 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[24]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

LU RB_000 || 11 || 4 || 36.4 || 5 || 45.5 || 9.1 || || || || || 45.5 || 9.1 || 0 || 0

LU RB_001 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

Total || 12 || 4 || 33.3 || 5 || 41.7 || 8.4 || || || || || 41.7 || 16.7 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[25]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

There is only one RBMP for the two RBDs, and a national approach is applied for the methodology for the assessment of ecological status.

As mentioned in section 2 on monitoring, significant progress have been made since 2007 (as reported in 2009 implementation report), e.g. all biological quality elements (BQEs) are  now included, though not all of them at all monitoring sites. However, there is inadequate information on the assessment methods. The RBMP indicates that there are uncertainties because some biological methods are still to be adapted, but there is no indication of the expected timeline for this. In addition, the class boundaries for ecological status assessment provided in the RBMP, are inconsistent with the results of the intercalibration of phase 1[26] (see below).

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

All biological quality elements (QE) are monitored (only river water bodies are relevant in RBMPs of Luxembourg), and the methods for the assessment have also been developed for all QEs, although there are some biological methods that still need to be adapted to the results of the Intercalibration exercise. When the methods are not available at EU level, they have been based on those of neighbouring countries.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

LU2000 || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Table 7.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

A sensitivity table for biological QEs to certain pressures/impacts is provided in the RBMP (river water only relevant) but there is no information on how this has been applied in relation to the overall status assessment.

Standards (indicative values) have been set for physico-chemical QEs, but there is no specific information for hydromorphological QEs, although they are monitored. There is a general statement in the plan that the physico-chemical QEs (as well as specific pollutants) were used in conjunction with BQEs  to assess overall ecological status (one-out-all-out principle and expert judgement). Some water bodies were classified predominantly on the basis of physico-chemical QEs, due to the unavailability and uncertainty of some results of BQEs.

The hydromorphological parameters are not included in the RBMP, but the methodology for rivers is explained in a background document and is compiled in the Annex II (4.1.3) of the guidance document on methodologies[27]. The methodology is based on individual assessments, which are later verified by expert judgment, including hydromorphological characteristics, river continuity, water abstraction in urban areas and drainage activities.

The one-out-all-out principle has been applied, followed by expert assessment, to derive the overall ecological status. This principle has been transposed to the national legislation[28]

The RBMP indicates that there are uncertainties because some biological methods are still to be adapted (no indication of timescale), and that it is important therefore to consider all the measurable elements.

Classification boundaries are given for all six river water types. It is stated that, where classification limits have not yet been established at European level, they have been determined either by relying on those of neighbouring countries or as fixed by the existing methods applied (biological QEs).

However, close examination of the class boundaries for ecological status assessment for phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates, shows these to be inconsistent with the results of the intercalibration of phase 1[29]. Luxembourg has confirmed that for this first RBMP it has applied the existing boundaries defined in existing rules (prior to the 2008 decision on intercalibration), as the boundaries for biological parameters will be revised (as decided in the second phase of intercalibration).

It is stated that the results of the Intercalibration Decision were applied in relation to the biological quality elements QE 1-2-4 Phytobenthos and QE1-3 Benthic invertebrates, and that these are 'Good moderate intercalibration compliant'. However, the boundary values given in WISE 3.1.1.1 (High-Good boundary: 17 for phytobenthos and 16 for benthic invertebrates; Good-Moderate boundary: 13 and 12, respectively; and Moderate-Poor boundary 9 for each; matrix indicated as biota, and no units given) are not in agreement (as values or converted to ratios) with the ratios given for Luxembourg for the High-Good and Good-Moderate boundaries for these QEs (Phytobenthos 0.85 and 0.70; Benthic invertebrates 0.96 and 0.72, respectively) in the Decision 2008/915/EC. No other information is provided.

According to information received from Luxembourg, it was not possible to provide detailed information in the RBMP on the uncertainties and the confidence level in the classification methods. There are some programmes that are currently or will soon been carried out to assess the confidence of monitoring and assessment methodologies applied in the first RBMP.

No background document or national/regional guidance document has been provided (no link). However, RBMP Annex VII - Methodology refers to an annex containing a German concept paper by LAWA (status 2005) for details of the assessment and classification method for surface waters, but these are not provided in the RBMP.

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

All relevant quality elements have been used in the ecological status assessment of surveillance monitoring sites, but there is no detail on the methods applied.

There is insufficient information to judge whether the most sensitive biological quality elements have been selected for ecological status assessment for operational monitoring sites and whether the existing pressures are being sufficiently detected, although there are special monitoring programmes for nitrate and pesticides. 

There is no information on confidence and precision or uncertainty for the ecological status results. 

7.3 River basin specific pollutants

The river basin specific pollutants are considered to be responsible for causing failure of good status, as the one-out-all-out-principle is used in the assessment ecological status. The specific pollutants have been established based on scientific papers and on the assessment of ecological status in neighbouring countries. Only one substance is monitored in suspended solids (CAS 1336-36-3 PCBs, which is not in Annex 1), all others are monitored in water only.

The list of substances and an updated methodology for assessment of ecological quality standards have been included in the national legislation in December 2010[30]. There is indication in the plan that additional EQS were being developed as national standards.

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)

LU2000 || || Ammonia || 7

LU2000 || || Heavy metals - aggregated || 5

LU2000 || 7439-89-6 || Iron || 2

LU2000 || 7439-96-5 || Manganese || 3

LU2000 || || Nitrate || 4

LU2000 || || Nitrite || 11

LU2000 || || Orthophosphate || 14

LU2000 || || Pesticides - aggregated || 20

LU2000 || 7440-66-6 || Zinc || 4

Table 7.1: River basin specific pollutants causing failure of status

Source: RBMPs

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

The number of HMWBs (11) seems to be in agreement with those provisionally identified in 2007[31] and have now been confirmed, of which 10 are in the Rhine RBD and 1 in the Meuse RBD.  No artificial water bodies (AWBs) have been designated in Luxembourg RBMP. 

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial water bodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

In total 11 (10.7% of total water bodies) HMWBs have been designated (10 in the Rhine RBD and 1 in the Meuse RBD).

The water uses and physical modifications of the HMWB are described fully; uses include storage for power generation and for drinking water supplies, navigation and canalisation through urban areas. Physical alterations include weirs, dams, reservoirs, canalisation, straightening, bed stabilisation, and bank reinforcement and embankment.

The stepwise evaluation scheme of the CIS Guidance nº4[32] has been partially followed, i.e. up to step 9 (designation of HMWB), but the Good Ecological Potential has not been defined (see below).

The mitigation measures needed to reach good ecological status were evaluated. Following establishment of significance criteria and significant (unacceptable) negative effects of mitigation measures on the water use needed to achieve good ecological status, and including consideration of possible alternative means to achieve the beneficial water uses of the HMWBs, the mitigation measures were considered inappropriate and the provisional designation of HMWBs was confirmed.

However, the value to define 'significant adverse effect' on the use has been set at zero. For example, if any measure would cause any reduction in electricity output or navigation capacity, the adverse effect would be considered as 'significant', and therefore the measure would not enforceable. For electricity production, the plan justification is in terms of contravention of global warming mitigation policy. This reason is also used for the justification on navigation, which also includes compliance with international agreements on navigation. Similarly any destruction of private property or historic public building, in order to re-naturalise river sections, would be deemed unacceptable on the basis of citizens’ rights to property.

It seems that the uncertainties in the designation process have not been taken into account, and that there is no plans foreseen to improve the methodology for the next round of RBMPs, other than to review the need for less stringent environmental objectives in future RBMPs.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

HMWBs have been designated but GEP has not been defined. There is no explanation of steps 10 and 11 of the CIS Guidance nº4 on GEP, which have been omitted on the basis that the necessary measures could not be implemented in any case. 

The methodology for defining GEP for HMWBs is included in one of the guidance document[33]. However, the good ecological potential has not been defined in this first RBMP, as the assessment of biological elements had not been finalised and verified. Improved characterisation of the pressures affecting HMWBs is expected to be done for the next cycle (or even before by 2013). The methodology for the assessment of GEP and of biological QEs related to hydromorphological conditions has now been integrated in the national law (in 2010)[34].

As a result of the two issues mentioned before (the significance of the adverse effect to the use defined at zero and the lack of definition of GEP), the current situation appears to be equated with the objectives, i.e. there is no driver for restoration and for improvement of existing pressures from hydromorphological modifications. This is important as the RBMP indicates that there are significant hydromorphological pressures in many water bodies. Nevertheless, hydromorphological measures have been proposed for water bodies not designated as HMWBs, as well as for those designated as HMWBs.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

There are no Artificial Water Bodies designated in Luxembourg.

Although the good ecological potential (GEP) has not been defined in the Luxembourg RBMPs, recent information from the Luxembourg authorities have confirmed the HMWBs were assessed in terms of their ecological potential, as follows:

Status classification || LU RB_000 || LU RB_001

High || ||

Good || 1 ||

Moderate || 3 ||

Poor || 2 ||

Bad || 4 || 1

Total || 10 || 1

Table 8.1: Ecological potential of heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

The RBMP refers to the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) of the EQS Directive[35] for the assessment of chemical status, and that these are used to support the assessment of ecological status and overall status, but there is little information on the assessment method.

All priority substances and other substances of Annex 1 of the EQSD are monitored and used in the assessment of chemical status, but currently only at seven monitoring sites which are considered to be representative. The emphasis is on 'relevant substances', though there are plans to expand monitoring to all priority substances but no details are provided in the RBMP. According to information received from Luxembourg, in 2010, the list of QEs for priority substances in accordance with the provisions of the EQS Directive was approved in a Regulation[36]. The limits established in the 2009 RBMP would not exceed those of the 2010 Regulation, even if the plan was approved before.

Specific pollutant || LU RB_000 || LU RB_001 || Total

Number || % || Number || % || Number || %

Diuron || 3 || 3 || 1 || 33.3 || 4 || 4

Isoproturon || 3 || 3 || - || - || 3 || 3

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) || 2 || 2 || 1 || 33.3 || 3 || 3

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene || 2 || 2 || - || - || 2 || 2

Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene || 5 || 5 || - || - || 5 || 5

Table 9.1: Substances responsible for causing failure of good chemical status

Source: WISE

As the EQS on sediment or biota are concerned, Luxembourg has recently confirmed that it has established biota EQS values for hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadien and mercury[37].

There is however no information on background concentrations, except in relation to indicative values for physico-chemical parameters, it is mentioned that existing conditions were taken into account.

There is no information on whether or how bioavailability is taken into account in the assessment of compliance with the EQS for metals.

9.2 Other issues

There is no information on the use of mixing zones (Article 4 of the Directive 2009/105/EC permits the designation of such zones adjacent to points of discharge Concentrations of one or more substances listed in Part A of Annex I may exceed the relevant EQS within such mixing zones if they do not affect the compliance of the rest of the body of surface water with those standards).

10. Assessment of groundwater status

All 5 groundwater bodies have good quantitative status, 3 have good chemical status.

The main risks are diffuse pollution affecting chemical status (mainly nitrate and pesticides). In some cases (3 groundwater bodies) individual pesticide threshold values were exceeded only once, but these were considered very localised and temporary and not representing an environmental risk in terms of the whole groundwater body. Additional monitoring programmes are in place for those pollutants, which cause failure to achieve good chemical status, i.e. pesticides and nitrate.

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

All 5 groundwater bodies are in good quantitative status.

Since quantitative status is not an issue, effects on surface waters, including terrestrial ecosystems dependent on groundwater, are not considered at risk.

Groundwater recharge exceeds by far the levels of abstraction, as estimated from abstraction, rainfall and piezometric data. However, there seems to be no consideration of future trends in water demand or climate change.  

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

Chemical status of groundwater is assessed in terms of quality standards (largely based on drinking water standards) and for some cases consideration is given to naturally occurring concentrations (relatively high chloride and sulphate concentrations in one groundwater body).

A detailed assessment of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems was not carried out for the current RBMP, it is merely stated that these have been placed under 'orders of no deterioration' and there are no significant risks associated with these. They are the responsibility of a different authority, i.e. the Ministry for Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, Department of the Environment and monitored by this authority, which would inform the Water Management Agency, if there were any problems.

There is a general statement that the quality standards are based on the Groundwater Directive[38] and have been elaborated according to the quality of the groundwater in Luxembourg and based mainly on drinking water standards. The RBMPs contain a list of substances and their quality standards. It includes all substances listed in Annex II Part B of the Groundwater Directive. The conductivity is taken into account in order to determine the chemical quality of groundwater bodies. Furthermore, the assessment includes nitrates and pesticides, which relate to the main pressures on groundwater chemical status (diffuse pollution from agriculture).

All groundwater bodies identified are part of the Rhine RBD, including one transboundary groundwater body, and co-ordination with other RBD Member States in respect of quality standards (or threshold values) in transboundary groundwater body is mentioned, but no details are provided.

Threshold values for groundwater have been established taking into consideration natural background concentrations.

The methodology for TV exceedances has been established; i.e. poor status is assigned if more than one third of sampling points exceed 75% of the quality standard, or less than one third if there is a significant pressure from the pollutant concerned. The relevant pollutants are nitrates, active substances of pesticides, and metabolites and associated products.

A method of trend analysis has been established and a limited amount of trend assessments and trend reversals have been reported, where sufficient data were available.

10.3 Protected areas

There are provisionally designated protected areas for groundwater under Article 7 Drinking Water Abstraction, in total 85. Only 18 of these provisional protected areas seem to be monitored and the status of all of them is given as unknown. 

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

LU RB_000 || || || 82

Total || 0 || 0 || 82

Table 10.1: Number and status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

There is an indication of transboundary co-operation with the ICPR in terms of producing a map for exemptions on one transboundary groundwater body with poor chemical status. No other information is available in the RBMP. 

The estimates of achieving the environmental objectives for the different planning cycles is presented as percentage of water bodies on a national basis (including Rhine RBD: 89 natural surface water bodies and 10 HMWBs, and Meuse RBD: 2 natural surface water bodies and 1 HMWB) and in terms of overall status only.

Type of water body (total No.) || Status || Total No. (%) water bodies

2009 || 2015 || 2021 || 2027

Surface water bodies (91) || Good overall status || 7 (7%) || 25 (25%) || 77 (77%) || 90 (99%)

HMWBs (11) || Good ecological status || 1 (9%) || 2 (18%) || 5 (46%) || 9 (82%)

Groundwater bodies (5) || Good quantitative status || 5 (100%) || 5 (100%) || 5 (100%) || 5 (100%)

Groundwater bodies (5) || Good chemical status || 3 (60%) || 3 (60%) || 3 (2 unknown) || 3 (2 unknown)

Table 11.1: Summary of status 2009 / expected status 2015 of water bodies at national level

(Note: 'Good ecological status' seems to be used for HMWBs, rather than 'Good ecological potential', which has not been established – see Section 5.2)

Source: WISE and RBMP

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

Drinking Water protected areas are in the process of being designated (provisional at present), together with additional stricter objectives that will apply, and incorporation into legislation is expected to be complete by 2015. The stricter objectives are expected to be in line with the quality standards of the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC.

The additional objective for Bathing Water protected areas is given as 'protection of human health in relation to bacterial pollution', but no further details are provided in the RBMP.

The RBMP states that the Ministry for Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, Department of the Environment, is responsible for objectives in Natura 2000 sites and will shortly specify any measures needed to protect these areas, but the plan does not give any further information.

There are no shellfish protected areas.

In addition, there is a general statement that basic measures for specific water bodies (surface water) and nationwide supplementary measures are expected to also benefit PAs.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and Article 4(5)

For surface water, most of the exemptions (96%) have been applied under Article 4(4) (longer timeline) have been applied so far, for 65 surface water bodies and 9 HMWBs which are not expected to reach good status by 2015[39]. Only in 3 cases, the exemption under Article 4(5) has been used.

There is however no detailed information relating the exemptions to impacts and drivers, but the information is provided in terms of chemical status (pollutants responsible for less than good status by 2015). For groundwater, the only information relates to two groundwater bodies to which extensions under Article 4(4) apply on the basis of natural conditions (due to long residence time of pollutants in aquifers), and the exemptions relate to chemical status due to pollution with nitrate and pesticides for both groundwater bodies.

On the reasons for exemptions, the RBMP states that the majority of time extensions needed are due to either 'technical feasibility' or 'natural conditions'. No exemptions have been used on the basis of disproportionate costs.

Technical feasibility has only been applied for exemptions concerning time extensions. However, there is no clear definition of technical feasibility, but an example to justify extension of deadlines on the basis of technical feasibility is given as 'the necessary time for implementation of technical solutions is too long'.

RBD || Global[40]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

LU_RB_000 || 62 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 10 || -

LU_RB_001 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

Total || 62 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 10 || -

Table 11.2: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

There are no exemptions under Article 4(6).

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

There are no exemptions under Article 4(7).

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

There is no information on exemptions to the Groundwater Directive.

Exemptions are listed for 2 groundwater bodies (poor chemical status) under Article 4(4) of the WFD only, on the basis of natural conditions, i.e. due to long residence time of the pollutants responsible (nitrates and pesticides). 

No exemptions are listed for drinking water protected areas in the preliminary designation.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[41] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become fully operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as proposed by the Member States in their RBMPs, and the completeness and compliance of such programmes with the requirements of Article 11 of the WFD.

Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will carefully assess what Member States will report by then and will decide thereafter on the most appropriate follow-up of the implementation of the measures.

Measures have been developed on the basis of the status assessments (chemical and overall ecological status for river water (lakes and transitional/coastal not relevant), and there are three groups of measures: urban wastewater management (relating mainly to urban wastewater), hydromorphological, and agricultural (diffuse sources).

There is only general information on co-ordination with other Member States, i.e. neighbouring countries, and international co-operation with the Commissions for the Protection of the Rhine, Mosel/Saar and Meuse (ICPR, ICPMS and ICM), but there are no further details provided in the plan.

Basic measures and some supplementary measures have been established at RBD level, other supplementary measures apply nationally, under the responsibility of the national authority (Administration de la Gestion de l’Eau), which is in charge of the implementation of the WFD (see Section 3). 

The costs of measures have been clearly identified as investment costs and maintenance costs up to 2027, except for agriculture, which is for compensation costs estimated up to 2013-15, when the relevant legal framework will end/need to be renewed.

The Water Law of 2008 regulates the financing of the measures; in practice financing of urban waste water and hydromorphological measures are largely covered by the national fund for water management, funded from abstraction and wastewater disposal licences, and topped up by state budgetary contributions, and possibly loans from the European Investment Bank. Maintenance costs are financed by local authorities through water service revenues. And agricultural measures are funded under existing programmes, such as Agri-Environment and agriculture/environmental protection programmes (including the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development).

Basic measures are clear and already in place, whilst there is uncertainty about the extent of the implementation of the supplementary measures. There is no information on when the measures will become operational, except that some measures seem to be already part of ongoing programmes, e.g. the agricultural measures to control diffuse sources of pollution and the introduction of water protection zones and restrictions associated with these. Other measures, which are mainly basic measures relating to urban waste water and hydromorphological alterations, have been prioritised and the costs have been  spread over the three periods up to 2015, 2015-2021 and 2021-2027, although some of these are already in place.

There has been a prioritisation of the measures based on an economic analysis and have been spread over the three planning periods (2009-2015, 2015-2021 and 2021-2027). The measures that will be implemented up to 2015 will be the most urgent basic measures (to implement existing directives) and those measures necessary to achieve good status in 2015 that are the most cost-efficient (priority P1). During the second cycle, Luxembourg will implement those measures defined to achieve good status by 2021 and measures with a positive impact in several water bodies (priority P2). Finally, the measures planned to achieve good ecological status by 2027 and those measures designed to maintain the good status will be implemented during the third cycle (priority P3). These three priorities have been assigned to all water bodies, except for water bodies with good or higher status. This prioritisation together with the estimated costs of the measures has provided for a planning in the funding of all measures to be applied until 2027.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Diffuse sources from agriculture represent the main pressure on groundwater quality and a significant pressure on surface water quality, mainly from pesticide and fertiliser application, resulting in bad chemical status due to nitrates and pesticides. There is no significant pressure from agriculture on hydromorphology or quantitative status. 

Farmers were participants in the working groups preparing a catalogue of measures, including agricultural measures relating to diffuse sources (see also Section 3). 

Agricultural measures selected are supplementary measures aimed mainly at reducing diffuse pollution, and addressed on a nationwide basis and mainly through voluntary participation of farmers, though encouraged through compensation payments.

The non-technical measures have merely been proposed for future development and application.

Some measures are already ongoing as part of existing programmes (Agri-Environment Programme and Countryside Protection Programme) but improvement in farmer participation is expected with the agriculture measures.

The time scale for agricultural measures is currently set up to 2013 or 2015 (depending on the programme concerned) when the legal framework for compensation payments will have to be reviewed in terms of possibilities to link them to a national environment plan (e.g. including non-use of fertiliser, water protection measures). In addition, compensation payments may be made to farmers by water suppliers for loss of productivity in water safeguard zones.

Measures || LU RB_000

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ü

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices ||

Measures against soil erosion || ü

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü

Technical measures for water saving ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || ü

Co-operative agreements || ü

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || ü

Nutrient trading ||

Fertiliser taxation ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation ||

Institutional changes ||

Codes of agricultural practice || ü

Farm advice and training || ü

Raising awareness of farmers ||

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making ||

Certification schemes ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) ||

Specific action plans/programmes ||

Land use planning ||

Technical standards ||

Specific projects related to agriculture ||

Environmental permitting and licensing ||

Table 12. 1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM[42]

Source: RBMPs

Note on non-technical measures: *Examples of additional measures needed in the future include a Code of Practice for the Agricultural Sector, and advice to farmers and local government on the use of fertilisers and pesticides, but these are not currently implemented.

Source: RBMP

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

The overall objective for all hydromorphological measures is to improve ecological continuity and restore more natural conditions, and thereby achieving or at least improving ecologically based flow regime and river continuity. There is no information on the proposed measures or on any assessment of expected effects of the proposed measures, nor is it clear whether all of these measures will be implemented.

Specific hydromorphological measures for HMWBs have been included in the Programme of Measures. The evaluation of possible measures for the provisionally designated HMWBs showed significant long-term negative effects for all, with no viable alternatives for their usage (drinking water supplies, energy production, navigation and urban settlements incl. historic buildings).

There are three main types of measures: agriculture measures, urban waste water management and hydromorphological measures. HMWBs benefit from UWWT and hydromorphological measures.

Measures || LU RB_000

Fish ladders || ü

Bypass channels ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas ||

Sediment/debris management ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || ü

Lowering of river banks || ü

Restoration of bank structure || ü

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking ||

Inundation of flood plains ||

Construction of retention basins ||

Reduction or modification of dredging ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || ü

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || ü

Table 12.2: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMP

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

The main risks, impacts and pressures relate to diffuse sources from agriculture (mainly pesticides and nitrates), both of which have exceeded quality standards at several monitoring sites in two groundwater bodies.

Nationwide supplementary measures are in place to reduce their inputs; these measures are voluntary, but linked to compensation payments as part of environmental/agricultural schemes. In addition, the designation of water protection zones (around drinking water abstraction wells) and appropriate restrictions are under development.

Measures on surface water bodies, most in relation to the full implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, are also considered to benefit groundwater quality, especially in respect of nitrates concentrations.

No measures are considered necessary in relation to quantitative status (groundwater over-exploitation is not considered an issue; the quantitative status of all groundwater bodies is good, and authorisation of abstractions with limits on volume abstracted is already in place).

International co-ordination of measures is referred to only in general terms. The international co-ordination for accidental pollution and measures only relates to surface waters.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

There is a national point source pollution register. The RBMP indicates that this includes Priority and Priority Dangerous Substances from Annex X of the WFD and 8 substances from the Dangerous Substances Directive. There is also a reference to the Pollutant Release Transfer Register (PRTR) in the case of the two relevant industrial installations (releasing organic carbon, nutrients N and P, and the metals copper and zinc).

There is no inventory for diffuse source pollution.

The main basic measures on surface water bodies are clearly defined when they relate to improving urban waste water treatment and collection (due to non-compliance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC) and to achieve full compliance with the IPPC Directive 96/61/EC.

Information on substance-specific measures is provided mainly in general terms, for example reductions in emissions of WFD Annex VIII, IX and X substances, including reduced application and emission of pesticides, and specifically reductions in emissions of Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene and metazaclor in one water body.

Supplementary measures for all other substances relate mainly to diffuse agricultural sources, and include for example reduced application of pesticides and control of fertiliser application (to reduce nutrient input N, P) on a nation-wide, although voluntary basis. 

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

In the Article 2 of the Water Law form 19 December 2008 a broad definition of water services, being in line with WFD definition, was applied.

Based on water legislation, 3 sectors – households, industry and agriculture – have been defined as water users.

Cost recovery for water services is calculated including: operational and maintenance costs, and depreciation of investment costs. Luxembourg authorities reported that EU subsidies and some national subsidies (related to of the Water Law form 19 December 2008) for water infrastructure were not taken into account within cost recovery calculation.

The calculation includes environmental and resource costs internalised trough abstraction and discharge tax (environmental/resource taxes). This tax financial resources feed into a National Fund for Water Management, which is used to finance measures under the WFD.

Cost recovery is calculated at the level of 84% for the 3 sectors combined. The contribution to cost recovery of water services is not disaggregated into different water uses (at least households, agriculture and industry), which is not in line with WFD and makes cross-subsidies among different sectors invisible.

Luxembourg authorities reported that flexibility provisions: social, environmental and economic effects of the recovery as well as geographic and climatic conditions were taken into account setting up water tariffs, but no precise justification in relation to different water uses was done to prove that their contribution to cost recovery is adequate.

It is reported that Luxembourg legislation is based on the 'polluter-pays principle' for water quality and the resource user principle for quantity, which is implemented through a combination of charging for water services (at community level) and a national tax on abstraction (surface water and groundwater, charged by volume) and on discharges (charged by pollutant load). The intention of this system of charging is to structure pricing to encourage pollution reductions and efficient water use. Above mentioned rules prove that incentive pricing policy for efficient water use is implemented.

Abstraction and discharge taxes are set and charged at national level, in co-operation between national and local authorities, to set and charge abstraction and discharge taxes, and water service costs, respectively. There is no information on international co-operation specifically in this context.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

The protected areas have been identified, but there are no details of the additional measures identified in those areas to achieve the more stringent objectives of other Community legislation. There is however a general statement that basic measures for specific surface water bodies and nationwide supplementary measures are expected to also benefit protected areas.

The Drinking Water Protected Areas and measures to be applied are in the process of being established, although some protected areas have been designated on a preliminary basis. Some restrictions on pesticide and fertiliser applications seem to apply on a voluntary basis at present.  

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts and flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity and drought are not considered relevant, as based on replenishment/recharge far exceeding water abstraction, and no measures are considered necessary in this planning cycle.

No data on future water demand and water availability trend scenarios are provided, probably due to the high level of surplus water replenishment, which renders the question irrelevant. In some cases, there are occasional technical issues during short periods in summer due to heavy consumption.

However, research has been ongoing over many years, focusing on water planning issues; this has yielded trend data on intensity and frequency of precipitation, and may have been used as a basis for the above conclusions.

Luxembourg is also collaborating with the International Commissions for the protection of the Rhine (ICPR), the Meuse (ICPM) and the Mosel/Saar (ICPMS) in the area of sustainable water use and flood risk (see below).

In 2008, the Ministry for Home Affairs approved a plan for raising awareness and restrictions on the drinking water in order to assure the supply of drinking water during the summer periods.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Flood prevention is included in some cases as part of the reason for designation of HMWBs, but no new measures seem to be directly aimed at flood prevention. 

Ongoing measures include re-naturalisation of rivers, retention basins, separate rainwater collection and encouraging infiltration in newly developed areas. These relate mainly to flood prevention as part of national policy, but are not specifically part of the RBMP, and are indirectly also related to climate change adaptation.

The Floods Directive is referred to in the RBMP, as well as a flood risk map of the Mosel.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

Climate change issues are mentioned in general terms, but there is no specific mention of a 'climate check' of the PoMs or specific climate change adaptation measures, although reference is made to benefits from ongoing re-naturalisation measures (e.g. prevention of flood risk, see above).

It is stated that a considerable amount of preparatory work has been done (research, information on precipitation, drought and flood risks, and including international co‑operation) to produce a future national Climate Change Strategy and to develop it further through future RBMPs. For example, a study by the ICPR includes data provided by Luxembourg and is expected to provide information on regional climatic projections for the Rhine IRBD and sub-basins including most of Luxembourg.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions. Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· The RBMPs should be clearly structured and accessible to the public and relevant stakeholders. It would also be advisable to clearly distinguish the information and the measures that are relevant for the Rhine RBD, for the Meuse or for both. This transparency within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

· The assessment methods for ecological and chemical status need to be further developed, in particular for the hydromorphological quality elements. Some biological quality elements still need to be adapted to the Decision on Intercalibration.

· Only little improvement of the water status is expected by 2015 and the objectives for subsequent planning deadlines are not always clear. Objectives should be clearly indicated and transparent in order to be able to reach good status of waters in a reasonable timeframe.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· There are significant gaps in the designation of HMWBs. The methodology of this first RBMP does not provide for any driver for restoration and improvement of the existing pressures from hydromorphological modifications. Furthermore, the methodology to define good ecological potential was not yet defined in this plan, and there is therefore a significant gap in the objectives to be defined for the HMWBs. The designation of HMWBs should be brought in line with all the requirements of Article 4(3).

· A large number of exemptions has been applied in the first cycle of RBMPs. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans, in particular the justification for technical infeasibility and the expected timeline for the achievement of the objectives.

· The high number of exemptions applied in these first RBMPs is a cause for concern. Luxembourg should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainty.

· It is unclear whether there are any new physical modifications planned in RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· The reporting into the WISE should be significantly improved for the next cycle. There are numerous discrepancies between the information in the RBMPs and what has been reported into WISE.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.

· More information on the monitoring of priority substances, specifying for more sites which substances have been monitored and which have caused failure, will be expected in the next RBMP.

· Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived. The requirement for trend monitoring in sediment or biota as specified for several substances in Directive 2008/105/EC Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.

· Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so that the approach to achieve the objectives is clear. All the relevant information on basic and supplementary measures should be included in the summary of the PoM to increase transparency on the planned actions for the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in the WFD.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resource in Luxembourg RBDs. However, the measures related to agriculture are mainly on a voluntary basis, which makes the strategy unlikely to deliver. A right balance between voluntary actions and a strong baseline of mandatory measures and rules needs to be set up. This should be developed with the farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance.

· There needs to be a very clear baseline in the agriculture sector so that all farmers know the rules this can be adequately advised and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· Luxembourg should provide the calculation of contribution of different water uses disaggregated into at least households, agriculture and industry to cost recovery of water services, in accordance with the requirements of Article 9. In case Luxembourg applies the flexibility provisions of Article 9(4), Luxembourg authorities should provide required justifications.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are 'self-services', for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs shall be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

[1]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[2]     Categorisation determined under the 'EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU' (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[3]     'EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU'

[4]     http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/lu/eu/wfdart13

[5]     More information may be found in the 'EC Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU'.

[6]     German Working Group on water issues of the Federal States and the Federal Government, Bund/Länder-Arbeitsgemeinscaft Wasser - LAWA.

[7]     In December 2008 the Commission decided to refer Luxembourg to the Court of Justice for having in place a non-compliant nitrate action programme (case C- 526/08).

[8]     One PA covering all of Luxembourg.

[9]     One PA covering all of Luxembourg.

[10]    This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[11]    Probably includes additional sites for special monitoring programmes, e.g. nitrate.

[12]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[13]    Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,  OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 84–97.

[14]    2009 Commission report, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf)

[15] There are still 31 monitoring stations including 19 quantitative monitoring stations. The other 23 stations are belonging to the supplementary monitoring programmes for nitrates and pesticides, which have not been reported 2007

[16]    Monitoring sites listed although no protected areas seem to have been designated.

[17]    Number of monitoring sites reported at programme level.

[18]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[19]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[20]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[21]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[22]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[23]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[24]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[25]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[26]    Decision of 30 October 2008 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the member state monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise (notified under document number C(2008) 6016) (2008/915/EC).

[27]    'Identification et évaluation de la capacité de développement des cours d'eau luxembourgeois en tant que base à l'élaboration des plans de gestion pour atteindre l'objectif de bon état de la DCE', (Physische Geographie und Umweltforschung der Universität des Saarlandes, 2006).

[28]    Règlement Grand-Ducal 30 décembre 2010 relatif à l'évaluation de l'état des masses d'eau de surface.

[29]    Decision of 30 October 2008 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the member state monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise (notified under document number C(2008) 6016) (2008/915/EC)

[30]    Règlement Grand-Ducal du 30 décembre 2010 relatif à l'évaluation de l'état des masses d'eau de surface.

[31]    Figure 5, page 27 of the 2007 Implementation Report, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2007_0362_en.pdf

[32]http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/gds04shmwbspolicyssummar/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[33]    Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie Methodenhandbuch für das Großherzogtum Luxembourg, 2009

[34]    Règlement Grand-Ducal du 30 décembre 2010 relatif à l'évaluation de l'état des masses d'eau de surface

[35]    Directive 2008/105/EC. OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p 84-97.

[36]    Règlement Grand-Ducal du 30 décembre 2010 relatif à l'évaluation de l'état des masses d'eau de surface.

[37]    See Annex III of the 'Règlement grand-ducal du 30 décembre 2010 relatif à l’évaluation de l’état des masses d’eau de surface'.

[38]    Directive 2006/118/EC. OJ L 372, 27.12.2006 , p. 19–31

[39]    There is conflicting information between WISE and the RBMP (in the number of exemptions, those under Article 4(5) and on the reasons of exemptions. Luxembourg has confirmed that the WISE information is not correct and will be amended.

[40] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[41]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management

[42] Results only available for LU RB_000 (Rhine).

1. general information

T

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE

The Republic of Ireland has a population: 4.48 million[1], and an area of  70,000 km2. OF the seven river basin districts (RBDs) ,three RBDs are shared with Northern Ireland (UK).

RBD || RBD Name || Size (km2)[2] || Countries sharing RBD

GBNIIENB || Neagh Bann IRBD || 8121 (2000 in IE) || UK

GBNIIENW || North Western IRBD || 14793 (7400 in IE) || UK

IEEA || Eastern RBD || 6657 || -

IEGBNISH || Shannon IRBD || 19452 (19450 in IE) || UK

IESE || South Eastern RBD || 13941 || -

IESW || South Western RBD || 15077 || -

IEWE || Western RBD || 16952 || -

Table 1.1: Overview of Ireland’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[3]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ie/eu/wfdart13

Three RBDs are jointly designated as international RBDs, and some RBDs have several transboundary river basins. Only a very small part of the Shannon RBD is in the UK.

Name international river basin || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category || Total 1-4

1

km² || % || km² || %

Neagh Bann || UK || 2002 || 24.6 || 2002 || 24.6

North Western (rivers Erne and Foyle) || UK || 7400 || 60.2 || 7400 || 60.2

Shannon || UK || 17957 || >99 || 17957 || >99

Total || || 27359 || || 27359 ||

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Ireland[4]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

The RBMPs were adopted on to be 6 July 2010. RBMPs were reported to the Commission in October 2010: Eastern, South Eastern, North Western and Neagh Bann on 4th, Western on 7th, Shannon on 21st and South Western on 28th, after which the infringement case for non-reporting of plans was closed.

2.1 Major strengths  

· The Article 5 risk assessment was updated to inform the development of the RBMPs.

· The methodology used to identify specific pollutants and set Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) is clear and transparent and in accordance with WFD Annex V 1.2.6.

· Additional objectives have been set for shellfish protected areas and sites designated for protection of pearl mussel populations. Additional measures are taken to achieve these objectives.

· Mandatory measures to address agricultural pollution have been put in place.

· The requirements of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been taken into account when identifying measures to deal with groundwater abstractions.

· Joint International strategy documents on the coordination with the United Kingdom were adopted for the shared RBDs.

· Climate change is mentioned throughout and the Programme of Measures was climate checked. A national climate change strategy was also referred to.

2.2 Major gaps

· The level of ambition is low – only 18% more rivers are expected to meet objectives in 2015 than in 2009, and large numbers of exemptions are applied.

· Assessment methods for classification of ecological status are not fully developed for all biological and physico-chemical quality elements (QEs) in all water categories. Only interim status has been reported.

· Not all the required quality elements(QEs) are included in the monitoring programme for lakes and coastal waters. Coastal and estuarine monitoring programmes have not yet been fully implemented.

· There is currently no recovery of costs of water supply to households, costs are met by government funding. Environmental and Resource costs have not been estimated due to a lack of suitable data.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

Consultations as required by Article 14 of the WFD were held as follows:

· WFD work programme: 6 months.

· Significant Water Matters Ireland reports: 22/06/2007 – 22/12/2007.

· Consultations were undertaken for the Water body characterisation report: 2 month period but no dates listed and "Managing our Shared Waters" Consultation Paper: 10 weeks.

· Consultation of the draft RBMP from the date of submission: 22/12/2008 - 22/06/2009.

3.2 Administrative arrangements

Responsibility for implementation of the WFD is split between a large number of local and national authorities, which has made the process more challenging to coordinate. Discussions are underway to change the administrative arrangements, establishing a three tier structure of Government Departments, the EPA and regional networks. The national authorities that were involved in the initial development of the plans were:

Authority || Responsibilities

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) || Reporting to EU, coordinating national activities, other tasks include assigning status, monitoring programmes, review of RBMPs.

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government || Coordinating WFD implementation, determining priority for investment in infrastructure and resource availability to local authorities.

Other Government Departments || Implementing policy and programmes in their respective policy areas.

Water Framework Directive National Advisory Committee || Oversee implementation of plan at a national level.

Table 3.2.1: Authorities responsible for the implementation of the WFD

Source: RBMPs

Activities in each RBD are coordinated by the local authorities, with a lead authority for each which is supported by the other local authorities in the area. The Lead Authorities are: Monaghan County Council (Neagh Bann IRBD), Donegal County Council (North Western IRBD), Limerick County Council (Shannon IRBD), Dublin City Council (Eastern RBD), Carlow County Council (South Eastern RBD), Cork County Council (South Western RBD) and Galway County Council (Western RBD).

A national approach is generally followed in implementation of the WFD, with some differences in the International RBDs due to coordination with the neighbouring Member State.

A reform of water authorities has been announced, but details have not yet been provided. 

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

Three RBDs are shared with the UK (Neagh Bann, North Western and Shannon), but no final single international RBMP has been reported by Ireland for any of these RBDs.

The adopting authority for the RBMPs are the local authorities, and the formal approval is done by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local government, but the type of document adopting the act is unclear to the Commission. As regards the legal status, the RBMP’s are high level strategic planning documents. They are not in themselves legal instruments, though have a statutory basis. The European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 (SI No 722/2003) places a general duty on every public authority to take such actions as may be appropriate in the context of its functions to secure compliance with the Directive and with the provisions of any river basin management plan made, and any programme of measures established, in accordance with the Regulations. There is an obligation to take into account environmental objectives of RBMPs in individual decisions. In addition, the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009 (S.I. No. 272 of 2009) and new European Communities Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations 2010 (S.I. No. 9 of 2010) were adopted to give effect to the measures needed to achieve surface water and groundwater environmental objectives established in RBMP’s. These Regulations place a legal obligation on public authorities to aim to achieve those objectives in the context of their statutory functions, e.g.  both sets of Regulations require the relevant authorities to review all pollutant discharge authorisations to take account of the objectives established in river basin plans. Permitting authorities are bound by the RBMPs.[5]

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

The methodology used for the consultation process was generally consistent across all RBDs in Ireland. The consultation process on the draft RBMP was carried out through a number of different routes, including meetings, written consultation and web based comments. Information on the consultation process could be obtained through the internet, direct mail to households, and local authorities, and printed media was available at local libraries and schools. The stakeholders involved in the consultation included a wide range of sectors, such as agriculture, energy, fisheries, industry, NGOs and universities and involvement was through both regular and ad-hoc meetings. It is not clear whether there is continuous involvement of these stakeholders or the general public. The comments provided led to adjustments to specific measures and the addition of new information to the RBMPs, but did not change the selection of measures used. A full list of these changes has not been provided.

3.5 International cooperation and coordination

IE contains three IRBDs (Neagh Bann (GBNIIENB), North Western (GBNIIENW) and Shannon (IEGBNISH)), all of which are shared with the UK. Only a very small part (2.5 km2) of the Shannon IRBD is within the UK area. There was very close coordination between the relevant authorities in the Ireland and the UK within the IRBDs, with the North/South WFD Coordination Group being supported by a number of technical working groups and implementing authorities in both countries. A high level strategy document for each of International RBDs has been agreed between both jurisdictions[6], here placing these IRBDs in Category 1, as RBDs with international River Basin Management Plans.

3.6 Integration with other sectors

The RBMP contains links to other sectors such as agriculture, through the Nitrates National Action Programme, and the chemical industry, through the IPPC licensing programme. These plans include issues such nutrient enrichment and chemical pollution, as well as flood protection and rural and urban planning. There are also links with conservation status under the Habitats Directive.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

Each of the seven RBDs in Ireland has rivers, lakes, groundwater, transitional and coastal waters. Where transitional water bodies have been delineated the typology was based on the ‘System B’ approach, and used the factors tidal range, salinity, mixing characteristics, substratum composition and extent of intertidal area. The Typology is described in detail in the UK Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG) on the Water Framework Directive document "Guidance on Typology for Coastal and Transitional Waters of the UK and the Republic of Ireland".

4.2 Typology of surface waters

The RBMP shows that typologies have been developed for all water categories in Ireland. For rivers and lakes, these typologies have been verified using biological data to check that they are ecologically meaningful. However, although biological validation of the data for transitional and coastal waters was attempted, it was not possible to statistically validate the physical typologies using the available biological dataset. An alternative approach using both physical and biological data was used to define typologies for these waters.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

GBNIIENB || 13 || 14 || 6 || 12

GBNIIENW || 13 || 14 || 6 || 12

IEEA || 12 || 13 || 6 || 12

IEGBNISH || 13 || 14 || 6 || 12

IESE || 13 || 14 || 6 || 12

IESW || 12 || 13 || 6 || 12

IEWE || 13 || 14 || 6 || 12

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

Reference conditions have been developed for all types of river, transitional and coastal waters. For lakes, reference conditions were developed for all lake types for macrophytes, but only applied to types LA1/2 for phytoplankton-chlorophyll-a. Fish were not intercalibrated in phase 1 of intercalibration, so reference conditions were not available for the 1st RBMPs, although Irish authorities have clarified that the second phase of intercalibration has allowed development of reference conditions for all elements. The methodologies used for establishment of these reference conditions included the use of water chemistry and biological and palaeolimnogical data from high status sites along with expert judgement. Where not enough sites were available within Ireland, historical data or equivalent sites in other Member States were also used.

For rivers, 12 different types were defined, based on information on geology and slope[7]. For lakes, 13 typologies were defined, using characteristics such as altitude, depth, alkalinity and size[8]. For Transitional and Coastal waters, the same typologies are used as for the UK, with 6 types of transitional water and 12 types of coastal water. This typology is based on factors including salinity, mixing characteristics and tidal range[9].

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

Due to the fact that just under 2% or 209 of the total of 12,206 Irish lakes are greater than 0.5 km2 in surface area a number of small water bodies (smaller than the size criteria in Annex II) have been included in the RBMPs, especially where they are designated as in protected areas e.g. important drinking water abstraction sources or within special areas of conservation.   

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

GBNIIENB || 90 || 6 || 17 || 2 || 8 || 6 || 3 || 49 || 28 || 105

GBNIIENW || 682 || 4 || 226 || 2 || 21 || 8 || 23 || 97 || 72 || 119

IEEA || 365 || 5 || 26 || 3 || 13 || 2 || 8 || 45 || 75 || 83

IEGBNISH || 900 || 6 || 113 || 4 || 20 || 13 || 11 || 111 || 242 || 73

IESE || 672 || 6 || 12 || 3 || 21 || 5 || 9 || 114 || 151 || 85

IESW || 891 || 4 || 90 || 3 || 42 || 5 || 27 || 133 || 84 || 134

IEWE || 966 || 4 || 322 || 4 || 65 || 4 || 30 || 153 || 104 || 113

Total || 4565 || 5 || 807 || 3 || 190 || 6 || 111 || 119 || 756 || 94

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

The methodology used for identification of significant pressures generally follows a national approach, using a combination of numerical tools and expert judgement[10]. Information on pressures was found in the Article 5 assessment and technical follow-up documents[11]. The most significant pressures identified are shown in the table 4.4.1 below.

Across the RBDs, the percentages of water bodies affected by these pressures are similar, although numbers of water bodies at risk from abstraction, morphological alterations and other pressures are higher in Eastern RBD than others.

As regards point sources, only wastewater treatment works (WWTW) with a population equivalent (PE) greater than 500 were investigated as potential risks. Some smaller plants were de facto included based on previous monitoring results. A number of factors were assessed, including compliance with discharge consents, deterioration in the receiving water body, the use of the treatment plant compared with its capacity and the assimilative capacity of the receiving water. In designated areas, water quality was also assessed against bathing and shellfish water standards. Industrial discharges were assessed using the same methodology. The risk from combined sewer-overflow (CSO) discharges was assessed in all discharges with a PE greater than 2000, and was based on the number of spills per year. Where necessary, expert judgement was used to verify the assessment. No data is available for mines, quarries, contaminated land or older closed landfills but large landfills are licences by the EPA, so expert judgement is used to assess the level of pressure. The OSPAR procedure for eutrophication assessment[12] is used to identify transitional and coastal waters at risk, and look at pressures from unsewered industry and rural areas. Land use data were used to assess diffuse source pressures, such as urban, highway and agricultural runoff, with >1.3% arable land cover or 0.03% urban land cover indicating a high risk to the river water body. Expert judgement was used for factors such as septic tanks[13], which could not be indicated in the land use models.

Abstractions in river, lake and transitional waters were assessed by investigating the percentage of flow removed from Q95 flow levels. The presence of flow regulation structures, such as a hydroelectric dam, water supply reservoir, or more than three weirs indicated a high level of risk to a river[14]. Flood defence structures also put a water body at risk if they covered more than 60% of a river or 30% of a lake. For transitional and coastal waters the TraC-MIMAS tool as used to assess flood defence structures, dredging and marine construction[15].

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

GBNIIENB || 26 || 22.03 || 74 || 62.71 || 68 || 57.63 || 18 || 15.25 || 0 || 0 || 53 || 44.92 || 4 || 3.39 || 0 || 0 || 14 || 11.86

GBNIIENW || 401 || 42.12 || 358 || 37.61 || 415 || 43.59 || 127 || 13.34 || 7 || 0.74 || 91 || 9.56 || 4 || 0.42 || 0 || 0 || 37 || 3.89

IEEA || 21 || 5.1 || 381 || 92.48 || 380 || 92.23 || 221 || 53.64 || 371 || 90.05 || 371 || 90.05 || 16 || 3.88 || 371 || 90.05 || 306 || 74.27

IEGBNISH || 216 || 20.69 || 576 || 55.17 || 701 || 67.15 || 49 || 4.69 || 49 || 4.69 || 445 || 42.62 || 10 || 0.96 || 0 || 0 || 36 || 3.45

IESE || 76 || 10.64 || 582 || 81.51 || 598 || 83.75 || 25 || 3.5 || 1 || 0.14 || 146 || 20.45 || 9 || 1.26 || 0 || 0 || 20 || 2.8

IESW || 453 || 43.14 || 404 || 38.48 || 508 || 48.38 || 56 || 5.33 || 27 || 2.57 || 50 || 4.76 || 10 || 0.95 || 0 || 0 || 29 || 2.76

IEWE || 693 || 50.11 || 429 || 31.02 || 512 || 37.02 || 35 || 2.53 || 22 || 1.59 || 230 || 16.63 || 5 || 0.36 || 0 || 0 || 30 || 2.17

Total || 1886 || 33.25 || 2804 || 49.43 || 3182 || 56.09 || 531 || 9.36 || 477 || 8.41 || 1386 || 24.43 || 58 || 1.02 || 371 || 6.54 || 472 || 8.32

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

1 = No pressures 2 = Point source 3 = Diffuse source 4 = Water abstraction 5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations 6 = River management 7 = Transitional and coastal water management 8 = Other morphological alterations 9 = Other pressures

1 = No pressures 2 = Point source 3 = Diffuse source 4 = Water abstraction 5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations 6 = River management 7 = Transitional and coastal water management 8 = Other morphological alterations 9 = Other pressures

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures Source: WISE

The sectors listed as contributing significantly to chemical pollution include: industrial emissions (directs and indirect discharges), households (including through sewage treatment plants), atmospheric deposition, transport network (road runoff and herbicides) and contaminated land and mines. 

4.5 Protected areas

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats **** || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

GBNIIENB || 38 || 4 || 3 || || || 4 || || || 1 || 2 || 5

GBNIIENW || 142 || 19 || 25 || || 6 || 54 || || || 1 || 12 || 3

IEEA || 104 || 20 || 16 || || 2 || 33 || || || 1 || 2 || 4

IEGBNISH || 270 || 19 || 30 || || 2 || 127 || || || 1 || 6 || 12

IESE || 155 || 11 || 13 || || 3 || 42 || || || 1 || 5 || 9

IESW || 105 || 22 || 17 || || 6 || 48 || || || 1 || 19 || 8

IEWE || 129 || 31 || 32 || || 12 || 118 || || || 1 || 17 || 1

Total || 943** || 126 || 136 || || 31 || 426 || || || 7*** || 63 || 42

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater* Notes : * This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives. ** All groundwater bodies are drinking water protected areas, so 733 DWPA are Groundwater bodies *** Ireland has established and applies action programmes in the whole of its territory and therefore, in accordance with article 3.5 of the Nitrates Directive (1991/676/EEC), it is exempted from designation of specific vulnerable zones.

**** Additional data provided   by Irish Authorities, not reported to WISE. Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Overall, the monitoring programme has changed little since the 2009 implementation report. The numbers of monitoring sites included now are 2726 (compared with 2724 in 2009) for rivers, 217 (222) for lakes, 36 (33) coastal, and 81 (84) transitional. Ireland has a relatively dense monitoring network for rivers and lakes, measured as monitoring station per 1000 km², but relatively low percentage of water bodies(5%) are subject to surveillance monitoring(5%) and fewer water bodies are subject to operational monitoring than there are water bodies with significant pressures.  Data on which QEs were monitored per station was not supplied to WISE, and therefore the overview table of QEs monitored per water category is not included.. Irish authorities refer to the Art 8 reports (submitted 2007), which the Commission then assessed as not including all relevant quality elements in monitoring.[16]

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

GBNIIENB || 4 || 59 || 1 || 5 || 0 || 2 || 1 || 1 || 8 || 2 || 5

GBNIIENW || 20 || 262 || 18 || 55 || 3 || 4 || 3 || 4 || 17 || 1 || 14

IEEA || 15 || 244 || 6 || 16 || 3 || 5 || 1 || 4 || 38 || 7 || 30

IEGBNISH || 46 || 602 || 17 || 50 || 5 || 7 || 0 || 2 || 48 || 26 || 21

IESE || 33 || 536 || 0 || 5 || 6 || 9 || 1 || 4 || 74 || 39 || 41

IESW || 30 || 391 || 7 || 23 || 3 || 16 || 3 || 5 || 39 || 23 || 19

IEWE || 31 || 422 || 25 || 63 || 6 || 12 || 3 || 4 || 50 || 14 || 56

Total by type of site || 179 || 2516 || 74 || 217 || 26 || 55 || 12 || 24 || 274 || 112 || 186

Total number of monitoring sites* || 2726 || 217 || 81 || 36 || 338

Table 5.1: Number of monitoring sites by water category

Surv = Surveillance

Op = Operational

Quant = Quantitative

Note : * Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level. Source: WISE

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

A number of quality elements are not included in the design of the monitoring programme, particularly for surveillance monitoring. For rivers, all required QEs are monitored for surveillance purposes in every RBD. For lakes, the hydrological regime is monitored where ecological status is potentially high, using the Lakes-MImAS tool. For transitional waters, all BQEs and physico-chemical QEs are included in the monitoring programme but sufficient data to reports status on all elements was not available at the time of reporting.. There is also no monitoring of any hydromorphological QEs in these RBDs, although risk is assessed using the TraC-MImAS tool. This indicated that waters at high ecological status were not at risk from hydrological pressures. For coastal waters, phytoplankton is not monitored in Shannon RBD, and tidal regime is not monitored in Shannon and South Western RBDs. It should be noted that no robust relationship has been made between aquatic morphology and ecological impacts.

Not all coastal waters have been included in the monitoring programme for the first RBMP, but it should be noted that the RBMPs state that a fully compliant monitoring programme for all transitional and coastal waters will be made operational by December 2011 and 12 water bodies are reported to WISE.

An operational monitoring programme has been established, but it is not clear what is monitored for operational purposes compared to surveillance purposes. For transitional and coastal waters, QEs have been included based on their sensitivity to pressures such as nutrient enrichment, organic enrichment, contamination by priority substances, and altered habitats caused by hydromorphological alterations, it appears that the same BQEs are used as used in the surveillance monitoring programme. For rivers, macroinvertebrates are the primary BQE used in the operational monitoring programme. For lakes, the operational monitoring programme was very similar to the surveillance monitoring programme. Biological elements which had not been intercalibrated were not used to assign status, but data were collected in anticipation of achieving intercalibration in the second decision. Irish authorities have also signalled that the lakes operational monitoring programme was changed in 2010 – of the BQEs, only macrophytes and chlorophyll are monitored in operational lakes plus macroinvertebrates where necessary i.e. for acidification pressure

Priority substances and other specific pollutants are monitored particularly in all surveillance monitoring waters. Monitoring in transitional waters began 2007. Sediment and biota are also monitored, but are not included in the assessment of chemical status as there is no EQS in place for most substances in tissue and sediment. In future, this monitoring will be used to give a comprehensive picture of chemical status; EQS values have now been established for transitional and coastal waters.

Grouping of water bodies has been applied to river, transitional and coastal water bodies, but not for lakes. Rivers were divided in 20 clusters based on typology and pressures, and information is given of the number of groups for transitional and coastal water bodies. A description of the methodology used is given in the background documents to the RBMP (subfolders). A donor-recipient relationship is used to link un-monitored river water bodies to the nearest, most similar monitored water body.

A transboundary monitoring programme for river, transitional and coastal waters is applied in the Neagh Bann and North Western international RBDs, which has been coordinated with the UK. There are seven transboundary lakes: McNean Upper and Lower, Lattone, Melvin, Black, Summerhill, Upper lough Erne and the sampling of these lakes is co-ordinated with our NIEA colleagues in Northern Ireland by the North-South Technical Advisory Group on Rivers and Lakes which meets regularly.

Compared to the situation in 2007 (reported in 2009) there has only been a significant increase in lake monitoring, where around 10% more sites were included in operational monitoring. The numbers of monitoring sites in the other water categories were largely unchanged from 2007.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

Quantitative and chemical groundwater monitoring has been established in Ireland, with both surveillance and operational monitoring programmes. A single national document was produce on the details of groundwater monitoring.

The groundwater operational monitoring contains core parameters and additional parameters selected based on the pressures identified in the risk assessments. Operational programmes have been selected to take into account pressures from pesticides, hydrocarbons and heavy metals.

The monitoring programme is designed to be able to detect significant and sustained upward trends in pollutant concentrations[17].

There has been a 25% increase in the number of sites used for chemical surveillance and quantitative status monitoring in Ireland since the report in 2007: the number of sites for operational chemical monitoring has remained largely the same.

As for surface waters, there is a transboundary monitoring programme in place in the Neagh Bann and North Western international RBDs, which is coordinated with the UK[18].

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

There are no specific monitoring programmes reported for surface water drinking water protected areas. Monitoring of drinking water protected areas in lakes is said to take place 4-12 times per year and include general physical parameters and chlorophyll, but not priority substances unless part of surveillance monitoring. All groundwater bodies are designated as drinking water protected areas (DWPAs), and the national groundwater monitoring network was selected to be representative of all groundwater bodies. The number of monitoring sites located in protected areas is not reported to WISE, but the Irish Authorities have provided complementary information partly showed in table 5.3.1. Irish authorities have also confirmed that all Bathing water protected areas are  monitored. The Nitrates areas set out in the tabl below are from the 2004-7 Nitrates Directive reporting period.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water ** || Birds sites ** || Fish ** || Habitats sites ** || Nitrates ** || Shellfish ** || UWWT **

GBNIIENB || 5 || 5 || 2 || 3 || 0 || 3 || 14 || 6 || 5 || 8

GBNIIENW || 22 || 22 || 10 || 36 || 23 || 113 || 66 || 21 || 2 || 7

IEEA || 25 || 24 || 6 || 20 || 25 || 68 || 60 || 2 || 11 || 18

IEGBNISH || 54 || 54 || 10 || 102 || 11 || 159 || 136 || 5 || 13 || 47

IESE || 18 || 18 || 6 || 7 || 50 || 254 || 129 || 9 || 48 || 65

IESW || 32 || 32 || 11 || 37 || 44 || 221 || 83 || 25 || 11 || 28

IEWE || 67 || 68 || 19 || 85 || 77 || 270 || 112 || 29 || 6 || 22

Total || 223 || 224 || 64 || 290 || 230 || 1088 || 600 || 97 || 96 || 300

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring sites in protected areas.

Note: * Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level. ** Based on complementary data provided by Irish Authorities. Source: WISE, Irish Authorities

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

GBNIIENB || 118 || 0 || 0 || 21 || 17.8 || 42 || 35.6 || 32 || 27.1 || 4 || 3.4 || 19 || 16.1

GBNIIENW || 947 || 162 || 17.1 || 329 || 34.7 || 253 || 26.7 || 146 || 15.4 || 13 || 1.4 || 44 || 4.6

IEEA || 405 || 19 || 4.7 || 151 || 37.3 || 133 || 32.8 || 73 || 18.0 || 27 || 6.7 || 2 || 0.5

IEGBNISH || 1038 || 52 || 5.0 || 384 || 37.0 || 320 || 30.8 || 231 || 22.3 || 25 || 2.4 || 26 || 2.5

IESE || 711 || 46 || 6.5 || 281 || 39.5 || 250 || 35.2 || 115 || 16.2 || 14 || 2.0 || 5 || 0.7

IESW || 1045 || 341 || 32.6 || 347 || 33.2 || 265 || 25.4 || 64 || 6.1 || 1 || 0.1 || 27 || 2.6

IEWE || 1383 || 392 || 28.3 || 547 || 39.6 || 214 || 15.5 || 159 || 11.5 || 15 || 1.1 || 56 || 4.0

Total || 5647 || 1012 || 17.9 || 2060 || 36.5 || 1477 || 26.2 || 820 || 14.5 || 99 || 1.8 || 179 || 3.2

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

GBNIIENB || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

GBNIIENW || 5 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 40.0 || 3 || 60.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEEA || 7 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 57.1 || 3 || 42.9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEGBNISH || 6 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 33.3 || 4 || 66.7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESE || 3 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 66.7 || 1 || 33.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESW || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEWE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 26 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 38.5 || 16 || 61.5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

GBNIIENB || 118 || 22 || 18.6 || 5 || 4.2 || 91 || 77.1

GBNIIENW || 947 || 196 || 20.7 || 4 || 0.4 || 747 || 78.9

IEEA || 405 || 140 || 34.6 || 10 || 2.5 || 255 || 63.0

IEGBNISH || 1038 || 382 || 36.8 || 7 || 0.7 || 649 || 62.5

IESE || 711 || 297 || 41.8 || 5 || 0.7 || 409 || 57.5

IESW || 1045 || 272 || 26.0 || 1 || 0.1 || 722 || 73.9

IEWE || 1383 || 293 || 21.2 || 6 || 0.4 || 1084 || 78.4

Total || 5647 || 1602 || 28.4 || 38 || 0.7 || 3957 || 70.1

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

GBNIIENB || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

GBNIIENW || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 100

IEEA || 7 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 14.3 || 6 || 85.7

IEGBNISH || 6 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 16.7 || 5 || 83.3

IESE || 3 || 1 || 33.3 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 66.7

IESW || 5 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 20.0 || 4 || 80.0

IEWE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 26 || 1 || 3.8 || 3 || 11.5 || 22 || 84.6

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

GBNIIENB || 28 || 26 || 92.9 || 2 || 7.1 || 0 || 0

GBNIIENW || 72 || 72 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEEA || 75 || 68 || 90.7 || 7 || 9.3 || 0 || 0

IEGBNISH || 242 || 182 || 75.2 || 60 || 24.8 || 0 || 0

IESE || 151 || 148 || 98 || 3 || 2 || 0 || 0

IESW || 84 || 78 || 92.9 || 6 || 7.1 || 0 || 0

IEWE || 104 || 70 || 67.3 || 34 || 32.7 || 0 || 0

Total || 756 || 644 || 85.2 || 112 || 14.8 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

GBNIIENB || 28 || 28 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

GBNIIENW || 72 || 72 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEEA || 75 || 74 || 98.7 || 1 || 1.3 || 0 || 0

IEGBNISH || 242 || 242 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESE || 151 || 149 || 98.7 || 2 || 1.3 || 0 || 0

IESW || 84 || 83 || 98.8 || 1 || 1.2 || 0 || 0

IEWE || 104 || 104 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 756 || 752 || 99.5 || 4 || 0.5 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6 Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GBNIIENB || 118 || 5 || 4.2 || 7 || 5.9 || 1.7 || 125 || || || || 125 || || || || 66 || 0 || 0 || 0

GBNIIENW || 952 || 83 || 8.7 || 108 || 11.3 || 2.6 || 959 || || || || 963 || || || || 27 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEEA || 412 || 45 || 10.9 || 74 || 18.0 || 7.0 || || || || || || || || || 40 || 0 || 0 || 9

IEGBNISH || 1044 || 140 || 13.4 || 213 || 20.4 || 7.0 || 1028 || || || || 1035 || || || || 37 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESE || 714 || 119 || 16.7 || 150 || 21.0 || 4.3 || || || || || || || || || 39 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESW || 1050 || 153 || 14.6 || 176 || 16.8 || 2.2 || 1021 || || || || 1023 || || || || 20 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEWE || 1383 || 171 || 12.4 || 199 || 14.4 || 2.0 || 1328 || || || || 1329 || || || || 20 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5673 || 716 || 12.6 || 927 || 16.3 || 3.7 || || || || || || || || || 29 || 0 || 0 || 1

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027*

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: * Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GBNIIENB || 118 || 21 || 17.8 || 27 || 22.9 || 5.1 || || || || || 66.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

GBNIIENW || 947 || 491 || 51.8 || 650 || 68.6 || 16.8 || || || || || 27.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEEA || 405 || 170 || 42.0 || 210 || 51.9 || 9.9 || || || || || 38.8 || 0 || 0 || 9.6

IEGBNISH || 1038 || 436 || 42.0 || 635 || 61.2 || 19.2 || || || || || 37.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESE || 711 || 327 || 46.0 || 433 || 60.9 || 14.9 || || || || || 38.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESW || 1045 || 688 || 65.8 || 822 || 78.7 || 12.8 || || || || || 19.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEWE || 1383 || 939 || 67.9 || 1061 || 76.7 || 8.8 || || || || || 19.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5647 || 3072 || 54.4 || 3838 || 68.0 || 13.6 || || || || || 28.7 || 0 || 0 || 0.7

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027*

Note : Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GBNIIENB || 0 || 22 || 18.6 || 27 || 22.9 || 4.2 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

GBNIIENW || 5 || 196 || 20.7 || 200 || 21.1 || 0.4 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEEA || 7 || 140 || 34.6 || 144 || 35.6 || 1.0 || || || || || 1.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEGBNISH || 6 || 382 || 36.8 || 389 || 37.5 || 0.7 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESE || 3 || 297 || 41.8 || 302 || 42.5 || 0.7 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESW || 5 || 272 || 26.0 || 273 || 26.1 || 0.1 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEWE || 0 || 293 || 21.2 || 298 || 21.5 || 0.4 || || || || || 0.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 26 || 1602 || 28.4 || 1633 || 28.9 || 0.5 || || || || || 0.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027*

Note Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs : Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GBNIIENB || 28 || 26 || 92.9 || 26 || 92.9 || 0 || 28 || 100 || 28 || 100 || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0

GBNIIENW || 72 || 72 || 100 || 72 || 100 || 0 || 72 || 100 || 72 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEEA || 75 || 68 || 90.7 || 68 || 90.7 || 0 || || || || || 8 || 1 || 0 || 0

IEGBNISH || 242 || 182 || 75.2 || 238 || 98.3 || 23.1 || 237 || 98 || 242 || 100 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESE || 151 || 148 || 98.0 || 148 || 98.0 || 0 || 148 || || 151 || 100 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESW || 84 || 78 || 92.9 || 84 || 100 || 7.1 || 84 || 100 || 84 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEWE || 104 || 70 || 67.3 || 104 || 100 || 32.7 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 756 || 644 || 85.2 || 740 || 97.9 || 12.7 || || || || || 2 || 0.1 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027*

Note : * Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GBNIIENB || 28 || 28 || 100 || 28 || 100 || 0 || 28 || 100 || 28 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

GBNIIENW || 72 || 72 || 100 || 72 || 100 || 0 || 72 || 100 || 72 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEEA || 75 || 74 || 98.7 || 74 || 98.7 || 0 || || || || || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEGBNISH || 242 || 242 || 100 || 242 || 100 || 0 || 242 || 100 || 242 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESE || 151 || 149 || 98.7 || 151 || 100 || 1.3 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESW || 84 || 83 || 98.8 || 84 || 100 || 1.2 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEWE || 104 || 104 || 100 || 104 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 756 || 752 || 99.5 || 755 || 99.9 || 0.4 || || || || || 0.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027*

Note : * Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GBNIIENB || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

GBNIIENW || 5 || 2 || 40.0 || 5 || 100 || 60.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEEA || 7 || 4 || 57.1 || 6 || 85.7 || 28.6 || || || || || 28.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEGBNISH || 6 || 2 || 33.3 || 4 || 66.7 || 33.3 || || || || || 50 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESE || 3 || 2 || 66.7 || 3 || 100 || 33.3 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESW || 5 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 40.0 || 40.0 || || || || || 60 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEWE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 26 || 10 || 38.5 || 20 || 76.9 || 38.4 || || || || || 30.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Note :     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GBNIIENB || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

GBNIIENW || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEEA || 7 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 14.3 || 14.3 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEGBNISH || 6 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 16.7 || 16.7 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESE || 3 || 1 || 33.3 || 1 || 33.3 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESW || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 20 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEWE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 26 || 1 || 3.8 || 3 || 11.5 || 7.7 || || || || || 3.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027*

Note :  Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

The assessment of ecological status generally follows a national approach.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

WFD compliant biological assessment methods were not fully developed in the first river basin planning cycle. The quality elements (QEs) for which assessment methods were missing or only partially developed according to the assessment of the RBMPs and information reported to WISE were[19]:

Water category || BQEs

Rivers || Macrophytes, phytobenthos, fish

Lakes || Phytobenthos, benthic fauna, fish

Transitional || Phytoplankton, angiosperms, benthic fauna, fish

Coastal || Benthic fauna

Table 7.1.1: BQEs monitored by water category

Source: RBMPs

It should be noted that interim methodologies were used for a number of QEs until methods are fully developed. Some classifications were based only on expert judgement for the first RBNMPs. Methodologies for these biological QEs(BQEs) have however since been developed, or are under developed and included in Phase 2 of the intercalibration process. As part of this process, a method for assessing acidification status using macroinvertebrates in lakes will be adopted and a method for trophic status using macroinvertebrates is still in development, It is not clear if methods for phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates in transitional waters will be developed. Phytoplankton is not considered relevant in Irish rivers as rivers have low retention times, leading to low phytoplankton populations. Because of this Phytoplankton is not monitored nor assessed in Irish rivers.

Compared to 2007 there still appear to be no assessment methods for fish in rivers, lakes and transitional waters.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

IEEA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GBNIIENB || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GBNIIENW || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IESE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IEGBNISH || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IESW || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IEWE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 7.1.2: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

It is not clear whether the biological assessment methods are suitable to detect all relevant pressures. The intercalibration process has primarily intercalibrated methods for the most widespread pressure – organic enrichment. Specific methods to detect other pressures such as acidity are under development but have been difficult to intercalibrate with confidence.

Not all physico-chemical QEs would be expected to clearly relate to biological status. For rivers, some boundaries are clearly related to the class boundaries, while those for salinity and nitrogen are not. Other standards such as the Salmonid Regulation standards were used for setting boundaries for temperature and dissolved oxygen in rivers and lakes, while statistical analysis of unpolluted sites was used for ammonia and phosphate. Class boundaries are set for hydromorphological QEs, but there is no evidence that the boundaries set are clearly related to biological QEs.

EQSs which are clear and transparent have been set for all relevant specific pollutants. The method used followed that in Annex V.

For rivers, transitional and coastal waters, the one-out-all-out principle for the classification of overall ecological status is applied and follows the procedure in the classification guidance. However, for lakes, the principle was not deemed appropriate due to the limited amount of data available. For the purpose of advising status of the 1st RBMPs a weight of evidence approach was taken, and for most lakes this was one-out-all-out.

For rivers and lakes, a methodology is in place for assessment of confidence and precision of results. For rivers, statistical confidence could be assessed for all metrics except fish, where the assessment was based on expert judgement. There was a lack of data for the first RBMPs due to low sample frequency and low coverage of elements/ parameters. As a result, confidence was low in the assigned status for some lakes. Expert judgment was therefore applied for the given reasons to biological status for seven lakes and for 15 additional lakes for ecological status. For transitional and coastal waters confidence for the interim assessment was based on data availability and was outlined in the explanatory note accompanying the interim status. Irish authorities have indicated that more robust methods will be developed for future assessments.

Assessment methods have been developed for all national river types. However, methods are not in place for transitional and coastal waters, and it is not clear if methods have been developed for lakes. The second intercalibration decision will expand on the network of BQEs and lake types covered.

For rivers, the class boundaries set for the ecological status assessment for the 1st RBMPs were consistent with the results of the intercalibration of phase 1. For lakes and coastal waters, it is not clear if this is the case. For lakes, standards for macrophytes match the intercalibration results, but those for phytoplankton do not. For transitional waters, the only intercalibrated QE is angiosperms, for which there are no standards set in IE. For coastal waters, the high/good standard is different to the intercalibration results, though the good/moderate boundary is the same. National boundaries for phytoplankton and coastal macroalgae did match the IC boundaries and similarly for river invertebrates among others.

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

Not all QEs were used in the classification of status of surveillance and operational monitoring sites. For rivers all BQE (fish, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, phytobenthos) and supporting physico-chemical QEs including hydromorphology were used to assess the ecological status of surveillance sites. For operational sites the primary BQE was macroinvertebrates and combined on a one-out all-out basis with the supporting physico-chemical QEs as per the list in SI 272 of 2009 and the parameters listed in the monitoring programme. Some specific pollutants were also used where these posed threats (mining or industrial discharges) with failures reported individually in e.g. Water Quality in Ireland 2007-2009. For lakes, the only QEs used were phytoplankton, macrophytes and fish. The BQEs used for transitional and coastal waters were phytoplankton and macroalgae. Hydromorphological and physico-chemical QEs and specific pollutants were also used, the individual substances were specified in the monitoring programme submitted under article 8.

The assessment methods for classification of ecological status are not fully developed for all BQEs in all water categories. While it is noted that for transitional and coastal waters, classification systems are in place to assess nutrient enrichment, organic enrichment, contamination by priority substances and altered habitats, there is no equivalent information on the pressures targeted for rivers and lakes, and there is no assessment of whether the classification system in place is relevant to all major pressures.

Information on the assessment of confidence is limited. For rivers this assessment is built into the status assessment, with a very high (99%) degree of confidence that the standard is exceeded. For lakes, the weight of evidence approach means that the assessment of confidence depends on the driving elements, and is largely done through expert judgement. For transitional and coastal waters no information was supplied on the methods used to assess confidence, except to say that confidence was generally not high enough to classify below moderate. Where confidence was very low, status was set to ‘unassigned’. Irish authorities have clarified that further information on confidence was available, but may not have ben reported.

7.3 River basin specific pollutants

The only parameters or substances which are identified as causing failure of ecological status are total phosphorus, BOD, molybdate reactive phosphorus, ammonia and dissolved inorganic nitrogen, all in Eastern RBD. No substances causing failures are identified in other RBDs.

 

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)

IEEA || || Total Phosphorus || 55% of lakes

IEEA || || BOD || 15% of Transitional

IEEA || || Molybdate Reactive Phosphorus || 38% of transitional

IEEA || || Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen || 40% of coastal

GBNIIENB || || ||

GBNIIENW || || ||

IESE || || ||

IEGBNISH || || ||

IESW || || ||

IEWE || || ||

Table 7.2.1: River basin specific pollutants causing failure of status

Source: RBMPs

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

The article 5 analysis indicated that less than 5% of water bodies in Ireland would be identified as Heavily Modified or Artificial.

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

The number of designated HMWBs and AWBs is reported in WISE.

The RBMP states that HMWBs can be designated where the water use is listed as navigation, storage for drinking water supply, storage for power generation, flood protection or impounded by railway. The physical modifications leading to designation may include locks, weirs, dams, reservoirs, channelization, dredging, bank reinforcement, land reclamation, abstraction or intensive land use. The methodology used to designate HMWBs and AWBs completely followed the process written in CIS Guidance No. 4. Uncertainty in relation to the designation of HWMBs is not discussed in the RBMP.

The RBMP does not include details on the test used to identify ‘significant adverse effect on use’ or the criteria used to define significance. There are also no details on the analysis of alternative options for WFD article 4(3)b[20].

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

GEP has been defined for Ireland. The approach used for definition of GEP was a combination of a reference-based approach (according to the CIS Guidance) and the mitigation measures approach. The approach used for assessment involved an assessment of mitigation measures as an alternative approach for hydromorphological classification. This measures-based hydromorphological class is combined with the physico-chemical and biological class for the water body to determine the final Ecological Potential class for the HMWB. The approach was in accordance with the UK TAG Guidance on the Classification of Ecological Potential for HMWBs & Artificial Water Bodies which in turn was based on the EU CIS guidance no. 14.

The mitigation measures identified as having no significant adverse effects on the wider environment include: fish ladders, habitat restoration, removal of structures, restoration of bank structure, dredging minimisation, restoration of bed structure and habitat creation. Measures are considered per HMWB, but for many HMWBs the only measure mentioned is ‘further investigation to confirm impacts’. A full list of recommended mitigation measures can be found in Appendix B[21].

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

Only an interim assessment of Good Ecological Potential (GEP) in HMWBs and AWBs was reported, in the document Report on the Interim Classification of Ecological Potential and identification of measures for Ireland’s Heavily Modified Water Bodies[22]. This showed that 35% of HMWB were assessed as having good ecological potential, 53% moderate potential, and 12% poor potential. The data shown in WISE was similar to this, although a smaller number of waterbodies were reported in total. No water bodies were given an assessment of poor ecological potential, 38% had good potential and 62% had moderate potential.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

Standards are applied for all priority substances listed in Annex 1 to the EQSD, except for Trifluralin. This was omitted after monitoring in 2007-09, when no positive identifications were found. The standards which are used match those listed in Annex 1 of the EQSD. Priority substances were monitored monthly for at least one year at all surveillance monitoring sites as required under Annex V (approximately 300 water bodies across all surface water categories) as per the monitoring programme. A limited number of failures occurred and these are reported individually – see below. No standards are not yet applied in biota and sediment.

All samples were subject to a range of metal analyses, and in most cases concentrations were below those set in EQS documentation so there was no need to take account of background concentrations.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

The information reported on the chemical status of waters is limited, with large numbers of water bodies reported as ‘unknown’ status. This occurred because full analyses could not be undertaken prior to the submission of the RBMP. More recent information shows 38 failures of Good chemical status in rivers, 34 due to Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, three due to mercury and one due to cadmium.  Other substances reported to cause failures include: brominated diphenylether, lead, antracence, chloroalkenes, endosulfan and pentachlorobenzene.

Substance || IEEA || GBNIIENB || GBNIIENW || IESE || IEGBNISH || IESW || IEWE

Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons || || || || || || ||

Mercury || || || || || || ||

Cadmium || || || || || || ||

Brominated diphenylether || || || || || || ||

Lead || || || || || || ||

Anthracence || || || || || || ||

Chloroalkenes || || || || || || ||

Endosulfan || || || || || || ||

Pentachlorobenzene || || || || || || ||

Table 9.2.1: Substances responsible for exceedances

Source: WISE

9.3 Other issues

Monitoring within mixing zones is not generally done and results are not used to assign status but treated as investigative monitoring if undertaken.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

The assessment of groundwater status generally follows a national approach.[23]

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status 

Only 4 GWBs are assessed to be in poor groundwater status in Ireland.

The RBMP notes that associated surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs) are considered in the assessment of quantitative status. The impacts of abstraction on GWDTEs and saline or other intrusions have also been considered. The balance between recharge and abstraction is assessed by comparing the annual average abstraction against available groundwater resource for every groundwater body. Final status was assigned based on the abstraction/recharge ratio.

There is a lack of information on ecological flow standards, and subsequently the ecological assessment of associated surface waters could not be undertaken and is planned for the second RBMP cycle.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

Information on risk is not available for specific groundwater bodies, and is only available for certain pressure categories. Assessments of risk are undertaken using the approach detailed in CIS Guidance no. 18.

Ireland established threshold values for 40 pollutants considering risks to GWBs. All substances in Annex II of the GWD have been taken into account when setting threshold values (TVs). TVs have been established for all of those substances except trichloroethylene. The methodology used for establishment of GW threshold values includes the assessment of saline or other intrusions, impact on chemical status of surface waters, and drinking water protected areas. The impact on groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs) was not assessed in the first RBMP cycle because of the lack of data, although there are 266 GWBs associated with GWDTEs in Ireland. A full assessment of GWDTEs is planned for the second cycle. Threshold values have been coordinated with the UK in international RBDs.

Background levels of naturally occurring substances have been taken into account in the establishment on threshold values. Natural background concentrations were determined through a research project looking at the natural quality of groundwater in Ireland.

Methodology is given for the TV exceedances that are acceptable for good groundwater chemical status. No details are given about TV exceedances themselves.

A methodology has been established for the assessment of trends in line with the CIS guidance document. Starting points for trend reversal are defined with 75% of the quality standards and threshold values, but no methodology for trend reversal has been established as no water bodies with significant upward trends were found in the first RBMP cycle. This will be considered in the second RBMP cycle. Additional trend assessments of existing plumes are also planned in the second RBMP cycle.

.

10.3 Protected areas

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

GBNIIENB || Not separated from UK codes so excluded from IE table.

GBNIIENW

IEEA || 75 || ||

IEGBNISH || 241 || 1 ||

IESE || 150 || 1 ||

IESW || 84 || ||

IEWE || 104 || ||

Total || 731 || 2 || 0

Table 10.3.1: Number and status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

Surface water bodies || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number of all surface water bodies at good ecological status/potential or better now (2009) || 2500 || 531 || 38 || 40

Number of all surface water bodies at good ecological status/potential or better in 2015 || 2898 || 662 || 62 || 54

Number of all surface water bodies at good ecological status/potential or better in 2021 || 4224 || 785 || 113 || 56

Number of all surface water bodies at good ecological status/potential or better in 2027 || 4238 || 785 || 113 || 56

Table 11.1: Surface water bodies which will achieve objectives by 2015, 2021 and 2027

Source: RBMPs

Groundwater bodies || No.

Number of groundwater bodies at good quantitative status now (2009) || 752

Number of groundwater bodies at good quantitative status in 2015 || 752

Number of groundwater bodies at good quantitative status in 2021 || 752

Number of groundwater bodies at good quantitative status in 2027 || 752

Number of groundwater bodies at good chemical status now (2009) || 642

Number of groundwater bodies at good chemical status in 2015 || 646

Number of groundwater bodies at good chemical status in 2021 || 742

Number of groundwater bodies at good chemical status in 2027 || 750

Table 11.2: Groundwater bodies which will achieve objectives by 2015, 2021 and 2027

Source: RBMPs

RBD || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

R || L || T || C || GW || R || L || T || C || GW

GBNIIENB || 69 || 14 || 8 || 3 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

GBNIIENW || 210 || 58 || 7 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEEA || 28 || 5 || 13 || 5 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1

IEGBNISH || 355 || 34 || 6 || 0 || 60 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESE || 275 || 0 || 5 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IESW || 178 || 1 || 23 || 4 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

IEWE || 253 || 16 || 2 || 0 || 34 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1368 || 128 || 64 || 18 || 112 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1

Table 11.3: Exemptions for Article 4(4) and 4(5)

Source: RBMPs, (revised data supplied by the Irish Authorities.

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

The protected areas found in Ireland include drinking water protected areas, shellfish waters, bathing waters, and Natura 2000 sites. Of these, clearly defined objectives have been set for shellfish waters and Natura 2000 sites, but not for drinking water protected areas and bathing waters.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

The main impacts causing extension of the deadline (Article 4(4)) or lowering the objective (Article 4(5)) include: wastewater treatment plant discharges, mines and contaminated lands (groundwater discharges), agriculture (nutrient losses to surface and groundwaters), forestry (acidification risks), chemical pollution, morphology (channelization and overgrazing), nitrogen losses to estuaries and delayed recovery of highly impacted sites.

Economic analysis is not used to justify extension of objectives in Ireland, and no assessment of disproportionate costs in included. A number of projects are underway which will support the assessment of disproportionate costs in cycle 2.

Both factors involving technical infeasibility and the influence of natural conditions on recovery have been defined in the RBMPs. Technical infeasibility is defined as problems for which: 1. No solution is available, 2. It takes longer to fix the problem than there is time available, or 3. There is no information of the cause of the problem, hence no solution can be identified. Exemptions due to the influence of natural conditions are applied where recovery times are too long to meet the requirements of the directive[24].

RBD || Global*

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

GBNIIENB || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 71 || -

GBNIIENW || 33 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 27 || -

IEEA || 164 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || -

IEGBNISH || 58 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 329 || -

IESE || 68 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 207 || -

IESW || 27 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 180 || -

IEWE || 15 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 256 || -

Total || 375 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1271 || -

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Note : *Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status

Source: WISE

Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

No exemptions are applied under article 4(6).

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

No exemptions are applied under article 4(7). However, several projects are planned which may require the application of article 4(7) if the schemes progress.

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

No exemptions according to the Groundwater Directive have been applied.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[25] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

The status of the water body is the basis for selection of measures, but only interim status classifications have been made for both surface and groundwaters, because methods for assessment of status were not fully intercalibrated. Measures have been proposed based on this interim classification as if it was a full classification.

It is clear that there has been international coordination between Ireland and the UK in the setting of Programmes of Measures for international RBDs. It is noted that there is general coordination between the two states, thought there are no separate IRBMPs. All coordination of measures has been overseen by the North-South WFD coordination group. No information is available on what specific measures have been coordinated.

Measures have been implemented on a number of levels, including nationally, at an RBD level, and at a sub-basin or water body level. The majority of measures are set at a national level. A range of authorities share responsibility for implementation of measures, including: national authorities, local authorities, enterprises, farmers and individuals, depending on the type or measure and sector in which it applies.

The only Irish RBD with information on specific costs is Eastern RBD. For the other RBDs, there is no information on costs except at a national level. The two main sources of water pollution are targeted through the Water Services Investment Programme (WSIP) and the Good Agricultural Practice Regulations. Under the WSIP €2.8bn of projects are under construction of will be progressed to construction by 2012. Under the Good Agricultural Practice Regulations, over €1bn has been invested in upgrading storage capacity so far.

Costs are calculated based on information from the Water Service Investment Programme and agricultural measures in place, so it is likely that actual costs will be even higher. There is no explicit financial commitment and it is unclear how and by whom the financing of measures will be done, but there is an obligation on public bodies to provide this funding. Cost effectiveness of measures has been calculated for some measures in the household and agricultural sectors.

It is not clear by when measures will be operational; dates listed for specific measures include 2010, 2012 and 2015[26].

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

The pressures on water from agriculture include: pressures on water quality from diffuse sources of pollutants such as pesticides, nutrients and bacteria; over abstraction for agricultural purposes; morphological modifications; point source pollution and eutrophication due to nutrients. Soil erosion is also noted as a potential issue, but it is not clear if this has been identified as a significant pressure.

Farmers groups were included in the general consultation process, but the RBMP does not mention any further consultation with farmers on these measures.

Technical measures which are selected to address pressures include: fertiliser and pesticide reduction, reduction of agricultural intensity and overgrazing, fencing to prevent soil erosion and buffer strips. Non-technical measures include: specifications regarding the implementation of existing legislation such as the Nitrates Directive, development of action plans and specific projects such as the Agricultural Catchments Programme. No economic instruments were used. While water use is considered to be a significant pressure, no measures are in place to address this.

The only information provided on the scope of the recommended measures relates to the geographical area affected.

The majority of measures are financed under the Farm Waste Management Scheme or the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme. There is also some potential funding to protect drinking waters under the Rural Development Programme, but this is not mentioned in relation to any other types of measures.

Under the terms of the Good Agricultural Practice Regulations, agricultural measures are reviewed every four years, the current action programme ends in 2013. In addition, measures related to the Nitrates Directive will be implemented in the period 2009-2015.

Measures || IEEA || GBNIIENB || GBNIIENW || IESE || IEGBNISH || IESW || IEWE

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Measures against soil erosion || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Technical measures for water saving in agriculture || || || || || || ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || || || || || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || || || || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || || || || || ||

Nutrient trading || || || || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || || || || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Codes of agricultural practice || || || || || || ||

Farm advice and training || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü || || || || || ||

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || ü || || || ü || || ü || ü

Certification schemes || || || || ü || || ü || ü

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || || || || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || || || || || || ||

Land use planning || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Technical standards || || || || || || ||

Specific projects related to agriculture || || || || || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || || || || || || ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

Hydromorphological measures are listed, but little detail is provided. Measures are mostly of a general nature, including investigations or codes of practice. It is stated that there is a problem with the legislative framework for some measures, and that amendments have been proposed to address these issues. In general, water abstractions in Ireland are sustainable, but due to increasing demand and the need to modernise resource management, legislation is under preparation for the control of abstraction and impoundments of water.

No information was found relating hydromorphological measures to pressures, and no linkages have been made between the measures and their expected effects.  The tables of lake ecological status show, however, that a number of lakes failed to achieve good ecological status due to abstraction pressure impacting on littoral macrophytes.

In some cases, hydromorphological measures are planned for use in HMWBs. These may be directly indicated to a water body, or the setting of GEP may indicate that measures are planned[27]. Work on the ecological benefits of river restoration has been done in Ireland especially for salmonid species. On-going river restoration is undertaken by the OPW and IFI.

No specific measures have been taken in order to achieve an ecologically based flow regime.

Measures || IEEA || GBNIIENB || GBNIIENW || IESE || IEGBNISH || IESW || IEWE

Fish ladders || ü || || || || || ||

Bypass channels || || || || || || ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || || || || || ||

Sediment/debris management || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || || || || || || ||

Lowering of river banks || || || || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü || || || || || ||

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || || || || || || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || || || || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || || || || || || ||

Construction of retention basins || || || || || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || ü || || || || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || || || || || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

In terms of quantitative status, basic measures are implemented in all RBDs including transposition of the WFD into the Water Policy Regulations and Groundwater Environmental Objectives Regulations, and tighter controls on abstractions. Supplementary measures are only used in Eastern and South Western RBDs, where basic measures are insufficient to prevent all problems. Supplementary measures included changes to regulatory regimes for abstraction, water saving measures and support to voluntary initiatives. It is stated that the current system of licensing in Ireland does not meet the requirements of Article 11 (3) e) WFD, and improvements are needed in this area.

In terms of chemical status, measures were put in place to prevent and limit point and diffuse discharges of hazardous and non-hazardous substances. These measures included: legislation, additional regulation of point source discharges and prohibition of direct discharges of pollutants into groundwater.  Supplementary measures were implemented in Eastern, Shannon, South Western and Western RBDs to address pressures from point and diffuse sources of pollution, but none were specifically linked to groundwater, as it is anticipated that basic measures will be sufficient.  

Consultation was carried out in the international RBDs.  

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

The inventory of sources of chemical pollution includes priority substances and certain other pollutants, non-priority specific substances, deoxygenating substances, nutrients and diffuse mobile organics. Very few sites show exceedances of the specific pollutant standards, and the only substances for which standards are exceeded are zinc, copper and glyphosate. The main sources of dangerous substances are municipal and agricultural pollution.

Measures are applied under: the Waste Water Discharge Regulations, the Good Agricultural Practice Regulations, IPPC Licenses, Water Pollution Acts and Shellfish water Pollution Reduction Programmes. These measures include: Improve treatment and monitoring of WWTW discharges under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, Emissions limits for pollutants, review of wastewater and industrial licences, relocate discharge points, implement code of practice on unsewered wastewater discharges, promote use of low phosphorus products, and improve management of un-used landfills and contaminated sites. However, there is no information about the scope of application of these measures, i.e. which sectors, substances targeted etc. No substance specific measures are listed, however discharge licences include substance specific emission limit values.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

A narrow approach to water services is used and defined in Water Services Act, 2007 as all services, including the provision of water intended for human consumption, which provide storage, treatment or distribution of surface water, groundwater or water supplied by a water services authority, or waste water collection, storage, treatment or disposal.

Ireland notified to the Commission that the Irish authorities agree to amend national measures implementing the Water Framework Directive in a manner that accords with the Commission interpretation of water services. This change in policy will be reflected in the second-cycle river basin management plans.

Water uses include households, industry and agriculture.

Cost recovery is actually only calculated for the industrial and household sectors. However only industrial contribution to cost recovery can be seen as adequate (contribution of households is zero). Detailed guidance on the calculation of cost recovery (including, inter alia, capital, operation and maintenance costs) was provided to all local authorities following the adoption of the Government’s water pricing policy. The policy applies to each local authority and there are no exemptions. The guidance also explicitly required that any environmental costs and the costs of any borrowing or loans should be included in the user charges.

It is reported that the polluter-pays-principle has been used in the cost recovery process, but it is not explained how it is used, or to what extent it is used for non-household customers, who are actually exempted from water pricing.

No charge is made for water to household users, so there are no incentives in place to use water efficiently. For non-household customers (business and agriculture), a charge is made and metering is required. This policy (in respect of domestic customers) has now changed. The Government has decided that domestic water charges will be introduced and that the charging system will be based on metered consumption. A programme of domestic metering is to commence later 2012.

The provisions of Article 9(4) on flexibility have not been used.

Efforts for coordination of Article 9 issues have been made between RBDs within Ireland, but no cooperation with the UK in the International RBDs has been reported.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

The RBMP contains a clear description of the water bodies where additional measures are needed, and provides information on the type and magnitude of measures given in the PoM.

Additional measures to aid compliance with the Habitats, Shellfish and Birds Directives have been referred to in PoM documents. Measures to aid compliance with the Habitats and Shellfish Directives are also mentioned in other specific plans.

Referring specifically to measures for protected areas under the Shellfish Directive, the Irish RBMPs include the development of Pollution Reduction Programmes for each of the shellfish waters, defined at national level and then tailored to each area. The details for each of the areas are not included in the RBMP, but the document does acknowledge that they have been developed as required in the RBMP cycle.

Legislation to control abstraction and impoundments for drinking water will be developed in 2012. Additional measures in drinking water protected areas are taken under the Drinking Water Regulations.

13. water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management AND Climate change adaptation, 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

The RBMPs do not refer specifically to Water Scarcity or Droughts, and there is no specific indication that any RBD is at risk. While abstraction is a pressure on GW and surface waters in most RBDs, only small numbers of WBs are considered to be at risk from hydrological pressures and small numbers of GWBs are assessed as being at poor quantitative status. Although droughts may become a problem in future under climate change, no Drought Management Plans have been developed.

There are no reported datasets for water scarcity and drought or water demand and availability trend scenarios.

Measures to deal with water scarcity and drought are general and include: increased governance of water systems, measures to enhance ecosystem resilience to drought, reduction of distribution losses, and water saving through metering and rainwater harvesting.

No reference is made to international coordination, as water scarcity and drought are not considered to be an issue in Ireland.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods are mentioned in a number of places in the RBMP. Flood protection is listed as a reason for designation of HMWBs, and increased flooding is listed as a risk under climate change scenarios. However, flooding is not listed as a pressure related to hydromorphological measures, and no exemptions are applied under article 4(6) or 4(7).

It is noted that the implementation of the Floods Directive and the Water Framework will be coordinated.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

Climate change is included in the RBMP, with the focus on issues including changes to seasonal weather patterns causing changes in water quality and biodiversity, changes to water availability and demand, flood and drought risks. A national document entitled ‘Adapting the Plans to Climate Change’[28] is also available, which gives more details on how climate is expected to change in relation to temperature, precipitation, wind and flooding, as well as habitats and biodiversity.

A climate check of the Programme of Measures has been carried out to screen all the measures identified in the RBMP and assess their vulnerability to climate change. Where measures are identified as vulnerable, adaptation was suggested to address changing conditions. The climate check had not much influence though on the selection of measures in the first RBMP cycle. More detailed climate proofing of measures is planned for the next cycle.

Some measures relating to adaptation to climate change are mentioned in the plans, but most references are made to ways in which existing measures can be adapted to climate change. Where specific climate change adaptation measures are mentioned, it is not clear if they have been implemented.

A reference is made to the national climate change strategy.

In future, the RBMP may involve monitoring which is more focused on climate change impacts reconsideration of water body types and ecological status reference conditions. The full Programme of Measures is also planned to be made climate resilient.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance  structure  will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that :

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· Ireland should provide more transparent and complete reports on issues such as monitoring networks and ecological status assessment, both in the RBMPs and to WISE. 

· Assessment methods for classification of ecological status were not fully developed for all biological and physico-chemical quality elements (QEs) in all water categories for the 1st RBMP and only interim status has been reported. Although it is recognised that much development has taken place since the submission of the RBMPs, also following the intercalibration process at the EU level, Ireland is recommended to ensure this process is completed for the second cycle. 

· The monitoring programmes need to be fully developed, since not all the required QEs are included in the monitoring programmed for lakes and coastal waters. Coastal and estuarine monitoring programmes have not yet been fully implemented.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.

· Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be among the substances monitored in biota (for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD) to assess chemical status, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection have been derived.

· Ireland needs to provide more transparency in the RBMPs on the assessment of environmental objectives and exemptions. A large number of exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans. Ireland should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainties.

· The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resource in all Irish RBDs. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately advised and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture to collection and discharge of waste water, from scattered settlements, for which for instance environmental and resource costs also need to be recovered.  The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, at least broken down into industry, households and agriculture,  and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

· Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so the approach to achieve the objectives is clear and the ambition in the PoM is transparent.

[1]     Eurostat 2011.

[2]     Size includes coastal waters.

[3]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[4]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[5]     Pressures and Measures study, task 1d, Governance.

[6]     Working Together – Managing our shared waters. Neagh Bann http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,26909,en.pdf

      North Western http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,26908,en.pdf

[7]     Rivers: Reference Conditions for Irish Rivers – Description of River Types and Communities http://www.wfdireland.ie/Documents/Characterisation%20Report/Background%20Information/Analaysis%20of%20Characters/Rivers/Reference%20Conditions%20for%20Irish%20River6.doc

[8]     Lakes:  Summary note of Irish lake typology to be applied in Ireland’s river basin districts http://www.wfdireland.ie/Documents/Characterisation%20Report/Background%20Information/Analaysis%20of%20Characters/Rivers/Lake_Typology_Summary_Guidance.pdf

[9]     T&CW: Guidance on Typology for Coastal & Transitional Waters of the UK and Republic of Ireland http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Characterisation%20of%20the%20water%20environment/Marine%20typology_Final_281003.pdf

[10]    The Characterisation and Analysis of Irelands River Basin Districts – National Summary Report http://www.wfdireland.ie/Documents/Characterisation%20Report/Ireland_Article_5_WFD.pdf

[11]    Article 5 characterisation report http://www.wfdireland.ie/wfd-charreport.html

      Follow up reports http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/

[12]    Common Procedure for the Identification of the Eutrophication Status of the OSPAR Maritime Area http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/decrecs/agreements/05-03e_common%20procedure.doc

[13]    Ireland has not yet complied with the judgment in case C-188/08 in which the Court condemned Ireland for not having a system of verifying the efficiency of the domestic waste water treatment systems (mostly septic tanks) in rural areas. There are about 500.000 such systems, not thought to be controlled effectively and which may have an impact on the aquatic environment.   

[14]    WFD Surface Water Morphological Risk Assessment Methodology – Guidance of Thresholds and Methodology to be applied in Ireland’s River Basin Districts http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/31_RiskAssessments/Surface%20Water%20Risk%20Assessment/Hydrology_Risk_Assessment_Guidance.pdf

[15]    Marine Morphology National Methodology Report http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/21_MarineMorphology/Marine%20Morphology%20POMS%20Chapters%201%20to%205.pdf

[16]    According to the Irish authorities, the Article 8 Monitoring Programme submission includes appendices which lists the station locations and topic-specific subnets to which they belong: together with hyperlinks to separate worksheets for each subnet linking to both the frequency of monitoring and the quality elements to be monitored. In general all QEs including priority substances and a full suite of biological QEs and hydromorphology are monitored for surveillance water bodies and a reduced suite for operational monitoring – typically general physico-chemical, macroinvertebrates and aquatic macrophytes

[17] Methodology for establishing groundwater threshold values and the assessment of chemical and quantitative status of groundwater, including an assessment of pollution trends and trend reversal http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/ground/Methodology%20for%20Groundwater%20Chemical%20&%20Quantitative%20Status%20Methology,%20TVs%20and%20Trends.pdf

[18] Ireland Water Framework Directive Monitoring Programme http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/water/other/wfd/EPA_water_WFD_monitoring_programme_main_report.pdf

[19]    In 2012, Iris Authorities have clarified that all biological quality elements listed in Annex V of the WFD now have methods in use and most are intercalibrated in Decision 1 or due in Decision 2.

[20]    Overall summary report Heavily Modified Water Bodies and Artificial Water Bodies http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/16_HeavilyModifiedAndArtificialWaterBodies/HMWB_AWB_POMS_Overall_Final_Summary.pdf

[21]http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/16_HeavilyModifiedAndArtificialWaterBodies/ROI_HMWB%20_Classification_AppendixB(25-11-08).xls

[22]    http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/15%20Status/Heavily%20Modified%20Water%20Body_Status.pdf

[23]    Irish Authorities have clarified that the information is available in a separate report on risk characterisation of Ireland's Groundwater : http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/31_RiskAssessments/Groundwater%20Risk%20Assessment/GW8%20Compiled%20RA%20Sheets.pdf

[24]    Alternative Objectives: Approach to Extended Deadlines http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/36_Objectives/Extended%20Deadlines%20Background%20Document%20final.pdf

[25]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

[26]    National Summary Programmes of Measures http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/National%20Summary%20Programme%20of%20Measures.pdf

[27]    Programmes of Measures & Standards – Overall Summary Report – Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/16_HeavilyModifiedAndArtificialWaterBodies/HMWB_AWB_POMS_Overall_Final_Summary.pdf

[28] Adapting the Plans to Climate Change Final Report http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/Adapting%20the%20Plan%20to%20Climate%20Change.pdf

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE  , Eurostat (country borders)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland(UK) has a population of 62.44 million[1] inhabitants and an area of 244,820 km2..

The United Kingdom shares three international river basin districts with the Republic of Ireland: Neagh Bann, North Western and Shannon. There are five different levels of jurisdiction governing the WFD implementation in the UK: England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, as well as a national level. Due to this there are certain differences between the different parts of the UK, ands where relevant, the assessment has been done distinguishing between, England/Wales (same approach) and on the other hand Scotland and Northern Ireland. Gibraltar is a separate RBD, for which no RBMP has yet been reported.

RBD || RBD Name || Size (km2)[2] || Countries sharing RBD

UK01 || Scotland || 113920 || -

UK02 || Solway Tweed || 17511 || -

UK03 || Northumbria || 9029 || -

UK04 || Humber || 26109 || -

UK05 || Anglian || 27817 || -

UK06 || Thames || 16175 || -

UK07 || South East || 10195 || -

UK08 || South West || 21201 || -

UK09 || Severn || 21590 || -

UK10 || Western Wales || 16653 || -

UK11 || Dee || 2251 || -

UK12 || North West || 13140 || -

UKGBNIIENB || Neagh Bann || 8121 (6100 in UK) || IE

UKGBNIIENW || North Western || 14793 (4900 in UK) || IE

UKIEGBNISH || Shannon || 19452 (2 in UK) || IE

UKGBNINE || North Eastern || 4068 || -

UKGI17 || Gibraltar || 58 (33,4 including coastal waters) || -

Table 1.1: Overview of the UK’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[3]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/uk/eu/wfdart13

Three international river basin districts are jointly designated between the UK and Ireland, and in some RBDs there is more than one transboundary river basin. Rivers crossing the borders between the different UK regions are not considered Transboundary in the WFD context.  No UK only RBMP was reported for the Shannon.

Name international river basin || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category || Total 1-4

1

km² || % || km² || %

Neagh Bann || IE || 6125 || 75.4 || 6125 || 75.4

North Western (rivers Erne and Foyle) || IE || 4900 || 39.8 || 4900 || 39.8

Shannon || IE || 2 || <1 || 6 || <1

Total || || 11031 || || 11031 ||

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in the UK[4]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

RBMPs were reported to the Commission in March 2010; plans for the RBDs in England, Wales and Scotland were reported on March 22nd, those for Northern Ireland on March 19th. The consultation process for the Gibraltar RBD is completed and UK authorities have stated that the Gibraltar RBMP will be submitted to the Commission late 2012. No specific plan for the UK part of the Shannon was reported, due to the small share in the UK.

Updates were provided to WISE in October 2010, April 2011 and May-June 2012.

2.1 Main strengths

· The monitoring network in the UK is extensive, although not all quality elements are monitored. The process for deriving EQSs is clear and compliant with the WFD. The statistical approach used for assessment of confidence in classification of river and lake water bodies is also identified as a strength.

· The Programme of Measures is detailed with information on a waterbody level, although relative few measures are proposed. In Scotland the PoMs detail the steps to be achieved for phased implementation of the measures to ensure achievement by 2015, 2021 and 2027 respectively.

· A good level of coordination between the UK and IE is also shown for the international RBDs.

· There is good information available on water body level in separate factsheets available for England/Wales and Scotland.

· There is a clear reference to climate change throughout and a climate check of the programme of measures.

2.2 Main gaps

· The major gaps identified across all RBDs were mostly related to the used of biological quality elements for assessment. In some cases, methodologies for assessment of BQEs have not been developed, in others certain BQEs are not included in surveillance monitoring programmes and in some BQEs are not used for assessment even where they are monitored.

· It is noted that the typologies used have changed since they were first reported for the Article 5 assessment, while types are now more ecologically relevant, no broad WB types are now used, the assessment being based on site and QE specific reference conditions rather than type specific reference conditions. This has led to some uncertainty within the intercalibration process.

· There is limited information on the methodology to identify significant pressures.

· The large uncertainties reported in relation to the status, the pressures and the effect of potential measures, despite the relatively high intensity of monitoring in the UK has been used to justify the inclusion of very few specific new measures. 

· Despite agriculture being identified as a significant pressure, no new mandatory measures have been agreed in the plans. Voluntary measures listed rather than mandatory measures. Diffuse pollution from agriculture was for instance identified as a major pressure there appear to be no new additional measures to address this. 

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

Consultations according to article 14(WFD) were held as follows for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland:

· Work programme, Timetable: 22/12/06 – 22/06/07.

· Summary of Significant Water Management Issues: 24/7/07 – 24/01/08.

· Draft RBMP was held over a six month period from the date of submission: 22/12/2008 - 22/06/2009.

In Northern Ireland, consultation on the Design and Production of an Interactive Web Viewer for River Basin Management Plans was also included alongside the consultation on the draft RBMPs (22/12/2008 – 22/06/2009).

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

In England, competencies are shared between Defra and the Environment Agency (EA), and in Wales competencies are shared between the National Assembly for Wales and the Environment Agency(EA). Defra and the National Assembly for Wales acts as the ‘appropriate authorities’, ensuring that the directive is given effect, while the EA acts as the competent authority (referred to in legislation as 'the Agency’, and is responsible for practical implementation of the directive, including reporting, monitoring, establishment of PoMs, authorisation and regulation of activities and reporting public information and consultation. Similarly in Scotland, competencies are shared between SEPA and the Scottish ministers. In the Solway Tweed RBD, shared between England and Scotland, the Environment Agency and SEPA work jointly to ensure a coordinated approach to river basin planning. In Northern Ireland, the competent authority is the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (DOENI).

In general, a national approach to implementation of the WFD is followed, though there are some differences between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as these are overseen by different authorities.

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

Three RBDs are shared with the Republic of Ireland (Neagh Bann, North Western and Shannon), and although a high-level jointly approved document is available, no final single international RBMP was reported for any of these RBDs. The draft document was referred to for the Neagh Bann and North Western. Only 2 km2 of the Shannon IRBD is located within the UK. The North-South WFD Coordination Group has been set up to aid international coordination in this area.

The approving authorities for the different regions are: The Secretary of State in England, the National Assembly in Wales, the Scottish Ministers in Scotland and the Government in Northern Ireland.  Various actors have the responsibility to delivering different aspects of the RBMPs. In Scotland for instance, the Scottish Ministers may direct the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to prepare and submit to them a RBMP.  With regard to the Solway Tweed RBD, which lies partly in Scotland and partly in England, the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (Solway Tweed River Basin District) Regulations 2004 give authority to SEPA and the EA to co-ordinate river basin planning in the Solway Tweed RBD.  The Solway Tweed RBMP was therefore adopted by SEPA and the EA on 22 December 2009, following its approval by the Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State.

RBMPs in the UK are high level strategic planning documents. Any actions required to be taken to implement the plans in England and Wales is enforced though the regulatory powers of the Environment Agency. However, the legislation places a general duty on the Environment Agency the Secretary of State and the National Assembly to exercise their “relevant functions” so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the Directive and in each RBD that the achievement of its environmental objectives, and in particular programme of measures, are coordinated for the whole of the RBD. It also requires the competent authorities, the EA and all public bodies to “have regard” to the RBMP in exercising their functions, “so far as affecting a river basin district”. Public bodies are any public institution created and financed by the State. There is an obligation to 'have regard' to the RBMPs when taking individual decisions. The requirement under water legislation for appropriate authorities, the Environmental Agency and relevant public bodies to “have regard” to the RBMP will be binding on individual permitting decisions to the extent that such decisions affect a river basin district. The RBMPs are binding on competent authorities.[5]

Equivalent provisions exist in Scotland.  Section 2 of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (WEWS), places a general duty on the Scottish Ministers, SEPA and the responsible authorities to exercise their functions so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the Directive.  Section 16 of the WEWS requires the Scottish Ministers and every public body and office-holder to have regard to the RBMP in exercising their functions.

Equivalent provisions also exist in Northern Ireland. Regulation 3 of Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 ("the 2003 Regulations"), (the 2003 Regulations) place a general duty on the Department, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department for Regional Development to exercise their functions in a manner which secures compliance with the requirements of the Directive.  Regulation 17 of the 2003 Regulations requires the Department and each public body to have regard to the RBMP in exercising their functions so far as these affect the RBD or part of an international RBD falling within Northern Ireland.

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

Information for public consultation was provided through the media, internet, printed material and invitations to any interested parties. The consultation process took place through face-to-face meetings, written consultation and web-based submissions, and could be accessed through libraries in England & Wales. RBD liaison panels were set up in England & Wales and workshops and meetings with relevant sectors were also held. In Northern Ireland meetings include WFD stakeholder forums and catchment stakeholder forums, and in Scotland a National Advisory Group was set up.

The stakeholders involved in the consultation process included water companies, farmers, ports, fisheries, industries, conservation bodies, local and local planning authorities, NGOs, consumer groups and the general public. Energy companies were also involved in the England and Wales, and the Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs.

In England & Wales, the impact of the consultation process on the final plans the consultation resulted in changes to measures and changed information. In Scotland the consultation resulted in some commitment to further research, there is however more information in a document with a digest of concerns available on the relevant webpage, while in Northern Ireland, there was some commitment to research, and in addition there will be some adjustments to measures and the addition of new information.

As regards continuous involvement Scotland has set up advisory groups for river basin management planning under the Water Environment Services (see Annex 2 of RBMP's. In England and Wales RBD Liaison Panels are also involved in the implementation. 

3.5 International cooperation and coordination

The UK has three international RBDs, Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB), North Western (UKGBNIIENW) and Shannon (UKIEGBNISH), although only 2km2 of Shannon IRBD is within the UK.

Final International RBMPs, in the form of high-level strategic document, have been adopted. These high level strategy documents for each of International RBDs have been agreed between both jurisdictions[6], here placing these IRBDs in "Category 1"[7], as RBDs with international River Basin Management Plans. Separate and coordinated plans have been developed for the parts of the Neagh Bann and North Western IRBDs which are within the UK. A North/South WFD Coordination Group on Water Quality has also been set up. In  the three international RBDs, the Department coordinates its actions on river basin planning with the responsible authorities in the Republic of Ireland.

3.6 Integration with other sectors

The RBMP contains links to other sectors such as agriculture, water supply and treatment (Drinking Water Safety Plans), waste management and conservation. These plans include issues such flood protection and climate change.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

Each of the 15 assessed RBDs in the United Kingdom contains rivers, lakes and transitional waters. All but the Severn (UK09) and Dee (UK11) RBDs also contain coastal waters. Transitional waters are delineated according to the guidance in the CIS document ‘Guidance on typology, reference conditions and classification systems for transitional and coastal waters’.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

For rivers, 48 different types were defined, based on information on geology, altitude and catchment size. However, in practice only 21 of these types are found. For lakes, a tiered typology has been created with a “core typology” based on 3 geology types sub-divided by alkalinity, conductivity and water colour into six geological types and 2 depth types producing 12 lake types. For Transitional and Coastal waters, the same typologies are used as for Ireland, with 6 types of transitional water and 12 types of coastal water. This typology is based on factors including salinity, mixing characteristics and tidal range.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

UK01 || 21 || 16 || 4 || 9

UK02 || 45 || 30 || 9 || 16

UK03 || 24 || 14 || 5 || 7

UK04 || 24 || 14 || 5 || 7

UK05 || 24 || 14 || 5 || 7

UK06 || 24 || 14 || 5 || 7

UK07 || 24 || 14 || 5 || 7

UK08 || 24 || 14 || 5 || 7

UK09 || 24 || 14 || 5 || 7

UK10 || 24 || 14 || 5 || 7

UK11 || 24 || 14 || 5 || 7

UK12 || 24 || 14 || 5 || 7

UKGBNIIENB || 8 || 13 || 6 || 12

UKGBNIIENW || 8 || 13 || 6 || 12

UKGBNINE || 8 || 13 || 6 || 12

Total || 45 || 43 || 11 || 19

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

For RBDs in England, Wales and Scotland, typology for rivers and lakes has been tested against biological data. No information is provided for transitional and coastal water bodies. For Northern Ireland, no information is given on validation against biological data.

Type-specific reference conditions have been partly developed for some categories of water bodies. For England, Wales and Scotland, the reference conditions are described in the RBMPs, with further detail with the national guidance. For Northern Ireland, work is on-going to develop reference conditions for BQE in transitional and coastal waters. In England, Wales and Scotland, a combination of spatially based methods and modelling has been used in rivers and lakes, with expert judgement also applied for rivers. For transitional and coastal waters a combination of spatially based methods and expert judgement has been used, and historic data was also used to ‘reconstruct’ reference conditions.

Northern Ireland have used a combination of spatially based methods and modelling for rivers[8] and lakes[9], with pressure and land use data also used for rivers, and expert judgement used for lakes. For transitional waters expert judgement and historic data were used[10], and for coastal waters, a spatially based methodology was used, along with expert judgement and OSPAR classes. At least one method has been developed for each BQE for river, transitional and coastal water bodies, but there are no reference values for these types. For lakes, only one method is available for diatoms, but nothing for the other BQEs.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

Small water bodies (smaller than the size criteria in Annex II) have been included in the RBMPs, but a minimum size threshold has been set for each category of surface water. This threshold was set at a catchment area of 10 km2 for rivers, and a surface area of 0.5 km2 for lakes and transitional waters. A minimum length of 1 km is also set for transitional waters.  In Northern Ireland, the lower threshold for lakes was set at 0.1-0.5 km2. Delineation of small water bodies was generally carried out in line with UKTAG guidance and methods developed for earlier EC directives. Aggregation of small water bodies was not used in England, Wales and Scotland, but was used in Northern Ireland for transitional water bodies smaller than 0.5 km2.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

UK01 || 2013 || 10 || 309 || 3 || 40 || 15 || 449 || 102 || 284 || 243

UK02 || 526 || 12 || 35 || 1 || 12 || 58 || 8 || 239 || 73 || 215

UK03 || 380 || 9 || 73 || 0 || 7 || 4 || 7 || 101 || 9 || 950

UK04 || 968 || 12 || 136 || 0 || 8 || 41 || 1 || 329 || 50 || 488

UK05 || 757 || 10 || 49 || 1 || 18 || 18 || 11 || 205 || 31 || 539

UK06 || 483 || 11 || 76 || 1 || 11 || 31 || 1 || 43 || 46 || 223

UK07 || 340 || 7 || 34 || 1 || 20 || 3 || 16 || 107 || 30 || 212

UK08 || 938 || 8 || 63 || 0 || 23 || 10 || 25 || 140 || 44 || 367

UK09 || 791 || 10 || 75 || 1 || 6 || 91 || 0 || NaN || 40 || 508

UK10 || 676 || 6 || 62 || 0 || 27 || 5 || 24 || 180 || 25 || 488

UK11 || 87 || 9 || 21 || 1 || 1 || 109 || 0 || NaN || 6 || 335

UK12 || 547 || 11 || 164 || 0 || 12 || 23 || 8 || 189 || 18 || 603

UKGBNIIENB || 255 || 26 || 10 || 39 || 2 || 3 || 3 || 76 || 14 ||

UKGBNIIENW || 208 || 31 || 9 || 17 || 2 || 18 || 1 || 166 || 45 ||

UKGBNINE || 111 || 24 || 3 || 1 || 3 || 0 || 16 || 57 || 8 ||

Total || 9080 || 11 || 1119 || 2 || 192 || 19 || 570 || 111 || 656* || 320*

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Note: *Total number of groundwater bodies and average area for the UK excludes those for Northern Ireland as area values not reported.

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

The following chart indicates the significant pressures seen in the UK. There is some regional variation, for example, much higher proportions of water bodies in the Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs have "no pressures", and RBDs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have higher level of water bodies at pressure from point sources, diffuse sources and flow regulation. In Scotland, about 13% of surface waters are subject to morphological pressures like engineering works, and no water bodies in Northern Ireland are under pressure from river management or other morphological changes, compared with around 50% in England and Wales according to the data reported to WISE.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

UK01 || 1526 || 54.29 || 291 || 10.35 || 448 || 15.94 || 480 || 17.08 || 948 || 33.72 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 0.25

UK02 || 229 || 39.41 || 76 || 13.08 || 226 || 38.9 || 59 || 10.15 || 205 || 35.28 || 44 || 7.57 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 16 || 2.75

UK03 || 74 || 15.85 || 187 || 40.04 || 313 || 67.02 || 43 || 9.21 || 202 || 43.25 || 202 || 43.25 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0.43 || 41 || 8.78

UK04 || 116 || 10.42 || 732 || 65.77 || 894 || 80.32 || 188 || 16.89 || 572 || 51.39 || 572 || 51.39 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 230 || 20.66

UK05 || 34 || 4.07 || 754 || 90.3 || 752 || 90.06 || 171 || 20.48 || 654 || 78.32 || 654 || 78.32 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 0.6 || 271 || 32.46

UK06 || 49 || 8.58 || 399 || 69.88 || 439 || 76.88 || 118 || 20.67 || 274 || 47.99 || 274 || 47.99 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0.18 || 257 || 45.01

UK07 || 11 || 2.68 || 259 || 63.17 || 343 || 83.66 || 88 || 21.46 || 248 || 60.49 || 248 || 60.49 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 1.71 || 154 || 37.56

UK08 || 117 || 11.15 || 460 || 43.85 || 789 || 75.21 || 86 || 8.2 || 342 || 32.6 || 342 || 32.6 || 21 || 2 || 6 || 0.57 || 303 || 28.88

UK09 || 64 || 7.34 || 523 || 59.98 || 737 || 84.52 || 94 || 10.78 || 328 || 37.61 || 328 || 37.61 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 187 || 21.44

UK10 || 70 || 8.87 || 152 || 19.26 || 656 || 83.14 || 21 || 2.66 || 206 || 26.11 || 206 || 26.11 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 0.51 || 199 || 25.22

UK11 || 5 || 4.59 || 27 || 24.77 || 92 || 84.4 || 8 || 7.34 || 51 || 46.79 || 51 || 46.79 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0.92 || 36 || 33.03

UK12 || 115 || 15.73 || 310 || 42.41 || 482 || 65.94 || 84 || 11.49 || 401 || 54.86 || 401 || 54.86 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 0.55 || 164 || 22.44

UKGBNIIENB || 14 || 5.19 || 133 || 49.26 || 214 || 79.26 || 38 || 14.07 || 217 || 80.37 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 1.48

UKGBNIIENW || 9 || 4.09 || 61 || 27.73 || 144 || 65.45 || 12 || 5.45 || 166 || 75.45 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 2.27

UKGBNINE || 1 || 0.75 || 71 || 53.38 || 115 || 86.47 || 18 || 13.53 || 125 || 93.98 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 7.52

Total || 2434 || 22.21 || 4435 || 40.46 || 6644 || 60.61 || 1508 || 13.76 || 4939 || 45.06 || 3322 || 30.31 || 21 || 0.19 || 30 || 0.27 || 1884 || 17.19

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

The methodology used for identification of significant pressures generally follows a national approach, using a combination of numerical tools and expert judgement.

For point sources, discharge permit values were converted to load values for different substances and concentrations were compared to relevant standards to identify risks to WFD compliance. In Northern Ireland, only waste water treatment works with population equivalent (PE) values greater than 250 were assessed. For diffuse sources, information on land use cover, agricultural census data and water quality classification was used to provide a risk category. OSPAR procedures for assessing coastal eutrophication issues were also used in Northern Ireland.

For water abstraction, models were generated to assess compliance with UK flow condition limits. Flow regulation was assessed using expert judgement, along with GIS maps and pressure datasets, including the River Habitat Survey. Other pressures assessed included alien species, which were assessed based on the presence of high impact species.

The sectors which contribute most to chemical pollution included: WWTWs, the chemical industry, fish farms and agriculture.

4.5 Protected areas

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

UK01 || 425 || || || || || || || || || ||

UK02 || 102 || 3 || 3 || 1 || 241 || 13 || || || 16 || 2 ||

UK03 || 34 || 33 || 5 || 6 || 312 || 8 || || || 20 || 1 ||

UK04 || 167 || 22 || 7 || 21 || 1273 || 25 || || || 67 || 1 ||

UK05 || 68 || 37 || 22 || 38 || 447 || 23 || || || 67 || 22 ||

UK06 || 93 || 17 || 6 || 10 || 433 || 13 || || || 119 || 3 ||

UK07 || 46 || 79 || 8 || 21 || 222 || 13 || || || 76 || 26 ||

UK08 || 120 || 187 || 9 || 13 || 954 || 40 || || || 85 || 33 ||

UK09 || 124 || 4 || 3 || 24 || 906 || 27 || || || 87 || ||

UK10 || 86 || 81 || 11 || 3 || 498 || 59 || || || 7 || 25 ||

UK11 || 25 || 1 || 2 || || 83 || 6 || || || 11 || 2 ||

UK12 || 156 || 34 || 7 || 16 || 830 || 22 || || || 18 || 9 ||

UKGBNIIENB || 36 || 1 || 4 || || 198 || 16 || || || 1* || 2 || 3

UKGBNIIENW || 61 || 3 || 4 || || 178 || 24 || || || || 2 || 4

UKGBNINE || 26 || 20 || 9 || || 75 || 13 || || || || 7 || 10

Total || 1569 || 522 || 100 || 153 || 6650 || 302 || || || 574 || 135 || 17

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater. Notes : This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives. * Northern Ireland has established and applies action programmes in the whole of its territory and therefore, in accordance to article 3.5 of the Nitrates Directive 1991/676/EEC, it is exempted from designation of specific vulnerable zones.

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring 5.1 General description of the monitoring network

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

Source: WISE

There has been a considerable expansion of the surveillance and operational monitoring networks since the WFD implementation report on Article 8 (published in 2009). There are currently a total of 43263 surface water monitoring sites across the two networks (though some may include both surveillance and operational monitoring sites), compared with 12906 in 2009. The RBMPs, include relatively little information about the monitoring networks, however in England and Wales detailed information about the quality elements monitored by water body is included in Annex B. Monitoring networks are also described in the national guidance documents such as UKTAG.  In Scotland the monitoring network was expanded to meet the WFD requirements in 2007, and has therefore not changed significantly in the RBMPs.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

UK01 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK02 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK03 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK04 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK05 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK06 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK07 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK08 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK09 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK10 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK11 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK12 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UKGBNIIENB || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UKGBNIIENW || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UKGBNINE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

UK01 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK02 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK03 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK04 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK05 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK06 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK07 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK08 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK09 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK10 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK11 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK12 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UKGBNIIENB || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UKGBNIIENW || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UKGBNINE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

UK01 || 669 || 1335 || 73 || 133 || 48 || 146 || 206 || 342 || 251 || 231 || 43

UK02 || 364 || 980 || 10 || 42 || 33 || 45 || 24 || 37 || 203 || 204 || 29

UK03 || 445 || 1621 || 3 || 95 || 120 || 129 || 84 || 111 || 148 || 148 || 16

UK04 || 484 || 4293 || 2 || 155 || 131 || 137 || 12 || 13 || 443 || 443 || 194

UK05 || 613 || 3469 || 3 || 57 || 229 || 329 || 84 || 110 || 387 || 387 || 175

UK06 || 291 || 2332 || 1 || 94 || 194 || 248 || 0 || 1 || 628 || 628 || 278

UK07 || 346 || 1628 || 1 || 30 || 141 || 197 || 137 || 176 || 409 || 409 || 206

UK08 || 919 || 3794 || 3 || 95 || 277 || 309 || 99 || 178 || 406 || 406 || 78

UK09 || 311 || 3871 || 3 || 83 || 159 || 173 || 0 || 0 || 389 || 389 || 124

UK10 || 559 || 2547 || 14 || 66 || 191 || 208 || 352 || 429 || 141 || 141 || 24

UK11 || 83 || 421 || 2 || 22 || 51 || 51 || 0 || 0 || 42 || 42 || 14

UK12 || 385 || 2780 || 15 || 182 || 161 || 165 || 34 || 84 || 578 || 578 || 89

UKGBNIIENB || 36 || 281 || 15 || 14 || 69 || 0 || 12 || 0 || 25 || 0 || 3

UKGBNIIENW || 55 || 229 || 26 || 10 || 123 || 0 || 16 || 0 || 13 || 0 || 8

UKGBNINE || 24 || 121 || 3 || 3 || 44 || 0 || 73 || 0 || 17 || 0 || 8

Total by type of site || 5584 || 29702 || 174 || 1081 || 1971 || 2137 || 1133 || 1481 || 4080 || 4006 || 1289

Total number of monitoring sites[11] || 29986 || 1155 || 2386 || 1694 || 5342

Table 5.1.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category

Surv = Surveillance

Op = Operational

Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.2 Monitoring of surface waters

Despite having one of the most intensive monitoring networks, not all of the relevant quality elements are monitored. In England and Wales, there is no monitoring of river continuity, tidal regime in coastal waters or fish in lakes according to the information reported WISE. In addition, there is no monitoring of macroalgae in transitional waters in the Northumbria, South East or Dee RBDs, or in coastal waters in the Humber and Anglian RBDs. There is also no monitoring of angiosperms in coastal waters in the South West RBD[12].

In Northern Ireland, morphological conditions and tidal regimes are not monitored in any transitional or coastal waters. In addition, other aquatic flora are not monitored in transitional waters in Neagh Bann IRBD, and water flow is not monitored in lakes in North Eastern RBD.

In Scotland there is no monitoring of fish in lakes. In addition, there is no monitoring of angiosperms, morphological conditions and tidal regime in transitional and coastal waters, or of phytoplankton in transitional waters. The Solway Tweed RBD is similar, but the only QE missing is river continuity for rivers and benthic invertebrates for transitional waters.

The UK has provided information to WISE on the monitoring of physico-chemical parameters at an aggregate level, and it is not clear which specific QEs are monitored.

Both surveillance and operational monitoring programmes have according to the RBMPs been established, according to the guidance given in the UKTAG. For Northern Ireland no operational monitoring of coastal and transitional waters were reported to WISE. In operational networks, BQEs are monitored for all relevant water categories, except in Northern Ireland, where they are only monitored for rivers. In England and Wales 10% of lakes are part of the surveillance monitoring programme. The BQEs used for operational monitoring are linked to specific priority pressures, and all QEs are said to be monitored for the surveillance monitoring programme.

In England and Wales, priority substances and other pollutants are reported to be monitored in river, transitional and coastal waters but not in lakes. UK authorities have clarified that a semi-quantitative method using GC-MS scans is currently used to refine the priority substance monitoring programmes. In 2009 there was no monitoring for sediment and biota. In the Northern Ireland and the Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs, priority substances are monitored in all water categories. No overview information is reported on how substances have been selected and which individual substances are monitored, as the UK has provided information at an aggregate level. The specific substances monitored are listed in the water body sheets for England and Wales.

In Scotland, grouping of water bodies has been applied to all water categories, and a clear explanation is given. In England and Wales, while a methodology for grouping has been developed, it has only been applied in rivers due to the complex range of pressures in lake, transitional and coastal waters. In Northern Ireland, grouping has only been applied to connected river water bodies. All lakes are monitored, so grouping is not required.

In the Neagh Bann and North Western IRBDs, it is stated that a transboundary surface water monitoring programme is in place for lakes, river, transitional and coastal water bodies..

5.3 Monitoring of groundwater

A quantitative groundwater monitoring programme has been established in all RBDs[13].

Both surveillance and operational monitoring programmes are in place. In general, most sites are used for both monitoring programmes. All core parameter and other pollutants are monitored at operational sites, but it is not clear how parameters in the operational monitoring programme have been chosen to detect the existing pressures. The programmes in place for monitoring groundwater chemical status are designed to be able to detect significant and sustained upward trends, the analysis of trends at individual monitoring sites is presented. No operational monitoring is in place in Northern Ireland.

In the Neagh Bann and North Western IRBDs, a coordinated monitoring programme has been set up with Ireland.

 The quantitative monitoring programme has changed little since 2009. The surveillance and operational monitoring programmes have been expanded by around 10%.

5.4 Monitoring of protected areas

In England and Wales, all groundwater bodies are designated as drinking water protected areas (DWPAs). As such, while there is a specific monitoring programme for groundwater DWPAs, but it is not separate in the surveillance and operational programmes. In Northern Ireland there is no specific monitoring programme for DWPAs. A drinking water monitoring programme is in place for surface and groundwater in Scotland. For surface waters, no monitoring sites are listed under DWPAs in the WISE summary.

 Numbers of monitoring sites in protected areas are only reported in the Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs. No information available on sites in groundwater protected areas. In these RBDs, numbers of sites have increased by between 10 and 100%, with the largest increases seen in nitrate and urban wastewater protected areas. No specific monitoring network is reported to WISE concerning other protected areas for England and Wales.

RBD || Surface water monitoring stations in protected areas || Groundwater monitoring stations in protected areas

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water** || Drinking Water Directive || Bathing || Birds || Fish || Habitats || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT || Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water

UK01 || 0 || 0 || 214 || 703 || 1246 || 876 || 600 || 273 || 372 || 0

UK02 || 0 || 0 || 31 || 70 || 309 || 178 || 101 || 34 || 69 || 146***

UK03 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 114***

UK04 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 406***

UK05 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 214***

UK06 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 796***

UK07 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 752***

UK08 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 590***

UK09 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 446***

UK10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 164***

UK11 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 54***

UK12 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 482***

UKGBNIIENB* || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENW* || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNINE* || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 0 || 0 || 245 || 773 || 1555 || 1054 || 701 || 307 || 441 || 4164

Table 5.4.1: Number of monitoring sites in protected areas.

Note: Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.*The equivalent table in the Art 8 WFD implementation report shows more detail on monitoring stations in Northern Ireland. ** England and Wales do not publish drinking water sites for security reasons (critical infrastructure). *** Number of monitoring sites reported at programme level.

Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

UK01 || 2398 || 421 || 17.6 || 1159 || 48.3 || 423 || 17.6 || 262 || 10.9 || 133 || 5.5 || 0 || 0

UK02 || 501 || 10 || 2.0 || 226 || 45.1 || 187 || 37.3 || 63 || 12.6 || 15 || 3.0 || 0 || 0

UK03 || 285 || 2 || 0.7 || 103 || 36.1 || 124 || 43.5 || 47 || 16.5 || 9 || 3.2 || 0 || 0

UK04 || 508 || 0 || 0 || 117 || 23.0 || 273 || 53.7 || 97 || 19.1 || 21 || 4.1 || 0 || 0

UK05 || 251 || 0 || 0 || 58 || 23.1 || 161 || 64.1 || 28 || 11.2 || 4 || 1.6 || 0 || 0

UK06 || 312 || 0 || 0 || 64 || 20.5 || 162 || 51.9 || 73 || 23.4 || 13 || 4.2 || 0 || 0

UK07 || 212 || 0 || 0 || 57 || 26.9 || 120 || 56.6 || 30 || 14.2 || 5 || 2.4 || 0 || 0

UK08 || 823 || 0 || 0 || 273 || 33.2 || 456 || 55.4 || 83 || 10.1 || 11 || 1.3 || 0 || 0

UK09 || 633 || 0 || 0 || 169 || 26.7 || 322 || 50.9 || 125 || 19.7 || 17 || 2.7 || 0 || 0

UK10 || 657 || 1 || 0.2 || 186 || 28.3 || 424 || 64.5 || 45 || 6.8 || 1 || 0.2 || 0 || 0

UK11 || 60 || 0 || 0 || 20 || 33.3 || 30 || 50.0 || 10 || 16.7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK12 || 333 || 1 || 0.3 || 112 || 33.6 || 152 || 45.6 || 51 || 15.3 || 17 || 5.1 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENB || 235 || 1 || 0.4 || 38 || 16.2 || 113 || 48.1 || 71 || 30.2 || 12 || 5.1 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENW || 205 || 1 || 0.5 || 66 || 32.2 || 109 || 53.2 || 29 || 14.1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNINE || 108 || 2 || 1.9 || 18 || 16.7 || 61 || 56.5 || 23 || 21.3 || 4 || 3.7 || 0 || 0

Total || 7521 || 439 || 5.8 || 2666 || 35.4 || 3117 || 41.4 || 1037 || 13.8 || 262 || 3.5 || 0 || 0

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

UK01 || 413 || 2 || 0.5 || 203 || 49.2 || 65 || 15.7 || 78 || 18.9 || 65 || 15.7 || 0 || 0

UK02 || 80 || 0 || 0 || 25 || 31.3 || 37 || 46.3 || 6 || 7.5 || 12 || 15.0 || 0 || 0

UK03 || 182 || 0 || 0 || 95 || 52.2 || 77 || 42.3 || 10 || 5.5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK04 || 605 || 0 || 0 || 78 || 12.9 || 472 || 78.0 || 47 || 7.8 || 8 || 1.3 || 0 || 0

UK05 || 584 || 0 || 0 || 95 || 16.3 || 435 || 74.5 || 51 || 8.7 || 3 || 0.5 || 0 || 0

UK06 || 259 || 0 || 0 || 68 || 26.3 || 146 || 56.4 || 40 || 15.4 || 5 || 1.9 || 0 || 0

UK07 || 198 || 0 || 0 || 19 || 9.6 || 159 || 80.3 || 19 || 9.6 || 1 || 0.5 || 0 || 0

UK08 || 226 || 0 || 0 || 76 || 33.6 || 137 || 60.6 || 12 || 5.3 || 1 || 0.4 || 0 || 0

UK09 || 239 || 0 || 0 || 84 || 35.1 || 140 || 58.6 || 13 || 5.4 || 2 || 0.8 || 0 || 0

UK10 || 132 || 0 || 0 || 44 || 33.3 || 83 || 62.9 || 4 || 3.0 || 1 || 0.8 || 0 || 0

UK11 || 49 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 22.4 || 37 || 75.5 || 1 || 2.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK12 || 398 || 0 || 0 || 106 || 26.6 || 275 || 69.1 || 12 || 3.0 || 5 || 1.3 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENB || 35 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 2.9 || 13 || 37.1 || 17 || 48.6 || 4 || 11.4 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENW || 15 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 73.3 || 4 || 26.7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNINE || 25 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 8.0 || 12 || 48.0 || 5 || 20.0 || 6 || 24.0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3440 || 2 || 0.1 || 907 || 26.4 || 2099 || 61.0 || 319 || 9.3 || 113 || 3.3 || 0 || 0

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

UK01 || 2398 || 2387 || 99.5 || 11 || 0.5 || 0 || 0

UK02 || 501 || 387 || 77.2 || 4 || 0.8 || 110 || 22.0

UK03 || 285 || 2 || 0.7 || 3 || 1.1 || 280 || 98.2

UK04 || 508 || 28 || 5.5 || 5 || 1.0 || 475 || 93.5

UK05 || 251 || 11 || 4.4 || 1 || 0.4 || 239 || 95.2

UK06 || 312 || 42 || 13.5 || 5 || 1.6 || 265 || 84.9

UK07 || 212 || 21 || 9.9 || 2 || 0.9 || 189 || 89.2

UK08 || 823 || 27 || 3.3 || 9 || 1.1 || 787 || 95.6

UK09 || 633 || 48 || 7.6 || 10 || 1.6 || 575 || 90.8

UK10 || 657 || 28 || 4.3 || 5 || 0.8 || 624 || 95.0

UK11 || 60 || 5 || 8.3 || 1 || 1.7 || 54 || 90.0

UK12 || 333 || 23 || 6.9 || 3 || 0.9 || 307 || 92.2

UKGBNIIENB || 235 || 31 || 13.2 || 0 || 0 || 204 || 86.8

UKGBNIIENW || 205 || 42 || 20.7 || 0 || 0 || 161 || 79.3

UKGBNINE || 108 || 27 || 25.0 || 0 || 0 || 81 || 75.0

Total || 7521 || 3109 || 41.3 || 59 || 0.8 || 4351 || 57.9

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

UK01 || 413 || 407 || 98.5 || 6 || 1.5 || 0 || 0

UK02 || 80 || 38 || 47.5 || 1 || 1.3 || 41 || 51.3

UK03 || 182 || 10 || 5.5 || 9 || 4.9 || 163 || 89.6

UK04 || 605 || 83 || 13.7 || 28 || 4.6 || 494 || 81.7

UK05 || 584 || 74 || 12.7 || 14 || 2.4 || 496 || 84.9

UK06 || 259 || 30 || 11.6 || 19 || 7.3 || 210 || 81.1

UK07 || 198 || 25 || 12.6 || 4 || 2.0 || 169 || 85.4

UK08 || 226 || 24 || 10.6 || 6 || 2.7 || 196 || 86.7

UK09 || 239 || 23 || 9.6 || 10 || 4.2 || 206 || 86.2

UK10 || 132 || 19 || 14.4 || 5 || 3.8 || 108 || 81.8

UK11 || 49 || 4 || 8.2 || 2 || 4.1 || 43 || 87.8

UK12 || 398 || 26 || 6.5 || 18 || 4.5 || 354 || 88.9

UKGBNIIENB || 35 || 13 || 37.1 || 0 || 0 || 22 || 62.9

UKGBNIIENW || 15 || 11 || 73.3 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 26.7

UKGBNINE || 25 || 12 || 48.0 || 0 || 0 || 13 || 52.0

Total || 3440 || 799 || 23.2 || 122 || 3.6 || 2519 || 73.2

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

UK01 || 284 || 226 || 79.6 || 58 || 20.4 || 0 || 0

UK02 || 357 || 65 || 89 || 8 || 11 || 0 || 0

UK03 || 9 || 3 || 33.3 || 6 || 66.7 || 0 || 0

UK04 || 50 || 27 || 54 || 23 || 46 || 0 || 0

UK05 || 31 || 20 || 64.5 || 11 || 35.5 || 0 || 0

UK06 || 46 || 20 || 43.5 || 26 || 56.5 || 0 || 0

UK07 || 30 || 19 || 63.3 || 11 || 36.7 || 0 || 0

UK08 || 44 || 28 || 63.6 || 16 || 36.4 || 0 || 0

UK09 || 40 || 31 || 77.5 || 9 || 22.5 || 0 || 0

UK10 || 25 || 16 || 64 || 9 || 36 || 0 || 0

UK11 || 6 || 5 || 83.3 || 1 || 16.7 || 0 || 0

UK12 || 18 || 8 || 44.4 || 10 || 55.6 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENB || 14 || 13 || 92.9 || 1 || 7.1 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENW || 45 || 45 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNINE || 8 || 7 || 87.5 || 1 || 12.5 || 0 || 0

Total || 1007 || 533 || 73.7 || 190 || 26.3 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

UK01 || 284 || 250 || 88 || 34 || 12 || 0 || 0

UK02 || 357 || 63 || 86.3 || 10 || 13.7 || 0 || 0

UK03 || 9 || 8 || 88.9 || 1 || 11.1 || 0 || 0

UK04 || 50 || 30 || 60 || 20 || 40 || 0 || 0

UK05 || 31 || 20 || 64.5 || 11 || 35.5 || 0 || 0

UK06 || 46 || 16 || 34.8 || 30 || 65.2 || 0 || 0

UK07 || 30 || 13 || 43.3 || 17 || 56.7 || 0 || 0

UK08 || 44 || 37 || 84.1 || 7 || 15.9 || 0 || 0

UK09 || 40 || 30 || 75 || 10 || 25 || 0 || 0

UK10 || 25 || 24 || 96 || 1 || 4 || 0 || 0

UK11 || 6 || 5 || 83.3 || 1 || 16.7 || 0 || 0

UK12 || 18 || 11 || 61.1 || 7 || 38.9 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENB || 14 || 14 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENW || 45 || 45 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNINE || 8 || 7 || 87.5 || 1 || 12.5 || 0 || 0

Total || 1007 || 573 || 79.3 || 150 || 20.7 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027** || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

UK01 || 2811 || 1784 || 63.5 || 1965 || 69.9 || 6.4 || || || 2797 || || || || 2811 || || 30 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK02 || 581 || 189 || 32.5 || 221 || 38 || 5.5 || || || || || || || || || 48 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK03 || 467 || 3 || 0.6 || 3 || 0.6 || 0 || || || || || || || || || 52 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK04 || 1113 || 11 || 1 || 13 || 1.2 || 0.2 || 224 || || || || 1113 || || || || 81 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK05 || 835 || 2 || 0.2 || 4 || 0.5 || 0.2 || 162 || || || || 835 || || || || 81 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK06 || 571 || 1 || 0.2 || 4 || 0.7 || 0.5 || 145 || || || || 145 || || || || 75 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK07 || 410 || 6 || 1.5 || 10 || 2.4 || 1 || 92 || || || || 410 || || || || 78 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK08 || 1049 || 2 || 0.2 || 13 || 1.2 || 1 || 456 || || || || 1049 || || || || 58 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK09 || 872 || 13 || 1.5 || 18 || 2.1 || 0.6 || 296 || || || || 872 || || || || 66 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK10 || 789 || 10 || 1.3 || 13 || 1.6 || 0.4 || 282 || || || || 789 || || || || 64 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK11 || 109 || 1 || 0.9 || 2 || 1.8 || 0.9 || 40 || || || || 109 || || || || 63 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK12 || 731 || 5 || 0.7 || 8 || 1.1 || 0.4 || 243 || || || || 731 || || || || 67 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENB || 270 || 2 || 0.7 || 13 || 4.8 || 4.1 || || || || || || || || || 54 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENW || 220 || 10 || 4.5 || 32 || 14.5 || 10 || || || || || || || || || 31 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNINE || 133 || 11 || 8.3 || 14 || 10.5 || 2.3 || || || || || || || || || 53 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 10961 || 2050 || 18.7 || 2333 || 21.3 || 2.6 || || || || || || || || || 57 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027*

Notes : * Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. ** Natural surface water bodies only.

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

UK01 || 2398 || 1580 || 65.9 || 1726 || 72.0 || 6.1 || 1870 || || 2334 || || 28.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK02 || 501 || 236 || 47.1 || 274 || 54.7 || 7.6 || 323 || || 465 || || 45.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK03 || 285 || 105 || 36.8 || 125 || 43.9 || 7.0 || 124 || || 285 || || 56.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK04 || 508 || 117 || 23.0 || 129 || 25.4 || 2.4 || 143 || || 508 || || 74.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK05 || 251 || 58 || 23.1 || 65 || 25.9 || 2.8 || 65 || || 251 || || 74.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK06 || 312 || 64 || 20.5 || 76 || 24.4 || 3.8 || 76 || || 76 || || 75.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK07 || 212 || 57 || 26.9 || 72 || 34.0 || 7.1 || 72 || || 212 || || 66.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK08 || 823 || 273 || 33.2 || 367 || 44.6 || 11.4 || 378 || || 821 || || 55.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK09 || 633 || 169 || 26.7 || 210 || 33.2 || 6.5 || 210 || || 642 || || 66.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK10 || 657 || 187 || 28.5 || 238 || 36.2 || 7.8 || 237 || || 657 || || 63.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK11 || 60 || 20 || 33.3 || 25 || 41.7 || 8.3 || 25 || || 60 || || 58.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK12 || 333 || 113 || 33.9 || 137 || 41.1 || 7.2 || 137 || || 333 || || 58.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENB || 235 || 39 || 16.6 || 117 || 49.8 || 33.2 || 226 || || 232 || || 50.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENW || 205 || 67 || 32.7 || 147 || 71.7 || 39.0 || 198 || || 198 || || 28.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNINE || 108 || 20 || 18.5 || 58 || 53.7 || 35.2 || 97 || || 108 || || 46.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 7521 || 3105 || 41.3 || 3766 || 50.1 || 8.8 || || || || || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027* Note : * Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

UK01 || 2398 || 2387 || 99.5 || 2393 || 99.8 || 0.3 || || || || || 0.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK02 || 501 || 387 || 77.2 || 387 || 77.2 || 0 || || || || || 1.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK03 || 285 || 2 || 0.7 || 2 || 0.7 || 0 || || || || || 1.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK04 || 508 || 28 || 5.5 || 28 || 5.5 || 0 || || || || || 1.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK05 || 251 || 11 || 4.4 || 12 || 4.8 || 0.4 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK06 || 312 || 42 || 13.5 || 43 || 13.8 || 0.3 || || || || || 1.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK07 || 212 || 21 || 9.9 || 21 || 9.9 || 0 || || || || || 0.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK08 || 823 || 27 || 3.3 || 27 || 3.3 || 0 || || || || || 1.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK09 || 633 || 48 || 7.6 || 50 || 7.9 || 0.3 || || || || || 1.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK10 || 657 || 28 || 4.3 || 28 || 4.3 || 0 || || || || || 0.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK11 || 60 || 5 || 8.3 || 5 || 8.3 || 0 || || || || || 1.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK12 || 333 || 23 || 6.9 || 23 || 6.9 || 0 || || || || || 0.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENB || 235 || 31 || 13.2 || 31 || 13.2 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENW || 205 || 44 || 21.5 || 44 || 21.5 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNINE || 108 || 27 || 25.0 || 27 || 25.0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 7521 || 3111 || 41.4 || 3121 || 41.5 || 0.1 || || || || || 0.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027*

Note: * Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

UK01 || 284 || 226 || 79.6 || 263 || 92.6 || 13.0 || 265 || || 267 || || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK02 || 73 || 65 || 89.0 || 66 || 90.4 || 1.4 || 63 || || 68 || || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK03 || 9 || 3 || 33.3 || 3 || 33.3 || 0 || || || || || 44 || 22 || 0 || 0

UK04 || 50 || 27 || 54.0 || 27 || 54.0 || 0 || 17 || || 50 || || 46 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK05 || 31 || 20 || 64.5 || 20 || 64.5 || 0 || || || || || 35 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK06 || 46 || 20 || 43.5 || 21 || 45.7 || 2.2 || || || || || 54 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK07 || 30 || 19 || 63.3 || 19 || 63.3 || 0 || || || || || 37 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK08 || 44 || 28 || 63.6 || 28 || 63.6 || 0 || || || || || 36 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK09 || 40 || 31 || 77.5 || 31 || 77.5 || 0 || || || || || 23 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK10 || 25 || 16 || 64.0 || 16 || 64.0 || 0 || 15 || || 25 || || 36 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK11 || 6 || 5 || 83.3 || 5 || 83.3 || 0 || || || || || 17 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK12 || 18 || 8 || 44.4 || 9 || 50 || 5.6 || || || || || 33 || 17 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENB || 14 || 13 || 92.9 || 13 || 92.9 || 0 || 14 || || 14 || || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENW || 45 || 45 || 100 || 45 || 100 || 0 || 45 || || 45 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNINE || 8 || 7 || 87.5 || 7 || 87.5 || 0 || 7 || || 8 || || 13 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 723 || 533 || 73.7 || 573 || 79.3 || 5.5 || || || || || 20 || 1 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027*

Note : * Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

UK01 || 284 || 250 || 88.0 || 257 || 90.5 || 2.5 || 263 || || 284 || || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK02 || 73 || 63 || 86.3 || 63 || 86.3 || 0 || 63 || || 68 || || 14 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK03 || 9 || 8 || 88.9 || 8 || 88.9 || 0 || || || || || 11 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK04 || 50 || 30 || 60.0 || 30 || 60.0 || 0 || 17 || || 50 || || 40 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK05 || 31 || 20 || 64.5 || 20 || 64.5 || 0 || || || || || 35 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK06 || 46 || 16 || 34.8 || 16 || 34.8 || 0 || || || || || 65 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK07 || 30 || 13 || 43.3 || 13 || 43.3 || 0 || || || || || 57 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK08 || 44 || 37 || 84.1 || 37 || 84.1 || 0 || || || || || 16 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK09 || 40 || 30 || 75.0 || 30 || 75.0 || 0 || || || || || 25 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK10 || 25 || 24 || 96.0 || 24 || 96.0 || 0 || 15 || || 25 || || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK11 || 6 || 5 || 83.3 || 5 || 83.3 || 0 || || || || || 17 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK12 || 18 || 11 || 61.1 || 11 || 61.1 || 0 || || || || || 22 || 17 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENB || 14 || 14 || 100 || 14 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENW || 45 || 45 || 100 || 45 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNINE || 8 || 7 || 87.5 || 7 || 87.5 || 0 || || || || || 13 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 723 || 573 || 79.2 || 580 || 80.2 || 1.0 || || || || || 20 || 0.4 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027* Note : * Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

UK01 || 413 || 205 || 49.6 || 241 || 58.4 || 8.7 || 264 || || 410 || || 42.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK02 || 80 || 25 || 31.3 || 31 || 38.8 || 7.5 || 41 || || 85 || || 61.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK03 || 182 || 95 || 52.2 || 103 || 56.6 || 4.4 || 102 || || 182 || || 43.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK04 || 605 || 78 || 12.9 || 81 || 13.4 || 0.5 || 81 || || 605 || || 86.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK05 || 584 || 95 || 16.3 || 97 || 16.6 || 0.3 || 97 || || 584 || || 83.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK06 || 259 || 68 || 26.3 || 69 || 26.6 || 0.4 || 69 || || 69 || || 73.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK07 || 198 || 19 || 9.6 || 20 || 10.1 || 0.5 || 20 || || 198 || || 89.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK08 || 226 || 76 || 33.6 || 78 || 34.5 || 0.9 || 78 || || 228 || || 65.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK09 || 239 || 84 || 35.1 || 89 || 37.2 || 2.1 || 88 || || 239 || || 62.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK10 || 132 || 44 || 33.3 || 46 || 34.8 || 1.5 || 45 || || 132 || || 65.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK11 || 49 || 11 || 22.4 || 16 || 32.7 || 10.2 || 15 || || 49 || || 67.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK12 || 398 || 106 || 26.6 || 107 || 26.9 || 0.3 || 106 || || 398 || || 73.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENB || 35 || 1 || 2.9 || 8 || 22.9 || 20.0 || 30 || || 34 || || 77.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENW || 15 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 40.0 || 40.0 || 13 || || 15 || || 60.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNINE || 25 || 2 || 8.0 || 4 || 16.0 || 8.0 || 9 || || 25 || || 84.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3440 || 909 || 26.4 || 996 || 29.0 || 2.6 || || || || || 71.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027*

Note : Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.  Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

UK01 || 413 || 407 || 98.5 || 408 || 98.8 || 0.2 || || || || || 1.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK02 || 80 || 38 || 47.5 || 38 || 47.5 || 0 || || || || || 1.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK03 || 182 || 10 || 5.5 || 11 || 6.0 || 0.5 || || || || || 4.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK04 || 605 || 83 || 13.7 || 85 || 14.0 || 0.3 || || || || || 4.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK05 || 584 || 74 || 12.7 || 81 || 13.9 || 1.2 || || || || || 1.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK06 || 259 || 30 || 11.6 || 35 || 13.5 || 1.9 || || || || || 5.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK07 || 198 || 25 || 12.6 || 25 || 12.6 || 0 || || || || || 2.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK08 || 226 || 24 || 10.6 || 24 || 10.6 || 0 || || || || || 2.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK09 || 239 || 23 || 9.6 || 23 || 9.6 || 0 || || || || || 4.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK10 || 132 || 19 || 14.4 || 19 || 14.4 || 0 || || || || || 3.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK11 || 49 || 4 || 8.2 || 4 || 8.2 || 0 || || || || || 4.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

UK12 || 398 || 26 || 6.5 || 27 || 6.8 || 0.3 || || || || || 4.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENB || 35 || 13 || 37.1 || 13 || 37.1 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNIIENW || 15 || 11 || 73.3 || 11 || 73.3 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

UKGBNINE || 25 || 12 || 48.0 || 12 || 48.0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3440 || 799 || 23.2 || 816 || 23.7 || 0.5 || || || || || 3.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027*

Note : * Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

The approach for assessment of ecological status of surface waters generally follows a national approach, with some differences in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

In England and Wales, assessment methods for the classification of ecological status are fully developed for all biological quality elements in river and coastal waters, but are not developed for fish in lakes. Phytoplankton has not been developed for transitional waters across the UK. UK methods for angiosperms and macroalgae exists for transitional waters in the UK but are not applicable to all typologies. In Northern Ireland, BQEs without fully developed methods are: fish in rivers and lakes, benthic fauna in lake, transitional and coastal waters, and angiosperms in coastal waters. In Scotland and Solway Tweed, there are no developed methods for fish in lakes, phytoplankton and angiosperms in transitional waters and angiosperms in coastal waters. In addition, no method has been developed for benthic fauna in transitional waters in the Solway Tweed RBD.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

UK01 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK02 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK03 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK04 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK05 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK06 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK07 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK08 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK09 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || -

UK10 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

UK11 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || -

UK12 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GBNIIENB || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GBNIIENW || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GBNINE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

The assessment shows that the biological assessment methods used are able to detect all major pressures.

Standards have been set for many, but not all, physico-chemical and hydromorphological QEs in support of the biological assessment. In England and Wales, the physico-chemical parameters without set standards are salinity/conductivity in rivers, transitional and coastal and thermal conditions in lakes, transitional and coastal waters, and transparency in lake, transitional and coastal waters. Thermal pollution is said not to be an issue in the UK. In Northern Ireland, temperature was assessed but not used for classification in rivers and lakes, while salinity was not assessed directly, but is calculated from measurements of temperature and conductivity. In transitional and coastal waters, only oxygenation and nutrient conditions were assessed.  In the Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs, the missing parameters were: salinity in river, transitional and coastal water bodies and thermal conditions and transparency in lake, transitional and coastal water bodies. In the Solway Tweed RBD, thermal conditions in rivers and dissolved oxygen in lake, transitional and coastal water bodes were also missing. For salinity, no standards are set as there are no identified pressures. Thermal conditions in lakes are stated to be too complex to set standards. For transparency, no reliable reference condition could be identified.

The hydromorphological parameters without standards were: connection to groundwaters from rivers and lakes in all RBDs, and river continuity in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Standards have been set for specific pollutants in all RBDs. The methods used are clear and transparent. The UK authorities have clarified that the EQS are under review. The one-out-all-out principle has been applied to derive the overall ecological status in all cases.

Confidence and precision of the biological assessment has been assessed for rivers and lakes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and transitional and coastal waters in England and Wales. It is unclear if the process has been repeated for transitional and coastal waters in Northern Ireland. In England and Wales, a statistical approach to confidence has been taken for rivers and lakes, and for transitional and coastal water bodies confidence is based on the amount and quality of data available. For rivers in Northern Ireland, the methodology involves assessing the confidence in class for each pressure in each water body. Confidence in class is considered routinely in Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs and information is provided in the water body specific sheets(part of the RBMPs).

It is unclear whether ecological status assessment methods have been developed for all national surface water body types in England and Wales. No information is provided in Scotland and Northern Ireland[14].

In England, Wales and Scotland, all class boundaries for ecological status assessment are consistent with the intercalibration decision. In Northern Ireland, the class boundaries for rivers are consistent with the intercalibration boundaries, but limits for lakes and coastal waters are partly consistent. The intercalibrated limits for macrophytes in lakes and phytoplankton and angiosperms in transitional and coastal waters have not been used.

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

For all water categories in England and Wales, it is noted that all relevant BQEs are used in both surveillance and operational monitoring, but not all supporting elements are used. In addition, angiosperms appear to be monitored in some transitional waters, but not used for classification.

In Scotland, most sensitive BQEs and other relevant QEs are used for classification in surveillance and operational monitoring, but angiosperms in transitional and coastal waters and phytoplankton in transitional waters are not monitored or classified and fish are not monitored or classified in lakes. Physico-chemical QEs and non-priority substances are monitored and classified in all categories. For operational monitoring, fish are monitored and classified in rivers, t classified.

In Northern Ireland, all QEs are included in surveillance monitoring for rivers and lakes except salinity, although the coverage of phytobenthos and fish in rivers is limited. No hydromorphological QEs are monitored on transitional and coastal waters. For operational monitoring, all QEs are monitored in rivers, but only water flow is monitored in lakes. No information was found for transitional and coastal waters.

In England, Wales and Scotland, the operational monitoring programme is designed to respond to significant pressures and an explanation is provided on how the BQEs selected are chosen to respond to different pressures for all water categories. In Northern Ireland, this process is clear for rivers, but there is no operational monitoring of lake, transitional or coastal water bodies.

In England and Wales, research is on-going to develop a tool to assess confidence of classification in transitional and coastal waters. In Scotland, confidence in the assessment of each element is reported in water body information sheets in the RBMPs. No information is provided for RBDs in Northern Ireland, except for lakes, where the methodology for assessment of confidence follows UKTAG guidance.

7.3 River basin specific pollutants

The main pollutants causing failure of good status in England and Wales are Copper, Zinc, Ammonia,  Cypermethrine and Total Phosphate. In addition, in some RBDs the pollutants Chlorine, Iron, Permethrin, Phenol, Diazinon, and 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid are also reported. Phosphate affects the highest numbers of rivers, causing pollution in between 10 and 67% in each RBD, while other pollutants generally affect lower numbers, around 1 to 25%.  

In Scotland, the main pollutants reported are Phosphorus, Ammonia which are causing failures in rivers and lakes. In the Scotland RBD, dissolved inorganic nitrogen in estuaries and other toxic pollutants were also reported, while in the Solway Tweed RBD, specific pollutants were listed as an issue in rivers and lakes, but were not itemised. Failures rates were generally much lower than in England and Wales, at around 5%, although phosphorus caused failure in 43% of lochs in Solway Tweed RBD.  In Northern Ireland no specific pollutants causing a failure of ecological status were reported.

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)

UK01 || || Ammonia - rivers || 2.3

UK01 || || Dissolved inorganic nitrogen - estuaries || 8.3

UK01 || || Dissolved oxygen || 2.1

UK01 || || Dissolved oxygen - coastal waters || 0.3

UK01 || || Dissolved oxygen - estuaries || 8

UK01 || || Other synthetic and non-synthetic toxic pollutants (including ammonium) || 1.6

UK01 || || pH - rivers || 0.8

UK01 || || Phosphorus - rivers || 7.2

UK01 || || Total phosphorus - lochs || 16

UK02 || || Acid neutralising capacity – lakes || 3.7

UK02 || || Ammonia - rivers || 1.8

UK02 || || Dissolved oxygen - rivers || 3.1

UK02 || || pH - rivers || 6.3

UK02 || || Phosphorus - rivers || 4.8

UK02 || || Specific pollutants – lakes || 0

UK02 || || Specific pollutants - rivers || 2.6

UK02 || || Total phosphorus - lochs || 43

UK03 || || Ammonia || 7

UK03 || 7440-50-8 || Copper ||

UK03 || 52315-07-8 || Cypermethrin ||

UK03 || || Dissolved oxygen || 2

UK03 || 7439-89-6 || Iron ||

UK03 || || pH || 2

UK03 || 64743=03-9 || Phenol ||

UK03 || || Phosphate || 15

UK03 || || Temperature ||

UK03 || || Total phosphorus ||

UK03 || 7440-66-6 || Zinc ||

UK04 || || 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid ||

UK04 || || Ammonia || 13

UK04 || 7440-50-8 || Copper ||

UK04 || 52315-07-8 || Cypermethrin ||

UK04 || || Diazinon ||

UK04 || || Dissolved oxygen || 12

UK04 || || Permethrin ||

UK04 || || pH || 3

UK04 || || Phosphate || 48

UK04 || || Temperature || 1

UK04 || || Total phosphorus ||

UK04 || 7440-66-6 || Zinc ||

UK05 || || Ammonia || 9

UK05 || || Dissolved oxygen || 28

UK05 || || Phosphate || 67

UK05 || || Total phosphorus ||

UK06 || || Ammonia || 8

UK06 || 7440-50-8 || Copper ||

UK06 || 52315-07-8 || Cypermethrin ||

UK06 || || Dissolved oxygen || 15

UK06 || 7439-89-6 || Iron ||

UK06 || || pH || 1

UK06 || || Phosphate || 66

UK06 || || Temperature || 1

UK06 || || Total phosphorus ||

UK06 || 7440-66-6 || Zinc ||

UK07 || || Ammonia || 7

UK07 || 7440-50-8 || Copper ||

UK07 || 52315-07-8 || Cypermethrin ||

UK07 || || Dissolved oxygen || 21

UK07 || 7439-89-6 || Iron ||

UK07 || || pH || 1

UK07 || || Phosphate || 49

UK07 || || Temperature || 1

UK07 || || Total phosphorus ||

UK08 || || Ammonia || 5

UK08 || 7440-50-8 || Copper ||

UK08 || 52315-07-8 || Cypermethrin ||

UK08 || || Dissolved oxygen || 7

UK08 || || pH || 5

UK08 || || Phosphate || 35

UK08 || || Temperature ||

UK08 || || total phosphorus ||

UK08 || 7440-66-6 || Zinc ||

UK09 || || Ammonia || 3

UK09 || 7440-50-8 || Copper ||

UK09 || 52315-07-8 || Cypermethrin ||

UK09 || || Dissolved oxygen || 6

UK09 || || pH || 1

UK09 || || Phosphate || 45

UK09 || || Total phosphorus ||

UK09 || 7440-66-6 || Zinc ||

UK10 || || Ammonia || 1

UK10 || || Chlorine ||

UK10 || 7440-50-8 || Copper ||

UK10 || 52315-07-8 || Cypermethrin ||

UK10 || || Dissolved oxygen || 3

UK10 || || pH || 6

UK10 || || Phosphate || 9

UK10 || || Total phosphorus ||

UK10 || 7440-66-6 || Zinc ||

UK11 || || Ammonia || 4

UK11 || 7440-50-8 || Copper ||

UK11 || || Dissolved oxygen || 6

UK11 || || pH || 6

UK11 || || Phosphate || 25

UK11 || || Total phosphorus ||

UK11 || 7440-66-6 || Zinc ||

UK12 || || Ammonia || 22

UK12 || 7440-50-8 || Copper ||

UK12 || 52315-07-8 || Cypermethrin ||

UK12 || || Dissolved oxygen || 10

UK12 || || pH || 5

UK12 || || Phosphate || 38

UK12 || || Temperature || 1

UK12 || || Total phosphorus ||

UK12 || 7440-66-6 || Zinc ||

GBNIIENB || || ||

GBNIIENW || || ||

GBNINE || || ||

Table 7.3.1: River basin specific pollutants

Source: WISE

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The Article 5(WFD) analysis, based on reports submitted in 2005, indicated that in the UK, a total of around 37% of water bodies were (preliminary) identified as Heavily Modified or Artificial. In some areas this is more than 50%.

In the 2009 RBMPs, there are 2503 rivers (28% of total rivers), 765 lakes (68%), 107 transitional waters (56%) and 65 coastal waters (11%) which are designated as Heavily Modified or Artificial water bodies. This makes up 31% of all water bodies.

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

The RBMPs state the water uses which have led to water bodies being designated as heavily modified or artificial. Water uses include: navigation, storage for drinking water, water regulation, flood protection and wider environment in all RBDs. In England and Wales, the following additional water uses are listed: recreation, storage for power generation, storage for irrigation and land drainage. Types of physical modification which are considered for designation include dredging and land reclamation. Physical modifications such as navigation, storage for drinking water and flood protection was for Northern Ireland. 

The methodology used for designation of HMWBs has followed the stepwise approach of the CIS Guidance nº4. There seems to be different approaches. In England and Wales, the national UKTAG guidance was used in all water bodies for rapid classification, and in more difficult cases (where the rapid method resulted in an inconclusive designation) more detailed approach was followed. In Scotland UKTAG guidance was followed. In Northern Ireland the rapid designation approach was used for screening, and more detailed approach for the identified preliminary HMWBs. Background document are available with the information on the Northern Ireland webpages.

There is no explicit mention of uncertainty in designation, but a quality check of the results of the designation process is described, which was followed by a liaison panel review. No information was found on uncertainty in Scotland or Northern Ireland[15].

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

GEP has been defined, but not in all cases based on biological factors. The approach used was the mitigation measures (Prague) approach. Not all steps of the approach appear to have been considered, notably the identification of both maximum and good ecological potential. Although all mitigation measures have been identified, it is not clear if biological QEs have been considered in the process. It is not clear which specific measures will deliver ecological benefits in the relevant waterbodies, although a default list of mitigation measures in the UKTAG guidance provides some information. The measures which are predicted to deliver on a slight improvement have not been excluded from the process. This method only leads to the classification of HMWBs as ‘good or better’ or moderate or worse’ potential. In Scotland, the methodology used allowed full classification of ecological potential, in line with CIS guidance.

No information was found on the use of biological data in the assessment. Plans are in place for suitable biological tools to be developed in the future.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

The results of the assessment of Good Ecological Potential show that 22% of rivers, 40% of lakes, 15% of transitional waters and 40% of coastal waters meet the requirements of good potential.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

Standards are applied for all priority substances listed in Annex 1 to the EQSD, including standards for mercury and compounds, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene in biota. However, standards in biota are not currently used for classification in England and Wales, and a project is in place to look at how these should be implemented. In Scotland, mercury in mussels is used for assessment, but not hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene since there are no known sources of those substances. The standards which are used match those listed in Annex 1 of the EQSD. Priority substances are reported to be widely monitored, although status assessment has not been carried out in all locations. No other standards are applied in biota and sediment.

No methodology is supplied for dealing with background concentrations in surface waters, although a methodology is given for groundwaters. No explanation is given for how bioavailability factors of metals are taken into account.

Little information is supplied on the standards applied in Northern Ireland, although UK authorities have clarified that standards were published in 2011. Where standards are applied which are different to the EQSs set in Annex 1 of the EQSD, they are more stringent.

In Scotland, all priority substances seem to have been taken into account, however no maximum allowable concentration (MAC) standard has been applied for Cadmium in coastal waters, which is as it is linked to water hardness. However, the annual mean standard has been applied. In Northern Ireland, chemical standards were assessed using annual averages and no standards were applied in sediments or biota. Chemical status was assessed in all water bodies with available data.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a high proportion of water bodies have unknown chemical status, as monitoring in England and Wales for instance, is only undertaken where it is known that priority substances are discharged. All other sites ‘do not require assessment’ and are by default classified as good chemical status.

The substances causing water bodies to fail good chemical status are shown in the table below. No priority substances caused the failure of chemical status in Northern Ireland.

Substance || Number of water bodies failing good chemical status

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene || 80

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene || 80

Tributyltin || 79

Cadmium || 18

Diuron || 11

Nickel || 9

Mercury || 8

Benzo(k)flouranthene || 7

Trichloroethylene || 7

Nonylphenol || 6

Lead || 5

DEHP || 5

Hexacholocyclohexane || 5

Isoproturon || 5

Benzo(b)flouranthene || 3

Trichloromethane || 2

Flouranthene || 2

DEHP || 1

Naphthalene || 1

Aldrin || 1

Dieldrin || 1

Endrin || 1

Isodrin || 1

Table 9.2.1: Substances causing exceedance of EQS

Source: WISE

10. Assessment of groundwater status

The RBMPs for England, Wales and Northern Ireland provide little information on groundwater status assessment, however UK authorities have clarified that the information is included in background documents. The assessment of groundwater status generally follows a regional approach, with separate methodologies in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The approaches are based on a series of tests which include testing of saline or other intrusions, of the impact of groundwater on surface water ecology and of pollutant concentrations. 

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

Around 20% of the GWBs in the United Kingdom are in poor quantitative status.

 Surface waters associated to groundwater and GW dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been considered in the assessment of quantitative status. The impacts of abstractions have also been considered by looking at the balance between the long term annual average rate of abstraction compared with the available groundwater resource. Saline or other intrusions were also included in the assessment.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

The information reported on the risks of groundwater bodies with respect to chemical pollution showed that, in England and Wales, 78 groundwater bodies are at risk from nitrate pollution. Significant areas are at risk because of abstraction and flow regulation as well as of mining and chemicals. 53 water bodies are at risk because of pesticides. No information was reported in Northern Ireland. Groundwater chemical status and trend data associated with concentrations of pollutants is shown in the RBMP and results are also available in water body sheets.

Surface waters associated to groundwater and GW dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been considered in the assessment of chemical status.

It is not clear from the RBMPs that all substances listed in Annex II Part B of the GWD have been considered in the establishment of threshold values of pollutants. However, it is stated that all pollutants posing risk have been considered. Protection of aquatic ecosystems, uses and functions of groundwater and saline or other intrusions were also considered in setting of threshold values. No information was provided on the coordination of transboundary elements.

Background levels have been considered in the establishment of threshold values. Trends in groundwater pollutants are assessed. Starting points for trend reversal are defined at 75% of the GW-QS and threshold value. No methodology for assessing trend reversal has been established yet, this is planned for the 2nd RBMP cycle

10.3 Protected areas

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

UK01 || 282 || 2 ||

UK02 || 71 || 2 ||

UK03 || 8 || 1 ||

UK04 || 40 || 10 ||

UK05 || 27 || 4 ||

UK06 || 34 || 12 ||

UK07 || 23 || 7 ||

UK08 || 36 || 8 ||

UK09 || 32 || 8 ||

UK10 || 25 || ||

UK11 || 6 || ||

UK12 || 16 || 2 ||

UKGBNIIENB* || || || 13

UKGBNIIENW* || || || 45

UKGBNINE* || || || 8

Total || 600 || 56 || 66

Table 10.3.1: Status of groundwater drinking protected areas

Note: *Groundwater is not used for drinking water in Northern Ireland

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions 11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

In England and Wales, objectives for protected areas are set based on WFD and the other respective Directives. Regarding shellfish waters the objectives set aim to meet the mandatory standards and the guideline standards of the Shellfish Directive which should ensure that once the Directive is repealed these waters are afforded at least the same level of protection as given by the Shellfish Directive.

In Northern Ireland, it is not clear whether additional objectives have been defined for protected areas. In relation to shellfish waters, even if not explicitly mentioned in the RBMPs[16] protected areas have been established under national legislative instruments with their own associated objectives/standards. In circumstances where both protected area and WFD objectives/standards apply then the more stringent objective/standard applies.

In Scotland and Solway Tweed, additional objectives have been defined for Bathing and Natura 2000 protected areas, as well as for drinking water protected areas. In Scotland, additional objectives have also been defined for Shellfish protected areas.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

Article 4(4) exemptions are applied to a large proportion of water bodies, with 60 % of river water bodies, 54% of lakes, 68% of transitional waters, 14% of coastal waters and 31% of groundwaters are subject to such time derogations. A high proportion of water bodies are subject to exemptions in England and Wales under Article 4(4), around 70%, whilst in Scotland (UK1) the number is lower 30%, and in Northern Ireland article 4.4 was applied in  45% of the water bodies. This difference seems to be linked to uncertainty on status and effect of measures in England and Wales, despite extensive monitoring programmes. Scotland has applied article 4(5) to about 1 % of its water bodies, mainly due to long-term recovery of groundwater, flood protection and invasive species.

The justifications for the use of exemption under Article 4(4) and 4(5) are disproportionate costs, technical feasibility and natural conditions.

Costs are estimated in a number of ways: by looking at the costs for specific measures, costs for all measures combined, and administrative costs. In England and Wales, the assessment of disproportionate costs was carried out by comparing costs of a specific measure with benefits at water body level, and by comparing the costs of the total PoM with the benefits of the programme. However, benefits only occur when water body status changes. UK authorities have clarified that current uncertainty on if a specific waterbody actually fails good status or not, means that it would be disproportionately expensive to take measures(see also other comments on the large number of uncertain assessments, despite an extensive monitoring network, and the resulting extensive absence of specific new measures in the first cycle).  In Scotland, the reason for applying exemptions and ensuring phased achievement of objectives, and thereby avoiding disproportionate costs[17]. The methodology for identifying measures for which costs are disproportionate is not fully clear from the RBMP in Scotland. The costs of basic measures are excluded from the assessment. Dis-proportionate costs were not used as a justification for exemptions in Northern Ireland.

Measures are technically infeasible if a problem takes longer to fix than there is time available, if no technical solution is available, or if there is no information on the cause of the problem. Water bodies are exempt due to natural conditions if the ecological recovery time for surface waters is too long.

It is not clear if the objectives and exemptions have been coordinated between the UK and Ireland in the IRBDs. A report has been produced for the international RBDs, but no detail is provided on exactly how the coordination was carried out. Only 5 water bodies, all of which are groundwaters in the Northwest RBD, are subject to less stringent objectives under Article 4(5) exemptions.

RBD || Global*

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

UK01 || 20 || 0 || 810 || 0 || 51 || -

UK02 || 65 || 0 || 225 || 0 || 51 || -

UK03 || 199 || 0 || 144 || 0 || 1 || -

UK04 || 723 || 0 || 659 || 0 || 1 || -

UK05 || 501 || 0 || 559 || 0 || 0 || -

UK06 || 303 || 0 || 349 || 0 || 0 || -

UK07 || 248 || 0 || 255 || 0 || 0 || -

UK08 || 476 || 0 || 481 || 0 || 5 || -

UK09 || 389 || 0 || 436 || 0 || 0 || -

UK10 || 464 || 0 || 320 || 0 || 1 || -

UK11 || 56 || 0 || 48 || 0 || 0 || -

UK12 || 432 || 0 || 353 || 0 || 2 || -

UKGBNIIENB || 122 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 35 || -

UKGBNIIENW || 60 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 17 || -

UKGBNINE || 40 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 50 || -

Total || 4098 || 0 || 4639 || 0 || 214 || -

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Note : Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status. Article 4(5) is staid to be used for 1% of Scottish water bodies, but this is not apparent from the reporting to WISE. Source: WISE

 

Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

Article 4(6) has not been applied.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

Article 4(7) has not been applied in most RBDs, however, there are some cases where it has been used: In Western Wales RBD, two river water bodies have been exempted based on the construction of a new weir for hydrological monitoring. In Humber RBD, a flood alleviation scheme has led to an exemption. No information is provided on the impact of the scheme on water status. In Solway Tweed RBD it is stated that exemptions are applied but no details are provided. In Scotland RBD, article 4(7) exemptions are applied for 29 water bodies for flood protection, hydropower and impoundment schemes; a full Environmental Impact Assessment has taken place in each case. It should be noted that in which, as stated in the RBMPs is said to be incorrect. 

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

No information was supplied on the use of exemptions to the Groundwater Directive in Northern Ireland and Scotland. In England and Wales, exemptions according to article 6 (GWD) are not applied.  The only reason applied for exemptions relating to groundwater pollutants was ‘Incapable for technical reasons of being prevented or limited without disproportionately costly measures’. However, no inventory of pollutants has been completed.

In England and Wales, the percentage of water bodies with groundwater exemptions was between 33 and 83%, with the highest number in Thames RBD. In Scotland, 15 to 18% of groundwater bodies were subject to exemptions, and in Northern Ireland, the figures were between 0 and 13%.

12. Programmes of measures 12.1 Programme of measures – general

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[18] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

In England and Wales, the measures are based entirely or partly on ecological, chemical and quantitative status assessments for all water bodies. In Scotland, the PoM is partially based on status assessments and in Northern Ireland, proposed measures have been based on the status classification. Despite an extensive monitoring network, there seems to be an extensive lack of certainty of the pressures, the status of the water bodies and the impact of potential measures, which has led to few new specific measures being presented in the RBMPs. This assessment applies across the board of topics outlined below.

There has been coordination between the UK and Ireland in the international RBDs, although a specific international RBMP has not been produced.

In Scotland, information on the geographical scope of the measures is provided at a national, sub-basin or water body level. In England and Wales, measures available at RBD level are listed. In general, measures in Northern Ireland apply across all three RBD, but there is no specific information on the scope of implementation.

National authorities have been responsible for the majority of measures. Some measures, for example agricultural measures, will have shared responsibility, being led by national authorities, but implemented by farmers and enterprises. There is a relatively strong emphasis on voluntary measures in England and Wales, rather than statutory measures in the plans. UK authorities have clarified that statutory measures are available if voluntary measures fail, and that the approach will be reviewed for the second cycle, also taking into account potential disproportionate costs of statutory measures. In Scotland, the statutory measures are emphasised, and post-WFD adopted reforms of regulatory framework introduced permitting structure.

In England, Wales and Scotland, costs have been calculated and broken down by sector and pressure. The full programme of measures is not included in the overall costs as reported; basic measures, measures already in place and local measures are not included in these estimates. There is evidence for a financial commitment to the PoM, although this is not explicitly mentioned. The costs, for Solway Tweed RBD were presented in an impact assessment early 2009, but not referred to in the RBMP. In Northern Ireland, the total costs of measures have been calculated, but not broken down by sector, pressure or water category. There are signs of a financial commitment to implement the measures, but the sources of funding are not completely clear.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the PoM will be operational from 2012 or before, with a small number of exceptions which will be come operational by 2013, 2014 or 2015. In Scotland, in addition to the regulatory framework of basic measures already in force, Scottish authorities have clarified that PoM became operational upon publication. The Scottish plans also include extensive information on how the implementation will be phased by 2015, 2021 and 2027, with details per measure and water body.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Agriculture is assessed as leading to pressures on water quality, water quantity, eutrophication, and soil erosion in all RBDs except Scotland RBD where soil erosion is not an issue and Northumbria RBD where abstraction is not an issue. Pressure on the hydromorphology is also listed in all RBDs in Northern Ireland. 

In Scotland a Diffuse Pollution Management Advisory Group was established to aid selection of measures, along with eight area advisory groups and a rural diffuse management advisory group. In England and Wales, RBD Liaison Panels were set up to provide a forum for co-deliverers to discuss and influence the development of the RBMP. In most cases, this panel involved representation from farming unions. In Northern Ireland stakeholder involvement was more basic, with agricultural representatives being involved in Catchment Stakeholder Groups.

A combination of technical measures, economic instruments and non-technical measures have been selected to address the pressures from agriculture in England, Wales and Scotland. Economic instruments are not used in Northern Ireland. A large proportion of the measures proposed in England and Wales are voluntary, rather than statutory. 

In England and Wales, some measures are delivered at RBD scale, while others are targeted at specific sensitive catchments. Additionally, in England, some measures are targeted only at farms which have entered agri-environmental schemes such as Environmental Stewardship. In In Northern Ireland no geographically disaggregated information is given.  In Scotland information on specific measures regarding diffuse pollution are given by waterbody(in the waterbody sheets on the GIS platform), and some priority catchments for measures are identified in Scotland.

Rural Development Programmes are in place in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to fund agricultural measures and agri-environment schemes. However details regarding the funding of the measures are missing in the PoM.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland many of the listed measures have already been implemented. Measures relating to WFD objectives have implementation dates of 2010, 2012 or 2013 in England and Wales, and 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012 in Northern Ireland. In Scotland timetable for implementation of individual measures are set out in the water body sheets (part of the RBMPs).

In England and Wales, the Environment Agency will use its monitoring programme to review whether work on the ground is achieving environmental objectives. In Scotland, SEPA will gather evidence to assess measures as part of its six yearly review, and in Northern Ireland monitoring of progress against objectives will take place during implementation and through the remainder of the river basin planning cycle.

Measures || UK01 || UK02 || UK03 || UK04 || UK05 || UK06 || UK07 || UK08 || UK09 || UK10 || UK11 || UK12 || GBNIIENB || GBNIIENW || GBNIINE

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Measures against soil erosion || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Technical measures for water saving in agriculture || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || ü || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || ü || ü || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Nutrient trading || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Institutional changes || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Farm advice and training || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Certification schemes || || || || || || || || || || || || ü || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Land use planning || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || ||

Technical standards || || || || || || || || || || || || || ü || ü || ü

Specific projects related to agriculture || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Environmental permitting and licensing || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

In Scotland many hydromorphological measures are identified on a waterbody specific level, with a stepwise prioritisation for implemented in the three RBMPS cycles considered. The majority of measures are scheduled in the latter cycles, often due to disproportionate costs. In England and Wales as well as in Northern Ireland many of the measures are related to further investigations and research.

No clear links are made between hydromorphological pressures and measures. In the Scottish RBMPs engineering modifications refers to a variety of purposes, including flood defence, land draining, navigation, urban development, and the description of the specific measures relate to such pressures.

No assessment has been made of the expected effects of the specific measures in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For England and Wales, the waterbody specific sheets contain the classification results for each element monitored, and status predicted in 2015 as a result of pressures and measures based on an integrated assessment, and not the assessment of individual measures. At the same time, the absence of information on the effects of measures is used as a justification for delaying measures. In Scotland the only assessment is of water bodies affected by hydropower schemes, where the impact of measures on status is assessed in 2015, 2021 and 2027.

Hydro-morphological measures are to be implemented in HMWBs in all RBDs. In England and Wales, planned measures are presented at a water body level.

Guidelines on an ecological flow regime are in place, and in addition to permitting of new abstractions, some specific schemes are in place to ensure to ensure environmental flow indicators for Natural 2000 sites.

Measures || UK01 || UK02 || UK03 || UK04 || UK05 || UK06 || UK07 || UK08 || UK09 || UK10 || UK11 || UK12 || GBNIIENB || GBNIIENW || GBNIINE

Fish ladders || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Bypass channels || || || || || || ü || || || || || || || || ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Sediment/debris management || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || || || || ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ||

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Lowering of river banks || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || || ||

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || || || || || ü || || ||

Construction of retention basins || || || || || || || || ü || || || || || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || ü || || || || || ü || ü || || ü || || || || ü || ü || ü

Restoration of degraded bed structure || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || ü || ü || ü

Re-meandering of formerly straightened water courses || ü || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

It is noted that both basic and supplementary measures are implemented in order to tackle groundwater over-exploitation, and to prevent inputs of any harmful substances which would affect groundwater quality. It is however also noticeable that very little improvement is foreseen to both chemical and quantitative status of groundwater in the RBDs in England, Wales and Scotland. All but one GWBs are in good status in Northern Ireland.

The basic measures implemented to address groundwater over-exploitation include controls over abstraction and artificial recharge through the Groundwater Regulations in England and Wales, and the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) Regulations in Scotland. Supplementary measures include investigations to identify high risk source catchments, improve confidence in quantitative status assessment and determine cost effective actions to support good status and actions to improve stakeholder awareness. Supplementary measures were not used in Scotland and Northern Ireland as groundwater exploitation is not considered an important issue.

The basic measures implemented to prevent and limit inputs of pollution to groundwater include regulatory controls on point source discharges, diffuse pollution and artificial recharge to groundwater, accident prevention measures, measures to address diffuse nitrate pollution under the Nitrates Directive, agree voluntary pollution prevention measures and remediation of contaminated land and investigation of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. Supplementary measures include economic incentives for restoration of groundwater, priority catchment measures for diffuse sources and support local authorities to bring polluted land back into use. Supplementary measures are not used in North Western and Neagh Bann international RBDs as they are not needed.

All groundwater bodies which are shared between the UK and Ireland are reported to be in good quantitative and chemical status. Measures would be coordinated between the two MSs, if necessary..

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

There is no mentioning in the RBMPs of inventories of pollution sources for the purpose of the WFD, however the E-PRTR inventory is referred to. This inventory includes priority substances and other pollutants, non priority specific pollutants, deoxygenating substances and nutrients. It is not specified whether diffuse sources of these pollutants are included.

Measures implemented to tackle chemical pollution include:

· Industrial emissions – Enforcement of compliance with permitted standards for industrial discharges, voluntary pollution prevention programmes and contaminated land remediation, increase regulatory control over contaminated sites;

· Waste deposits to land/fields – Enforcement of Sludge Regulations on sewage sludge disposal to land;

· Households – Encourage householders to use less harmful cleaning products, and promotion of good practice with regards to household chemicals; and

· Others – Implementation of national contaminated land and groundwater regulations, cleaning up of abandoned mines, banning the use of some substances, such as TBT, use of sustainable drainage systems in new developments, enforcement of compliance with WWTW discharge consents reduce pesticide input from forestry, restrict use of manufacturing chemicals under REACH regulations.

In Solway Tweed RBD measures included: suspended use of Cypermethrin sheep-dip, restrict use of PAH content in oil for tyre manufacture and a ban on TBT containing products.

In England and Wales, a number of measures were found in addition to these, including: Adopt best farming practice to reduce cadmium pollution from fertiliser, bans or restrictions on the use of substances including isoproturon, trichloroethylene, mercury, asulam, pesticides including metaldehyde, diuron, atrazine, and simazine, and investigations into substances including dalapon, mecoprop, linuron, glyphosate, arsenic, iron and propyzamide. Actions were also taken under the Catchment Sensitive Farming programme on substances including bentazone, clopyralid.

No information was found on substance specific measures in Northern Ireland or Scotland RBD. UK authorities have clarified that work on development of the inventories of pollution sources has not been finalised yet.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

The definition of water services is narrow and only includes water supply and wastewater collection and treatment. Abstraction, self-services, impoundments, engineering, treatment and distribution of surface water or groundwater and discharges from waste water treatment facilities are identified in some RBDs, but these are not subject to article 9.

Water uses identified for the overall application of the Directive includes abstraction, agriculture, industry, and households, along with hydropower, navigation, dredging, flood protection, cooling water uses, and irrigation in some RBDs.

Cost recovery rates are only calculated for water companies providing water supply and sewerage services. Cost recovery is calculated at the RBD level. The calculation of contribution of different water uses disaggregated into at least households, agriculture and industry to cost recovery of water services is not clear.

Cost recovery calculations include financial costs such as capital costs, depreciation, operational and maintenance costs, and administrative costs. Subsidies have been included into the calculation at an RBD level. Environmental and resource costs have been estimated at a national level. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, it is not clear whether financial costs, subsidies and environmental and resource costs have been included.

Use of the polluter-pays principle has been reported, but taking into account that adequate contribution of different water uses to cost recovery of water services is not ensured and that in most cases environmental and resource costs are not calculated and recovered, the implementation of the principle is questionable.

Water pricing policy provides adequate incentives for users to use resources efficiently. These incentives include volumetric charging and water metering in some areas, and will include site area based charges for surface water drainage in future. In Northern Ireland, there is no metering or volumetric charging of domestic customers. In Scotland, only metering of households is used, but a control regime is also in place to encourage efficient use of water across the whole water environment.

It is not clear whether flexibility provision or provisions of art 9(4) has been used in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, a general explanation on the use of flexibility provisions is given, although flexibility is not explicitly mentioned. UK authorities confirmed the use of social tariffs in England (from 2013) and Scotland.

It is reported that there has been coordination between RBDs within the UK. No international coordination mechanisms are mentioned.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

In England Wales and Scotland, the water bodies and protected areas needing additional measures are clearly identified, and additional measures have also been listed. In Northern Ireland, there has been no identification of water bodies where additional measures are needed, and no additional measures have been foreseen.

Additional measures have been identified to aid compliance with the Habitats and Birds Directives, and for Freshwater fish, Shellfish, Bathing water and Drinking water protected areas in England and Wales, and the Habitats, Birds, Freshwater Fish and Bathing Water Directives in Scotland.

In England and Wales, both safeguard zones and additional measures are implemented to protect drinking water quality. Measures include investigations and measures in the action plan for the safeguard zone, and are specific to a particular issue, for example a pesticide. No measures are listed for groundwater safeguard zones. No measures are reported in Northumbria RBD. Regarding shellfish waters, information in England and Wales on the measures in place for the maintenance and enhancement of these waters were not provided explicitly although objectives associated with Shellfish Directive have been set. However the number of protected areas and production areas are very similar which may provide a high level of protection to these areas.

In Scotland, additional measures to safeguard drinking water quality have been established, although no safeguard zones are in place, as they are not considered to be necessary. Actions include investigations to characterise the risks to DWPAs and actions to prevent further deterioration, such as measures to tackle Metaldehyde contamination. In Northern Ireland, it is reported that measures are implemented, but no details are given. Shellfish protected areas have been identified but the RBMPs only provided the names and no further additional information. In addition, despite the objectives for the protection and enhancement, the measures required for these to be achieved were not provided. However, these may be inferred from the pollution reduction plans.

Regarding shellfish waters in Northern Ireland, despite objectives, the actions required for these to be achieved were not provided. The number of shellfish protected waters and production areas are very similar in each of the Northern Ireland RBDs which should provide protection of shellfish waters.

13. water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management AND Climate change adaptation 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity and drought are not thought to be relevant for the Solway Tweed, Northumbria, North West, West Wales and Dee RBDs, as well as for the three RBDs in Northern Ireland. In the Humber, South West and Severn RBDs local or sub-basin water scarcity may be an issue but droughts are not said to be relevant. In Scotland local or sub-basin scale water scarcity and drought may occur, while in Anglian RBD these are thought to be an issue at local and RBD-wide scales. Thames and South East RBDs note that RBD-wide water scarcity may be an issue but that drought is not thought to be relevant.

No data on future water demand and availability or trend scenarios were available for the Scotland, Solway Tweed, Neagh Bann, North Western and North Eastern RBDs. For RBDs in England and Wales, it is predicted that agricultural irrigation use will increase by ~20%, and summer flows will decrease by 11% on average by the 2020s.

The main measures identified to combat water scarcity and droughts following the production of Water Resources Management Plans were:

· Improve efficiency of water use in businesses and households through metering;

· Increase supply capacity by integration of use of different sources;

· Match irrigation to crop needs;

· Reduction of demand through labelling of water efficient products and specification of water efficient fittings in new and refurbished homes;

· Change timing of agricultural abstractions and construct storage ponds.

These main measures are for the reduction of abstraction pressures. RBDs in England and Wales are encouraging farmers to build winter storage reservoirs and extend abstractions to improve previously exempt areas. Stronger water efficiency policies will also be included in spatial strategies and local development plans. RBDs in Northern Ireland also plan to enhance governance of water, relating to the NI Water resources strategy for 2002-2030.

Water scarcity and drought are not considered to be relevant in the international RBDs.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods are mentioned in a number of places in the RBMPs. Flood protection is listed as a reason for designation of HMWBs, and increased flooding is listed as a risk under climate change scenarios. However, flooding is not listed as a pressure related to hydromorphological measures. Exemptions are applied under article 4(7) for flood alleviation and protection schemes in Humber and Scotland RBDs.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

The UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) has been developed as a national strategy. The UK Climate Projections 2009 is used as the source of future climate projections. The Plan recognises that some areas may experience hotter drier summers, warmer wetter winters and rising sea levels and that action is needed from many stakeholders to adapt to changing climate. It suggests that the RBMP will provide a framework within which to focus and co-ordinate activities but does not provide specific details on how/what will be done.

There is no information concerning a national climate strategy for the Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs. The RBMPs for these RBDs include information on the state of the water environment, along with impacts of climate change on aspects such as pollution of surface waters. Where changes in pressures are identified, measures are recommended to address these.

In England and Wales, the impact of programmes of actions on greenhouse gas emissions and future climate change are considered in the strategic environmental assessment reports and the methodology used to include the cost of carbon in the economic appraisal process is detailed. The impacts of climate change on certain pressures are also assessed, and this information will be used to prioritise adaptation actions. For each pressure, the impact, severity of the impact and the ability of the proposed or current actions taken to perform under climate change are described.

In Northern Ireland, the RBMP contains background information about climate change, details about the impacts of climate change in relation to certain main pressures (abstraction and flow regulation, diffuse and point source pollution, changes to morphology, invasive alien species) and a summary of the relevant measures. These have been identified on the basis that Northern Ireland is expected to experience warmer and wetter winters, hotter and drier summers and heavier rainfall. In addition, the Northern Ireland Climate Change Impacts Partnership (NICCIP) was established to widen the understanding of the impacts of climate change within Northern Ireland.

In England, Wales and Scotland, a climate check of the recommended measures has been carried out. Each action has been designated an adaptation option of win-win, no regrets, low regrets, flexible adaption or regrets. An assessment of the ability of actions to perform under future climate is provided for each of the major pressures, which include: water quality, water flows and levels, pressures on the condition of the beds, banks and shores of surface waters, and barriers to fish migrations. For each pressure, the actions, co-ordination required, plan for implementation and specific number of water bodies that should receive an improvement in status are described in detail, as well as climate checks for each action. The climate check did not lead to immediate action though, the effect of the climate check is expected from the 2nd RBMP cycle.

In Northern Ireland, a climate check of the Programme of Measures has not been undertaken. However, a number of measures have been identified which address the impacts of climate change, which were updated following a workshop in 2009 which examined the impacts of climate change on the implementation of the RBMP.  It is also stated that a risk assessment will be undertaken and an adaptation programme will be developed.

Some specific measures related to adaptation to climate change are listed for RBDs in England and Wales. In Scotland, actions are suggested to reduce urban diffuse pollution, including installation of sustainable urban drainage systems and actions to reduce pollution from diffuse agricultural sources through interception and storage treatment of run-off. In the Solway Tweed RBD, measures are recommended in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, preparedness for future climate, and continued effectiveness under predicted future climate.

In Northern Ireland, there are generic measures required to address the impacts of climate change on the main pressures (abstraction and flow regulation, diffuse and point source pollution, changes to morphology, invasive alien species) together with the mechanisms that need to be put in place.

For RBDs in England, Wales and Scotland, no specific information is provided on how climate change will be taken up in future cycles. For RBDs in Northern Ireland, it has been stated that climate change needs to be taken into account in the characterisation and objective-setting process for the second cycle but there is no information regarding the methodology or time-frame.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions. Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· River basin management plans for Gibraltar shall be reported.

· The monitoring network needs to be reviewed to ensure that the gaps in the quality elements that are monitored are filled. Further clarification regarding the identification of and monitoring of chemical pollutants is needed, where this is missing. In particular, chemical pollutants should be monitored in all categories of water body in all regions of the UK.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle. This includes the definition of reference conditions and ensuring typologies are tested against biological data.

· More information needs to be included in the RBMPs on the methodology used to identify significant pressures and how this analysis feeds into the development of monitoring programmes and how the measures defined address the significant pressures.

· The remaining uncertainty in the application of the intercalibration process needs to be addressed.

· Methodologies for assessment of BQEs need to be developed. In some cases certain BQEs are not used for assessment even where they are monitored.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status.  It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combating chemical pollution from river basin specific pollutants and that adequate measures are put in place. UK needs to provide clearer reporting on the methodologies used to set the EQS values for national specific pollutants.

· The process to identify heavily modified water bodies and to identify good ecological potential needs to be completed. The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· The biota standards for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene in the EQSD, or standards providing an equivalent level of protection, should be applied where not already used. Trend monitoring in sediment or biota as specified for several priority substances in Directive 2008/105/EC Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMPs.

· The large uncertainties reported in relation to the assessment of the status, the pressures and the effect of potential measures, need to be addressed. The UK (mainly EN/WA) has included in the POMs a lot of investigations to resolve this uncertainty and the results of these investigations need to feed into the development of the second cycle and more clearly defined measures to achieve objectives. 

· The UK needs to provide more transparency in the RBMPs on the assessment of environmental objectives and exemptions. A large number of exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans. The UK should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainties.

· The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment on whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resource in all UK RBDs. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately advised and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs shall be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

[1]     Eurostat, 2011

[2]     Area includes coastal waters.

[3]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[4]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[5]     Pressures and Measures Study, Task 1 Governance.

[6]     Working Together – Managing our shared waters. Neagh Bann http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,26909,en.pdf

      North Western http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,26908,en.pdf

[7]     See table 2, and the Pressures and Measures Study, task 1 Governance.

[8]     Rivers: UKTAG Guidance on Typology for Rivers for Scotland, England and Wales http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Characterisation%20of%20the%20water%20environment/Rivers%20typology_Final_050603.pdf

[9]     Lakes: UKTAG Guidance on Typology for Lakes for the UK http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Characterisation%20of%20the%20water%20environment/Lakes%20typology_Final_010604.pdf

[10] T&CW: Guidance on Typology for Coastal & Transitional Waters of the UK and Republic of Ireland http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Characterisation%20of%20the%20water%20environment/Marine%20typology_Final_281003.pdf

[11]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[12]    UK TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP ON THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE: Guidance on the Selection of Monitoring Sites and Building Monitoring Networks for Surface Waters and Groundwater, May 2005.

[13]    UKTAG Task 12(a) Guidance on Monitoring Groundwater http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Characterisation%20of%20the%20water%20environment/Groundwater%20monitoring_Draft_010807.pdf

[14]    Method statement for the classification of surface water bodies, December 2008 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33260.aspx

[15]    RBMP Annex I: Designating artificial and heavily modified water bodies December 2009. UKTAG Criteria and guidance on the designation of heavily modified water bodies, March 2008. http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Setting%20objectives%20in%20the%20water%20environment/HMWB%20rapid-case%20designation%20tool_Final_010308.pdf

[16]    Information extracted from 'EC Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU'.

[17]    RBMP Scotland Chapter 2, section 4.

[18]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The Swedish population is 9.42 million (Eurostat 2011[1]). The total area of Sweden is 453 140 km2  ([2]) SE 1 is shared with Finland and Norway mainly by the River Torne, which forms part of the border between Finland and Sweden This catchment also has a very small part in Norway.

The border between Sweden and Norway is mostly formed by a mountain range. About 30 transboundary rivers are shared between the two countries, most of them having only a small part in the upstream country. These small parts of catchments have been given specific codes in addition to the main RBDs in Sweden (SE1, SE2 and SE5). In SE5 there is one major international river shared with Norway, the Göta river catchment, which includes Lake Vänern, EU’s largest lake (5655km²). 

For these smaller RBDs no separate plans have been developed, but the areas are covered by the main RBMPs.

RBD || Name || Size[3] (km2) (Area including coastal waters shown in brackets) || Countries sharing RBD

SE1** || Bothnian Bay RBD (Bottenviken) || 147000 (155000) || FI, NO

SE1TO || Torne river (managed as part of SE1) || || FI

SENO1104 || Troms (managed as part of SE1) || || NO

SENO1103 || Nordland (managed as part of SE1) || || NO

SENO1102 || Troendelag (managed as part of SE2) || || NO

SE2** || Bothnian Sea RBD (Bottenhavet) || 141000 (147000) || NO

SE3** || North Baltic RBD (Norra Östersjön) || 37000 (44000) || -

SE4** || South Baltic RBD (Södra Östersjön) || 54000 (65000) || -

SE5** || Skagerrak and Kattegat RBD (Västerhavet) || 69000 (73000) || NO

SENO5101 || Glomma (managed as part of SE2 and SE5) || || NO

Table 1.1: Overview of Sweden’s River Basin Districts

Note: ** Main RBDs shown. All the small international parts of these RBDs are reported in separate envelopes in CDR (http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/se/eu/wfdart13), but the RBMPs are the same as those for the main RBDs, and are adopted and reported at the same dates.

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[4]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/se/eu/wfdart13

The international river basin districts shared with Finland and Norway are not jointly designated, although it is understood the processes are on-going. In some RBDs there are several trans-boundary river basins. The on-going close co-operation with Norway leads to category 2 co-operation status, and it is recognised that delays are due to the later timetable for WFD implementation in Norway.

Name international river basin || SE RBDs || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination Category

2

km2 || %

Ångermanälven || SE2 || NO || 30349 || 95.0

Dalälven || SE2 || NO || 27843 || 95.0

Fagerbakkvassdraget || Nordland/SE1 || NO || 20 || 2.0

Glomma || Glomma/SE5/SE2 || NO || 430 || 1.0

Haldenvassdraget/Enningsdal || SE1 || NO || 578 || 23.0

Hellemovassdraget || Nordland/SE1 || NO || 16 || 1.0

Indalsälven || SE2 || NO || 24763 || 92.0

Klarälven/Trysil - Göta alv/Vänern Göta/ (including the Sub-basins Norsälven/Byälven/ Upperudälven) || SE5 || NO || 42982 || 84.0

Kobbelva || Nordland/SE1 || NO || 10 || 1.0

Luleälven || SE1 || NO || 24506 || 97.0

Malselvvassdraget/Malangen || Troms/SE1 || NO || 209 || 3.0

Nidelva || Troendelag/SE2  || NO || 293 || 8.0

Piteälven || SE1 || NO || 11186 || 99.0

Ranavassdraget || Nordland/SE1 || NO || 270 || 6.0

Rossaga || Nordland/SE1 || NO || 193 || 7.0

Saltelva || Nordland/SE1 || NO || 119 || 6.0

Signaldalselva || Troms/SE1 || NO || 46 || 3.0

Skjomavassdraget || Nordland/SE1 || NO || 160 || 10.0

Stjordalsvassdraget || Troendelag/SE2 || NO || 46 || 2.0

Torneälven/Tornionjoki || SE1 || FI/NO || 25393 || 63.1

Umeälven || SE1 || NO || 26561 || 99.0

Vefsna || Nordland/SE1 || NO || 548 || 12.0

Verdalsvassdraget || Troendelag/SE2 || NO || 102 || 6.0

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Sweden[5]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

RBMPs were adopted on 15-18 December 2009 and reported to the Commission on 19.3.2010.

2.1 Main strengths

Fairly good common structure of the RBMPs linked closely to the WFD requirements. The Swedish RBMPs are also transparent in some respects, with water body specific information on objectives and exemptions, and which competent authorities are responsible for measures. Although the RBMPs to a large extent lack information on the final measures, Sweden has been transparent in highlighting shortcomings and identifying where there is a need for further investigations, to ensure that the next cycle of RBMPs are complete.

Where WFD compliant assessment system have been developed for BQEs and other QEs (but see 2.2 below), class boundaries are compliant with the IC Official Decision.

2.2 Main shortcomings

A number of shortcomings in the Swedish monitoring programmes have been identified. It is also recognised by Sweden in the RBMPs that the monitoring programmes are insufficient, and that monitoring networks are to be improved for the second cycle. The Commission considers these shortcomings serious. They were already identified in 2009 in the Commission's 2nd WFD implementation report. The monitoring networks are therefore considered incomplete in this first cycle. This is particularly serious since it also has repercussions on all other parts of the RBMPs, including classification, the setting of specific objectives and the identification of measures.

Not all relevant biological quality elements are being monitored, and it appears that biological monitoring takes place in very few water bodies. Of the supporting elements, hydromorphological quality elements are not monitored at all and the physico-chemical quality elements are only monitored in some places. The justifications for not monitoring certain quality elements are also not always adequate.

The information on identification and monitoring of priority substances and other pollutants is not clear in the RBMPs, and based on the information assessed, the monitoring is not compliant with WFD requirements. Swedish Authorities have clarified that information on monitoring of priority substances was not included due to the late adoption of the EQS Directive. This is not in line with the WFD, since monitoring requirements are not linked to the adoption of EQS for these substances.

The programme of measures lack information on the specific measures to be taken to achieve the environmental objectives. This is a concern not just for transparency of the plans with regard to public interest and  economic actors, but also towards the authorities tasked to carry out the measures.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

The Swedish RBMPs and the accompanying documents were submitted on 19 March 2010 with two minor resubmissions confirmed on 22 April 2010 and 7 June 2011.

The dates for submission and resubmissions are the same for all 5 large RBD. The corresponding main RBMPs for the 5 smaller international RBD.

Sweden has taken a national approach for the different consultations as required by Article 14 of the WFD, so the dates for the consultations are the same all over the country.        

RBD || Timetable || Work programme || Statement on consultation || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Final RBMP

Due dates || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009

All SE RBDs || 01/02/2007 to 01/08/2007 || 01/02/2007 to 01/08/2007 || 01/02/2007 to 01/08/2007 || 01/02/2008 to 01/08/2008 || 01/03/2009 to 01/09/2009 || 15-18/12/2009

Table 3.1.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: WISE

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

The competent authority for the development of the RBMPs, including the PoM, is the Water Authority (Vattenmyndigheterna), which is hosted by one of the regional authorities in the RBD.

The Water Authorities decide on environmental quality standards, PoM and RBMPs. A range of government agencies and municipalities are responsible for identifying and implementing the measures proposed in the PoMs.

There is a national approach to water management in Sweden. The national approach is supported by the substantial number of national documents available for the Water Authorities e.g. documents on regulation, guidelines etc., and that the measures taken in the different RBD are picked from a national catalogue of 38 measures. There are also clear differences between the 5 RBMPs, including the PoMs, reflecting differences in soil type, demography, pressures (e.g. agriculture mainly in the southern part, forestry and hydro power production mainly in the northern part).

After the adoption of the RBMPs, the administrative set-up has changed with the adoption of a new national authority for marine and inland waters (Havs och Vattenmyndigheten).

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

For each of the five main River Basin Districts, the following main documents were reported:

· a river basin management plan,

· a programme of measures,

· a document with the environmental objectives,

· an environmental impact assessment,  

· one note with the record of public consultation.

Accompanying the RBMP documents, a substantial number of supplementary documents (in all 58) were submitted on the national level covering e.g. regulation (laws, order etc.), guidelines and reports.

In general the RBMP including the PoM is well structured and easy to overview and has the same format as the 5 RBDs. It contains the necessary information according to the WFD annex VII. 

At least some of the RBMPs have been supported by “sub-plans” describing specific individual basins or parts of basins. These sub-plans are supporting documents – not legally binding, but detailing the information in the RBMP and important or necessary to understand the status, need for improvement and the measures to be taken on a smaller geographical scale. These documents were however not reported.

1) Sub basin plans for SE 1: http://www.vattenmyndigheterna.se/Sv/bottenviken/vattenforvaltningens-arbetscykel/atgarder-for-battre-vatten/underlag-till-atgardsprogrammet-2010-2015/Pages/default.aspx

2) Sub basin plans for SE 2:  http://www.vattenmyndigheterna.se/Sv/publikationer/Pages/default.aspx?catSub=cat_BH&doctype=18

3) Sub basin plans for SE 5: http://www.vattenmyndigheterna.se/Sv/vasterhavet/distriktets-organisation/delomraden/Pages/underlagsmaterial-per-kust--och-avrinningsomrade.aspx

The main RBMPs lack transparency regarding the effort needed, which measures are proposed and the consequences of the environmental objectives, and other matters; however the sub-basin  documents provide some of that information. They have, however, not been included in this assessment since they were not reported to the Commission.

The RBMPs are adopted by the River Basin District authority (Vattenmyndigheten), designated by the Government among the County Administrative boards (Länsstyrelserna).  The Environmental objectives are adopted by a separate legal act – a  decision by the co-ordinating Regional authority (RBD authority) for each RBD. RBMPs are information decisions that do not have a legally binding status. The programmes of measure (PoMs) are comprehensive documents which are binding on the municipalities and authorities. They are administrative decisions without the element of exercise of public authority towards individuals. The Environmental Code stipulates that programmes of measures have a legal effect with regard to environmental quality standards. The stakeholders affected by this are those who pursue, or intend to pursue, an activity or take a measure.[6]

There is a relationship between the RBMPs and individual decisions. Each of the respective PoM refers to the "environmental quality standards[7]", which are adopted by the RBD Authorities. According to the Swedish authorities, all the measures prescribed in the PoMs refer to the fulfilment of these environmental quality standards, which are legally binding instruments that authorities, municipalities and environmental courts are obliged to observe when deciding on actions taken by individuals, operators, organisations etc.. The RBD authorities’ PoMs, together with the environmental quality standards(EQS), become complementary policies for the relevant authorities and municipalities. The control is still at the administrative level because the water authorities have not been given a mandate under the law to decide on actions taken by individuals (operators, the public, organisations, etc.) to implement PoMs. In other words, it is still central and regional authorities and municipalities that are responsible for the enforcement of environmental law, but in accordance with the priorities for water quality issues established by the water authorities.[8]

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

In the period prior to the draft RBMP,s , a number of “Reference groups” were established to ensure

· Mutual exchange of information

· A policy discussion

· Anchoring of the draft “water delegation”

Participants in the reference groups were the most important actors in the water policy of the RBD such as farmers associations, forestry, water companies etc.

From the compilation of comments to the draft RBMP, PoM etc. (example from SE 5) it seems as if the main impact has been an improved readability of the documents, some clarifications, but no significant changes in the substantial parts.

In most RBD, so-called Water Councils have been formed (mainly on sub-basin level) with the participation of relevant authorities (decision makers), organisations for the purpose of ongoing involvement of interested parties.. The aim of the Councils is to discuss efforts, incorporate local knowledge and, in the end, to obtain consensus on the measures to be taken.

The documentation on the consultation is transparent. Some concerns were however expressed in the consultation regarding the transparency of the RBMPs, due to the lack of specific measures.

3.5 International co-operation and coordination

Sweden shares several river basins with Finland and a non-member state Norway, but no international RBMPs have been adopted. 

The issue of international RBD has only been very briefly handled in the Swedish RBMPs. The same text is used in the two RBMPs sharing districts with Norway. The full length is: “Part of the RBD is situated in Norway. A number of meetings have been held between Swedish and Norwegian authorities concerning the co-operation and co-ordination of the water management for the areas in Norway included in the RBD.”

A short chapter in the RBMP for the Bothnian Bay describes the international river basin Torne River shared with Finland with some of the same headlines as for the Swedish part of the RBD (protected areas, status, pressures, PoM, monitoring etc.) The PoM contains a very short chapter regarding common measures, which are entirely administrative.

The designation of RBDs in relation to the trans-boundary water courses shared with Finland and Norway is unclear. In the case of the catchment including the Klarälven/Göta älv, the hydrological boundaries have not been respected in the designation, since the source of the river is managed under SE2 – Bothnian Sea RBD.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts

It appears that the process of characterisation has not yet been completed in Sweden, although the deadline for finalising this step was 22.12.2004 (article 5). Certain shortcomings in the monitoring network, notably groundwater operational monitoring, are said to be due to the fact that not all water bodies at risk and not all significant pressures have been identified.

4.1 Water categories in the RBD

All 4 water categories for surface water are used in Sweden, but only a few transitional water bodies have been designated (in SE 3 with one type and 19 water bodies and in SE 5 with one type and 2 WBs). The delineation of transitional waters has been done using a national approach (national guideline). The main factor for delineation has been the salinity.[9]

4.2 Typology of surface waters

A surface water typology has been developed for all types.

It is not clear from the RBMPs, if the typology has been tested against biological data – at least not for all the types, referred to in the available sources. Swedish authorities have clarified that an analysis has been carried out based on biological parameters – resulting in broader types based on eco regions[10], as set out in a 2007 Handbook on Classification of lakes and rivers.

The information about type specific reference condition values is unclear in the RBMPs. Reference conditions are developed differently depending on the type of pressures, for instance for nutrients they are calculated at water body level. In WISE, most reference values are reported as “not applicable” except for a few parameters in transitional and coastal waters. The RBMP for e.g. Västerhavet //Skagerrak and Kattegat RBD,  SE 5 states on p. 41, that “ In this planning cycle, reference values for assessing ecological status have not been stated fully on water type level”.  In a regulation, reference values are presented for a number of biological parameters for fresh water bodies divided on a number of eco-zones (e.g. 5 for lakes, 3 for rivers), and physical/chemical parameters in rivers and lakes.

For marine areas, some physical/chemical parameters (e.g. nutrients for 25 water types) and bio volume (algae) for 4 marine water types have been established.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

SE1 || 11 || 18 || 0 || 4

SE1TO || 8 || 13 || 0 || 2

SE2 || 28 || 37 || 0 || 4

SE3 || 15 || 21 || 1 || 6

SE4 || 22 || 31 || 0 || 11

SE5 || 30 || 34 || 1 || 6

SENO1102 || 5 || 4 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 4 || 6 || 0 || 0

SENO1104 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 6 || 7 || 0 || 0

Total || 56 (52)* || 112 (75) || 2 || 23 (25)

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Note: *Number in brackets, Numbers reported to WISE, compared to numbers reported in the RBMPs. Source: WISE

The number of water types is very large, and exceeds considerably the number of water types (or eco-zones) referred to as tested against biological data. For rivers, and in particularly for lakes, the number of types reported in the SWB schema in WISE is much lower than that reported in the RBMPs, which refer to a national document from 2006.

The following background reports etc. have been reported:

· NFS 2006:1: Naturvårdsverkets föreskrifter om kartlägning och analys av ytvatten enligt förordningen (2004:660) om förvaltning av kvaliteten på vattenmiljön[11]./ (Swedish EPA guidance on characterisation and analysis of surface waters.) 

· Handbok 2007:3: Kartlägning och analys av ytvatten. [12] & Handbok 2007:4 including annex A: Status potential och kvalitetskrav för sjöar, vattendrag, kustvatten och vatten och övergångszon[13].

· NFS 2008:1 Naturvårdsverkets föreskrifter och allmänna råd om klassificering och miljökvalitetsnormer avseende ytvatten. / (Swedish EPA  guidelines on classification and environmental objectives for lakes, watercourses, coastal and transitional waters.)

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

The general size limit for water bodies included in the Swedish RBMP is 15 km for rivers and 100 ha for lakes. In one RBMP (SE2) a catchment size of 10 km² has been used as a limit for river WBs. For coastal areas, no minimum limit has been used.

Waterbodies smaller than the general size limits mentioned above are protected by other Swedish legislation, i.e. they do not have their own Environmental quality standard according to the WFD. According to the SE authorities, a fundamental division has been made and restricted to the largest and most important  water bodies due to the large numbers of all types of water bodies in Sweden.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

SE1 || 4221 || 5 || 1627 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 100 || 72 || 594 || 7

SE1TO || 655 || 7 || 268 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 27 || 61 || 27

SE2 || 7295 || 4 || 3635 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 64 || 79 || 779 || 14

SE3 || 623 || 8 || 340 || 8 || 19 || 6 || 148 || 48 || 529 || 3

SE4 || 968 || 9 || 478 || 9 || 0 || 0 || 177 || 57 || 580 || 26

SE5 || 1650 || 7 || 790 || 7 || 2 || 30 || 110 || 47 || 477 || 14

SENO1102 || 48 || 3 || 18 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 69 || 3 || 52 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1

SENO1104 || 3 || 4 || 1 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 31 || 6 || 23 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 15563 || 5 || 7232 || 4 || 21 || 9 || 602 || 58 || 3021 || 13

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Note: Please note these numbers do not correspond with the RBMPs, partly due to the unclear designation of the smaller RBDs and distribution of these to the respective main RBD..

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

The RBMPs state that the work to identify significant pressures is still ongoing, and that there is still a lack of data for this exercise. Preliminary criteria have been identified, and are referred to in the RBMPs. 

On a national basis, 17 % of the surface water bodies are impacted by acidification, 100 % by hazardous substances (mercury, other substances are not systematically reported) and 13 % by nutrients. Hydromorphological alterations are reported to be as significant.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SE1 || 0 || 0 || 15 || 0.25 || 5948 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 1423 || 23.92 || 1338 || 22.49 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 38 || 0.64

SE1TO || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0.32 || 926 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 62 || 6.7 || 114 || 12.31 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 3 || 0.03 || 38 || 0.35 || 10991 || 99.97 || 1 || 0.01 || 3255 || 29.61 || 1452 || 13.21 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 163 || 1.48

SE3 || 0 || 0 || 51 || 4.51 || 1130 || 100 || 1 || 0.09 || 477 || 42.21 || 286 || 25.31 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 238 || 21.06

SE4 || 0 || 0 || 82 || 5.05 || 1623 || 100 || 47 || 2.9 || 530 || 32.66 || 444 || 27.36 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 178 || 10.97

SE5 || 0 || 0 || 115 || 4.51 || 2552 || 100 || 29 || 1.14 || 984 || 38.56 || 478 || 18.73 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 470 || 18.42

SENO1102 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 66 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 7.58 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 121 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1104 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 54 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 9.26 || 8 || 14.81 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3 || 0.01 || 304 || 1.3 || 23415 || 99.99 || 78 || 0.33 || 6741 || 28.79 || 4120 || 17.59 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1087 || 4.64

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

The information in the RBMPs on which tools have been used to identify significant point sources is unclear, or no information has been provided. Point sources are, as a starting point, defined as activities covered by the IPPC directive and installations covered by the UWWT directive.

Numerical tools have been used to identify significant diffuse sources from agriculture, urban run-off and facilities not connected to sewerage, and numerical thresholds are provided. Diffuse sources are leakage from agriculture and forestry, discharge from groups of single houses and atmospheric deposition. A differentiated source apportionment for phosphorus and nitrogen is presented for all Swedish RBDs but SE 1 (not relevant) and the proportion of phosphorus and nitrogen, which reaches the marine areas (i.e. the retention) is calculated. Threshold criteria are mentioned for phosphorus.

For the pressure, water abstraction, no information has been found about the tools or methods for defining abstraction as a main pressure. Swedish authorities have however clarified that methods for assessment of ground water are under development.

For hydro-morphological pressures, such as flow regulation and morphological alternations a number of different methods have been used, including data based (field data etc.), simple models, expert judgment and combinations. Model based assessments have also been used for defining the pressure from acidification. [14]

The information on chemical pollution and the main sources is very limited and general. Industry, agriculture, forestry, anti-fouling paint on boats (TBT), pharmaceuticals discharged from waste water treatment works, and historically contaminated sites are generally mentioned as sources, but not in any way quantified. Mercury pollution (mainly from atmospheric deposition) is causing all Swedish surface water bodies to fail to reach a good chemical status. No threshold values for significance have been reported.

Background document :  NFS 2007:3: Handbok 2007:3: Kartlägning och analys av ytvatten. http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-0146-9.pdf

4.5 Protected areas

Sweden applies more stringent waste water treatment in the whole of its territory and therefore, in accordance to article 5.8 of the Urban Waste Water Directive 1991/271/EEC, it is exempted from designation of specific sensitive areas.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

SE1 || 129 || 15 || 23 || || 4 || 165 || || || || || 3

SE1TO || 15 || || 5 || || || 24 || || || || || 3

SE2 || 227 || 11 || 80 || || 3 || 293 || || || || || 3

SE3 || 206 || 102 || 68 || || 2 || 195 || || || 2 || || 5

SE4 || 252 || 169 || 130 || || 9 || 365 || || || 2 || || 4

SE5 || 267 || 172 || 80 || || 10 || 223 || || || 2 || 32 || 4

SENO1102 || || || 1 || || || 3 || || || || || 2

SENO1103 || || || 2 || || || 6 || || || || || 2

SENO1104 || || || || || || 3 || || || || || 2

SENO5101 || 3 || || 2 || || || 9 || || || 1 || || 3

Total || 1099 || 469 || 391 || || 28 || 1286 || || || 7 || 32 || 31

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater

Note : This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives. Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

There has been no change of monitoring stations between article 8 and article 13 reporting, but the RBMPs state that the monitoring programmes are being revised to become more WFD compliant from 2012 onwards. There are also some inconsistencies between the information on monitoring provided in the RBMPs and to WISE.

Monitoring has mainly been physico-chemical, including a few BQEs in a few water bodies (phytoplankton, benthic inverts and fish), and were based on the old monitoring programmes (“business as usual”).

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

SE1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SE1TO || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SE2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SE3 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SE4 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SE5 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SENO1102 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SENO1103 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SENO1104 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SENO5101 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

SE1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SE1TO || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SE2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SE3 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SE4 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SE5 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SENO1102 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SENO1103 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SENO1104 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SENO5101 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

SE1 || 40 || 81 || 25 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 13 || 17 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 23 || 81 || 9 || 38 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 39 || 16 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 92 || 145 || 234 || 440 || 1 || 0 || 74 || 0 || 16 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 43 || 86 || 41 || 48 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 71 || 38 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 35 || 367 || 28 || 127 || 1 || 1 || 31 || 9 || 28 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 1 || 9 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || ||

Total by type of site || 234 || 769 || 338 || 653 || 2 || 1 || 112 || 132 || 115 || 0 || 0

Total number of monitoring sites* || 1002 || 978 || 3 || 243 || 115

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance

Op = Operational

Quant = Quantitative

Note : The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose. Source: WISE

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

The table below shows the missing QEs (biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological elements).

Quality element groups || QEs missing || Justification given

BQEs || Macrophytes missing in rivers Phytobenthos missing in lakes Angiosperms missing in transitional and coastal waters and Fish missing in transitional waters. || BQE methods are new and SE is working to redesign the monitoring programmes to use more BQEs. Revised programmes are planned to be ready in 2012. Fish not done in transitional waters due to high variability and few transitional WBs. There is no justification given why macrophytes are not monitored in lakes, nor why phytobenthos is not monitored in rivers. Macrophytes in rivers not done due to lack of data compilation and assessment method. Data compilation and development of assessment system is now ongoing with NO and FI 

Physico-chemical QEs || Nutrients missing in transitional and coastal waters, and Nitrogen is missing in rivers and lakes monitoring || No justification was given by the time of adoption of the RBMPs as to why nutrients are missing in transitional and coastal waters. Nitrogen not monitored in rivers and lakes due to P-limitation in freshwater SE have data on Phys-chem QEs (nutrients and acidification relevant  parameters) for many more freshwater  bodies (18000 stations) than those included in the monitoring programmes reported for the WFD, coming from several national screening surveys.

Hydromorphological QEs || All HyMo QEs are missing in lakes and transitional and coastal waters || Existing methods are not good enough for assessment. New methods are being developed in a number of research projects.

Table 5.1.1:  Quality elements missing in monitoring, according to clarifications from the Swedish authorities.

Notes: Table is based on clarifications from the Swedish authorities. See also Commission report of 2009, Annex on MS methods (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf : Source: Swedish authorities

Although Swedish authorities have provided justifications for not monitoring certain quality elements, these justifications are contested. Lack of monitoring of river macrophytes cannot be justified from lack of assessment methods, as data are pre-requisite to develop an assessment system.  Lack of nitrogen monitoring in rivers/lakes prevents estimation of nitrogen loads to transitional and coastal waters, where nitrogen is often the limiting factor for phytoplankton production. 

No WFD-compliant operational monitoring programmes were in place for the first RBMPs, according to the RBMPs for SE3 and SE5, but are planned in 2012 (see below on chemical monitoring).  The monitoring programmes Sweden used for the first RBMPs were mainly based on the previously existing programmes. It is unclear what the number of monitoring operational monitoring stations for surface waters reported to WISE actually represents, as this is contradictory to the information given in the RBMPs.

It is not clear from the RBMPs if all priority substances and relevant specific pollutants have been monitored and in which matrix. The criteria/methodology used to select substances for monitoring in the survey carried out to identify relevant substances is unclear. Sweden has provided some clarifications. The selection process and matrix to be used for monitoring are given in the Swedish EPA report 5801[15]. One RBD identified relevant specific pollutants. The relevant substances including metals: Cu, Zn, Cr, As, and POPs: PCBs, DDT, HBCD, perfluorinated substances (PFOS, amongst others), other organotin compounds (in addition to TBT, such as dibutyltin, monobutyltin, triphenyltin). EQS values for 30 specific pollutants given in Swedish EPA report 5799[16]. To assess long-term trends in long-range trans-boundary pollution, the sites selected in the national monitoring programmes are far from local pollution sources. Operational monitoring is done in water bodies at risk through regional programmes of recipient waters inspection. In four intensive agricultural areas, over 120 substances are monitored in water, and more than 60 in sediment.  This screening information basis was not ready in time for the first RBMPs, but will be used for the coming RBMPs. Sediment and biota are used to monitor some priority substances and specific pollutants.

Extensive grouping of water bodies seems to be used, due to the large number of water bodies in Sweden (> 20 000 WBs) and the few monitoring stations. Ecological status has been assessed for all water bodies, but only 6% of rivers WBs, 12% of lake WBs, 15% of transitional WBs and 43% of coastal WBs were included in operational monitoring for the first RBMP. A methodology for grouping is described in the national  classification guidance, but it seems it wasn't applied for the first RBMP. Swedish authorities have clarified that, grouping has not been so extensively applied, because also modelling and data from previous screening surveys have been used for assessing ecological status of WBs. 

No coordinated international monitoring was established for international waters in the first RBMPs.. For the Torne river between SE and FI (and NO for the minor northernmost part) a coordinated monitoring programme has now been designed for use in the second RBMP.

The number of monitoring stations were not changed significantly between the article 8 reporting and the article 13 reporting, but are now being revised.

There is no national guidance on monitoring. There are national guidance documents only for classification of ecological status, , see under ecological status below.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

There has been no quantitative monitoring programme for groundwater for the first RBMPs, but the ground water level is monitored at 330 sites (by the Swedish Geological Survey) and will provide the basis for quantitative monitoring for the next RBMP cycle.

There is no operational monitoring of GW, but surveillance monitoring is reported for   4% of all groundwater bodies(115 GWBs – the same as reported in the 2009 Commission report). Based on results from this programme, parameters will be selected for operational monitoring for the next cycle of RBMPs.

 According to the RBMP for SE3, 8 groundwater bodies have exceeded limit values for certain chemical substances and   exemptions have been used for these.

No international monitoring programme of groundwater is in place.

The number of groundwater monitoring (surveillance) is 115, which is exactly the same as reported in the 2009 Commission report.

There is no national guidance on groundwater monitoring.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

There is no specific monitoring programme in place for surface water or groundwater protected areas. Only local monitoring is carried out for drinking water areas, and there is no national guidance available as to how that should be done. Data from this local monitoring is stored in a national database hosted by the Swedish geological survey.

In the article 8 reports, no information was given on the number of monitoring stations for surface water protected areas, while 28 GW PAs were reported. According to WISE   there is still no information on this. Monitoring stations are only reported if the information was not reported under other Directives. Sweden has reported 2417 monitoring stations for the Nitrates Directive.

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)[17]

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

SE1 || 5779 || 848 || 14.7 || 3154 || 54.6 || 1281 || 22.2 || 423 || 7.3 || 73 || 1.3 || 0 || 0

SE1TO || 926 || 646 || 69.8 || 179 || 19.3 || 81 || 8.7 || 20 || 2.2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 10727 || 443 || 4.1 || 5515 || 51.4 || 3757 || 35.0 || 724 || 6.7 || 288 || 2.7 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 1111 || 1 || 0.1 || 271 || 24.4 || 651 || 58.6 || 146 || 13.1 || 42 || 3.8 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 1603 || 17 || 1.1 || 634 || 39.6 || 725 || 45.2 || 170 || 10.6 || 57 || 3.6 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 2376 || 7 || 0.3 || 1161 || 48.9 || 1029 || 43.3 || 133 || 5.6 || 46 || 1.9 || 0 || 0

SENO1102 || 62 || 29 || 46.8 || 30 || 48.4 || 3 || 4.8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 121 || 48 || 39.7 || 73 || 60.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1104 || 4 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 54 || 0 || 0 || 37 || 68.5 || 16 || 29.6 || 1 || 1.9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 22763 || 2043 || 9.0 || 11054 || 48.6 || 7543 || 33.1 || 1617 || 7.1 || 506 || 2.2 || 0 || 0

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

SE1 || 169 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 1.2 || 167 || 98.8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE1TO || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 267 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 1.9 || 262 || 98.1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 19 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 19 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 20 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 5.0 || 19 || 95.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 176 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 1.7 || 45 || 25.6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 128 || 72.7

SENO1102 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1104 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 655 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 1.7 || 516 || 78.8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 128 || 19.5

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SE1 || 5779 || 2 || 0.03 || 5777 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE1TO || 926 || 0 || 0 || 926 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 10727 || 0 || 0 || 10727 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 1111 || 0 || 0 || 1111 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 1603 || 0 || 0 || 1603 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 2376 || 0 || 0 || 2376 || 100 || 0 || 0

SENO1102 || 62 || 0 || 0 || 62 || 100 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 121 || 1 || 0.8 || 120 || 99.2 || 0 || 0

SENO1104 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 54 || 0 || 0 || 54 || 100 || 0 || 0

Total || 22763 || 3 || 0.01 || 22760 || 99.99 || 0 || 0

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies.

Note : The data includes the status based on Mercury, as reported to WISE. The RBMPs present the data, excluding Mercury. Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SE1 || 169 || 0 || 0 || 169 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE1TO || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 267 || 0 || 0 || 267 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 19 || 0 || 0 || 19 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 20 || 0 || 0 || 20 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 176 || 0 || 0 || 176 || 100 || 0 || 0

SENO1102 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1104 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 655 || 0 || 0 || 655 || 100 || 0 || 0

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Note : The data includes the status based on Mercury, as reported to WISE. The RBMPs present the data, excluding Mercury. Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SE1 || 594 || 594 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE1TO || 61 || 61 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 779 || 767 || 98.5 || 12 || 1.5 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 529 || 521 || 98.5 || 8 || 1.5 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 580 || 562 || 96.9 || 18 || 3.1 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 477 || 455 || 95.4 || 22 || 4.6 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3021 || 2961 || 98 || 60 || 2 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

SE1 || 594 || 259 || 43.6 || 0 || 0 || 335 || 56.4

SE1TO || 61 || 5 || 8.2 || 0 || 0 || 56 || 91.8

SE2 || 779 || 779 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 529 || 529 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 580 || 576 || 99.3 || 4 || 0.7 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 477 || 476 || 99.8 || 1 || 0.2 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3021 || 2625 || 86.9 || 5 || 0.2 || 391 || 12.9

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021* || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027* || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SE1 || 5948 || 2 || 0.03 || 2 || 0.03 || 0.0 || || || || 100 || || || || || 30 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE1TO || 926 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 11 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 10994 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 37 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 1130 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 75 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 1623 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 51 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 2552 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 51 || 100 || 0 || 0

SENO1102 || 66 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 8 || 100 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 121 || 1 || 0.8 || 1 || 0.8 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

SENO1104 || 4 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 54 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 24 || 100 || 0 || 0

Total || 23418 || 3 || 0.01 || 3 || 0.01 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 38 || 100 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027*

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Notes: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

* Natural surface water bodies only

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SE1 || 5779 || 4002 || 69.3 || 4134 || 71.5 || 2.3 || || || || || 28.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE1TO || 926 || 825 || 89.1 || 828 || 89.4 || 0.3 || || || || || 10.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 10727 || 5958 || 55.5 || 6906 || 64.4 || 8.8 || || || || || 35.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 1111 || 272 || 24.5 || 279 || 25.1 || 0.6 || || || || || 74.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 1603 || 651 || 40.6 || 793 || 49.5 || 8.9 || || || || || 50.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 2376 || 1168 || 49.2 || 1211 || 51.0 || 1.8 || || || || || 49.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1102 || 62 || 59 || 95.2 || 61 || 98.4 || 3.2 || || || || || 1.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 121 || 121 || 100 || 121 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1104 || 4 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 54 || 37 || 68.5 || 41 || 75.9 || 7.4 || || || || || 24.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 22763 || 13097 || 57.5 || 14378 || 63.1 || 5.6 || || || || || 36.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Note: Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.: Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SE1 || 5779 || 2 || 0.03 || 2 || 0.03 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE1TO || 926 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 10727 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 1111 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 1603 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 2376 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

SENO1102 || 62 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 121 || 1 || 0.8 || 1 || 0.8 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

SENO1104 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 54 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

Total || 22763 || 3 || 0.01 || 3 || 0.01 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Note : Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SE1 || 594 || 594 || 100 || 594 || 100 || 0 || || 100 || || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE1TO || 61 || 61 || 100 || 61 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 779 || 767 || 98.5 || 767 || 98.5 || 0 || || 100 || || || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 529 || 521 || 98.5 || 521 || 98.5 || 0 || || || || || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 580 || 562 || 96.9 || 562 || 96.9 || 0 || 580 || 100 || || || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 477 || 455 || 95.4 || 455 || 95.4 || 0 || || || || || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1102 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1104 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3021 || 2961 || 98.0 || 2961 || 98.0 || 0 || || || || || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Note : Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SE1 || 594 || 259 || 43.6 || 259 || 43.6 || 0 || || 100 || || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE1TO || 61 || 5 || 8.2 || 5 || 8.2 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 779 || 779 || 100 || 779 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 529 || 529 || 100 || 529 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 580 || 576 || 99.3 || 580 || 100 || 0.7 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 477 || 476 || 99.8 || 476 || 99.8 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1102 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1104 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3021 || 2625 || 86.9 || 2629 || 87 || 0.1 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Note : Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SE1 || 169 || 2 || 1.2 || 5 || 3.0 || 1.8 || 167 || || || || 98.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE1TO || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 267 || 5 || 1.9 || 26 || 9.7 || 7.9 || || 100 || || || 90.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 19 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 19 || 100 || || || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 20 || 1 || 5.0 || 4 || 20.0 || 15.0 || 17 || 68 || 20 || 100 || 80.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 176 || 3 || 1.7 || 3 || 1.7 || 0 || || 94 || || || 25.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1102 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1104 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 655 || 11 || 1.7 || 38 || 5.8 || 4.1 || || || || || 75.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Note : Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

SE1 || 169 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE1TO || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 267 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 19 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 20 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 176 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1102 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1103 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO1104 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SENO5101 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 655 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Note : Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

Sweden has a national approach to assessment of ecological status. There have been some changes between the 2009 WFD implementation report and the reporting of the first RBMPs in 2010. Fewer BQEs are reported to be available now, compared to what was reported in 2007, when methods were only missing for phytoplankton in rivers. Minor adjustments were also reported concerning the class boundaries for phytoplankton bio-volume in lakes. Swedish authorities have clarified that further improvements and revisions of the Swedish classification system will be done based on the research project WATERS[18].

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

Sweden had assessment methods for most biological quality elements(BQEs) already in 2009, where only the method for phytoplankton in rivers was reported to be missing.. The current situation based on the RBMPs and  in the WISE reports is different.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

SE1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

SE2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

SE3 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SE4 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SE5 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs and SE

The tables based on the RBMP/WISE information and compliance assessment show that for rivers and for coastal waters in the Baltic Sea, the botanical BQEs are still under development or partially developed. The benthic invertebrates methods are fully developed in all the water categories, while fish methods are fully developed for rivers and lakes, but not for transitional waters. Some BQEs were missing: macrophytes in rivers and fish in transitional waters, as well as parts of other BQEs, e.g. abundance of macrophytes in lakes, non-diatoms in phytobenthos in rivers, taxonomic composition of phytoplankton, macroalgae and angiosperms in coastal and transitional waters.  Swedish authorities have clarified as follows: There are assessment criteria for phytobenthos for lakes and rivers. For  phytoplankton in rivers, only diatoms have proven to be a relevant environmental indicator for the pressure on phytoplankton in Swedish rivers. A method for macrophytes in rivers is said to be in development in dialogue with Norway and Finland. A method for fish in coastal waters may be possible to use in transitional waters, but few such waters have been designated.

The hydromorphological (HyMo) supporting QEs are also not fully developed in any water category, while the physico-chemical QEs are developed in some RBDs, but not in all.

The biological methods are said to be able to detect the major pressures, although hydromorphological pressures are not well covered with data.

Standards have been set for most physico-chemical QEs, but only for some HyMo QEs, but the standards do not seem to be well linked with the BQEs.

A national guidance document from 2008 lists EQS values for several specific pollutants and are stated to be developed following WFD requirements[19].

The one-out-all-out principle has been applied to derive the overall ecological status.

There is only theoretical guidance given on how to assess uncertainty in classification (related to proximity to class boundaries), but no information on which parts of the classification system may have higher or lower confidence linked to them. Apart from a warning to consider extreme weather events, such as floods/droughts if an assessment of status class for a water body is counter-intuitive, there is no information on how spatial and temporal variation is dealt with when assessing the status of a water body in practice. Grouping has been extensively applied for classification, and good guidance is given on how this should be done. The guidance is to use at least 3 sites with monitoring data in a group of water bodies, each with  the same pressures and of the same type, but there is no information on whether this guidance has been used in practice.

Ecological status assessment methods are said to be developed for all national surface water body types, as all types are covered by the classification system for each BQE. However, this does not mean that all the different types have their type-specific reference conditions and class boundaries, but that many types are merged for different BQEs, and also models are used to estimate site-specific reference conditions.

The ecological quality ratios (EQR) values for all BQEs (or parts of these) that were inter-calibrated in phase 1 of the inter-calibration(IC) process are all consistent with the results reported in the IC technical reports for rivers, while for lakes the boundaries are consistent except for macrophytes, where the Swedish class boundaries are more stringent than those reported in the IC technical report. For coastal waters the national boundaries for angiosperms are less stringent (HG: 0.81 and GM: 0.61) than the IC boundaries (HG: 0.90 and GM: 0.74). For all BQEs and water categories there are problems with the translation from IC common types to national types. The translation of IC results has been applied to all national types, although it is unclear how this translation has been done, as the national types and IC types differ considerably. BQEs not inter-calibrated are phytobenthos, fish in lakes, and fish in transitional waters (no national method yet). Swedish authorities have clarified that the inter-calibration had not been completed by the time of adoption of the RBMPs, but that the process was due to finish at the end of 2011. Based on this, class-boundaries may be modified.

A background document or national/regional guidance document has been reported: Swedish guidance on assessment of ecological status: "Status, potential och kvalitetskrav för sjöar, vattendrag, kustvatten och vatten i övergångszon. Naturvardsverket Handbok 2007:4, Dec. 2007" http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-0147-6.pdf  .

Swedish EPA's legal surface waters classification document: Naturvårdsverkets föreskrifter och allmänna råd om klassificering och miljökvalitetsnormer avseende ytvatten. NSF 2008:1, ISSN 1403-8234, which is available at: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/foreskrifter/nfs2008/nfs_2008_01.pdf

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

Very few water bodies are monitored with all the relevant QEs for surveillance monitoring according to the information reported, for the rest of the river and lake water bodies classification is based on modelling. 30-40% of coastal and transitional waters are monitored. Swedish authorities have clarified that much more monitoring data are available and has been used for classification, than what has been reported. 

Ecological status assessment does not include specific chemical pollutants, no list of pollutants was found. Swedish authorities have clarified that the analysis has not yet been completed as to which specific pollutants cause exceedance of good ecological status.

Operational monitoring is not done in transitional and coastal waters (although other monitoring is done, according to the Swedish authorities). For rivers and lakes the QEs are more or less the same as those used for surveillance monitoring, see above, and primarily address eutrophication and acidification. For eutrophication the very limited use of phytobenthos in rivers is quite serious, as that is usually the most sensitive BQE to that pressure.

Confidence class is given for each classified water body. For rivers and lakes more than 80% are classified with low confidence, while for transitional and coastal waters ca. 70% are classified with low confidence. Less than 10% of all water bodies are classified with high confidence for all water categories[20].

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)

SE1 || || Nutrients || 4 % of surface water

SE2 || || Phosphorus || 7 % for surface water

SE3 || || Phosphorus (eutrophication) || 55 % for surface water

SE4 || || Phosphorus (eutrophication) || 43

SE5 || || Pesticides ||

SE5 || || Phosphorus || 23

Table 7.3.1: River basin specific pollutants causing failure of status

Source: RBMPs

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The provisional identification of HMWBs and AWBs was estimated at about. 8% of the total number of WB (according to the Article 5 report). No AWBs were provisionally identified; only HMWBs.

In the RBMPs 514 HMWBs and 13 AWB have been designated in the 5 main RBMPs representing 2% of the totally 23418 WBs in Sweden. Swedish authorities have clarified that the designation is not yet completed, partly due to a shortage of data and the need to develop methods, and that work is ongoing with other Nordic countries in relation to hydropower and HMWB designation.

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

The water uses for which the water bodies have been designated as HMWB are clearly stated; the two uses identified are hydropower and large ports/navigation. The physical modifications related to these uses are described related to hydropower in general: (weirs/dams/reservoirs/channelisation etc.) and related to ports (land reclamation/coastal modifications) The few ABWs are, however, classified as such without specification of designated uses. (ABWs are described as river plain areas channelised etc). 

The methodology for the designation of HMWBs has been described, and it is based on expert judgement, does not completely followed the CIS Guidance 4 document. Steps 1-6 have been followed up to identification of provisional designation of HMWBs, but measures to identify GEP and assessment of the impact of such measures on the environment as a whole, are generally not identified. Measures are considered in general and in some RBMPs have been exemplified. A key criteria dominates in the designation of HMWBs linked to hydropower: Large hydro schemes with installation powers over 10MW that provide balance power. The importance of this use/service is considered to be of paramount importance. It is considered almost certain that the linked provisionally designated HMWBs will remain HMWBs after further analyses are performed during the ongoing second planning cycle. Also for many ports of national importance water bodies designated as HMWBs are assumed to remain HMWBs.

The Swedish Environmental Agency (Statens Naturvårdsverk) has issued a proposal on guidelines for designation of HMWB/AWB. It provides only overarching and general guidance for HMWV and/or AWB designation and is not approved as a national Swedish guidelines. It is unclear to what extent some of the proposed criteria have been used in the RBMPs in practice.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

GEP has been defined. However, in the first planning cycle a simplified approach has been used; only two classes are applied: Good Ecological Potential and Moderate Ecological Potential. These two classes are rather briefly and only qualitatively described.

GEP: The ecological state achieved when no further measures improving the ecology are possible to implement without having considerable negative effect on the environment or on the actual activity/water use that led to the designation as HMWB or AWB. No further analyses are necessary to specify or study the impact of improvement measures.

MEP:  The ecological state achieved when mitigation measures are implemented which would not have considerable negative effect on the environment or on the actual activity/water use that led to the designation as HMWB or AWB.

The approach in the first planning is considered as an alternative approach with reference both to the reference-based, as well as to the mitigating measures approach (Prague approach).

Further analyses to specify and consider the impacts of mitigation measures related to the actual use and the environment as a whole are stated to be necessary and work is under way. The Water authorities are working with new guidelines on how to deal with HMWB, focusing on hydropower.

Background document : The basis for the further development of the designation of HMWBs and AWB and the methodology for setting GEP is The Swedish Environmental Agency guidelines from 2007  ( - - reference). However the ongoing work in collaboration with the other Nordic countries is expected to provide new and operational guidelines on these issues.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

All HMWBs that have been classified are assessed as being in moderate ecological potential, while 85% of the AWBs that have been classified are assessed as being in good ecological potential. There are 32% HMWBs with unknown ecological potential (see table below).

Category || Modification || Total || % Less than good || % Unknown

All || HMWB || 398 || 67.8 || 32.2

AWB || 13 || 15.4 || 0

All || 23418 || 43.5 || 0.5

Rivers || HMWB || 127 || 30.7 || 69.3

AWB || 12 || 16.7 || 0

All || 14757 || 46.3 || 0.6

Lakes || HMWB || 244 || 85.2 || 14.8

AWB || 1 || 0 || 0

All || 6870 || 39.5 || 0.5

Transitional || HMWB || 4 || 100 || 0

AWB || 0 || 0 ||

All || 21 || 100 || 0

Coastal || HMWB || 23 || 82.6 || 17.4

AWB || 0 || 0 ||

All || 599 || 81.8 || 0.7

Table 8.3.1: Number s and status assessment of HMWB and AWB by water category

Source: WISE

The ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWBs are very generally described and not site specific.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

EQS standards of Annex I of the EQSD are the basis for the assessment. No national standards for Annex I substances have been derived.

It is not clear from the RBMP if all priority substances have been monitored and considered in the assessment of chemical status. Swedish authorities have clarified that all EQSD substances have been monitored apart from hexachlorobutadiene(HCBD) (see also information on screening above).  Lack of monitoring of EQSD substances is explained by the fact that the EQSD came into force in 2008; one year after the Swedish monitoring programme of March 2007 was reported. Standards used are those in Annex I of the EQSD.

The EQS for mercury in biota are applied, but for hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene, no results are shown. For sediments, no information is provided.

Background concentrations have not been considered in biota or water. For sediments, no values are reported in the RBMPs due to the fact that EQS values have not been derived for this matrix. In some cases bioavailability is taken into account in the assessment of compliance with the EQS for metals.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

Sweden has reported that all water bodies have fair chemical status due to mercury. Sweden has provided further clarifications and information on the number of water bodies failing chemical status due to other pollutants than mercury :

· 63 lakes

· 69 river

· 4 transitional waters

· 73 coastal waters

CAS Number || Name of substances || % of water bodies failing good chemical status || Number of water bodies failing good chemical status2 || Number of water bodies failing good chemical status3

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

7440-43-9 || Cadmium and its compounds || NA1 || 126 || 46 || 40 || 0 || 40

104-40-5 || Nonylphenol || NA || 15 || 14 || 2 || 0 || 0

7439-92-1 || Lead and its compounds || NA || 47 || 13 || 11 || 0 || 29

7439-97-6 || Mercury and its compounds || 100 || 22180 || all || all || all || All

7440-02-0 || Nickel and its compounds || NA || 14 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 11

608-93-5 || Pentachlorobenzene || NA || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0

32534-81-9 || Brominated diphenylethers || NA || 5 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 2

117-81-7 || Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) || NA || 1 || No info || No info || No info || No info

91-20-3 || Naphthalene || NA || 1 || (4) || (4) || (4) || (4)

206-44-0 || Flouranthene || NA || 14 || 4 || 7 || || 3

18-74-1 || Hexachlorobenzene || NA || 5 || 1 || || || 4

87-68-3 || Hexachlorobutadiene, || NA || 1 || 1 || || ||

87-86-5 || Pentachlorophenol || NA || 3 || 1 || 3 || ||

not given || Polyaromatic hydrocarbons || NA || 14 || 3 || 14 || || 10

36643-28-4 || Tributyltin compounds || NA || 34 || 5 || 34 || 4 || 20

140-66-9 || Octylphenol || NA || 2 || 2 || 2 || ||

1912-24-9 || Atrazine || || || 2 || || ||

122-34-9 || Simazine || || || 2 || || ||

120-12-7 || Anthracene || || || 1 || || ||

Table 9.2.1: List of priority substances causing a failure of chemical status, other than mercury

1 NA, not available

2 Taken from WISE

³ Clarification form Swedish authorities

4 Information only provided on priority substances.

Note: There are some differences between the two sets of data.

Source: WISE and Swedish authorities

9.3 Other issues

The concept of mixing zones, defined as a part of a water body of surface water restricted to the proximity of the point of discharge within which the Competent Authority is prepared to accept EQS exceedance, has not been used in any of the RBMP.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

According to the RBMPs, the status of ground water (both quantity and quality) seems in general to be very good in Sweden with 98 % of the GWBs in good status. It should however be noted that several times in the RBMPs and other supporting documents, it is pointed out that the knowledge about ground water status is limited, as only 4 % of all GWBs are monitored (expressed in e.g. RBMP for SE 5: Monitoring data is missing or insufficient for a great part of the GWBs).

The three main pressures to ground water status are point sources, diffuse sources and others (not defined).

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

The RBMPs states that the data basis for the assessment (both regarding quantity and quality) is insufficient and that new information/data, methods etc. will be collected and developed during this, the second, RBMP cycle. The impact from abstractions and impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems have therefore not been considered.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

As groundwater monitoring data is insufficient in Sweden, expert judgement has been made based on available information and pressure analysis to decide if the threshold value is exceeded and the GWB is at risk.

A national approach has been used for the overall impact assessment. A GIS-analysis has been done including point sources (different plants, contaminated sites, roads, rail roads, sand and gravel extractions) and diffuse sources (e.g. farmed land, forest or urban areas). The method is indicative and does not identify the specific substances, but indicates the group of substances in question. The method has been used in the risk assessment to identify the groundwater bodies at risk and that need further investigation/monitoring. 

The status assessment is based on exceedances of threshold values of chemical analyses. If no information is available, the GWB was, by presumption, placed in good status. Only for a very small part of the GWBs, was the assessment based on a solid data basis.

The substances considered for threshold values (TV) are laid down in a national regulation: Nitrate, pesticides (individual and total), chloride, conductivity, sulphate, ammonium, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, tri- and tetra chloroethane, chloroform, dichloroethane, and 6 PAH’s. The TV’s for most of the substances are identical with the drinking water TV.

Background concentrations have been considered for 4 ions (chloride, sulphate, nitrate and ammonia), 10 metals (arsenic, lead, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, vanadium, zinc) and for conductivity.

Trend assessment and reversals have not been performed in this planning cycle due to a limited chemical surveillance monitoring programme for ground water in Sweden.

10.3 Protected areas

All GWB’s intended for drinking water abstraction are reported to be in at least good status.

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

SE1 || 90 || ||

SE1TO || 11 || ||

SE2 || 183 || ||

SE3 || 171 || ||

SE4 || 196 || ||

SE5 || 205 || ||

Total || 856 || 0 || 0

Table 10.3.1: Status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

Environmental objectives are set for all water bodies, but time exemptions are applied for almost all water bodies at risk. Environmental objectives are established for 2015, 2021 and for some river basin districts and types of water bodies also for 2027. Water body specific information is provided in a separate document accompanying the RBMPs.

The RBMP describes environmental objectives for 2015 and 2021. Environmental objectives for 2027 are only described for a few river basin districts and types of water bodies. This is the reason for the low number of bodies described to be in good status in 2027.

For many water bodies, it has been difficult to assess the status because of inadequate data. In these cases, the status is described as good, but these bodies are simultaneously considered at risk of not achieving good status by 2021. For more information about operation of the risk assessments, see the Environmental Protection Agency's Guide to identification and analysis of surface water (2007:3).

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

There are additional objectives for protected areas explicitly identified for Natura 2000 areas. For protected areas related to drinking water and bathing water, it is, however, not clear from the RBMPs whether additional objectives (i.e. additional to good status) have been set in the RBMPs. Regarding shellfish waters, quality requirements have been set following the Directives on quality of freshwater to sustain fish  and shellfish. These requirements are transposed in the Swedish regulation and apply where appropriate beyond the WFD requirements for surface water chemical status.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

Time exemptions to 2021 are explicit described by each water body, including and the reason for making these exemptions for chemical status. For ecological status such water body specific information is not provided.

There is an overall assessment of the main impacts causing exemptions. Exemptions and reasons for these are only explained in general, and there is no information about the uncertainty in setting environmental objectives. According to the WISE report, all exemptions described are due to technical feasibility except from exemptions related to chemical status for ground water bodies, where also natural conditions are stated as a reason. However, in the RBMP, there are some general statements that natural conditions can be a reason for making exemptions.

It is reported to WISE   that no use is made of the disproportionate costs argument to justify exemptions. However, disproportionate costs are generally stated in the RBMPs as a reason for exemptions caused by eutrophication, physical changes and environmental toxins. The methodology to assess disproportionate costs is not explained. There are inconsistencies between the RBMPs and the WISE reporting, and Swedish authorities have clarified they will review its reporting processes.

Sweden has reported that 100% of surface water bodies are subject to Article 4 (5), exemptions due to pollution by mercury (lower environmental objectives). Given the large scale and the fact that the situation is almost exclusively the result of a combination of historical pollution, the pressure from sources beyond Sweden’s control and the special natural conditions, Sweden’s judgment is that there are no technically feasible or economically proportionate measures that could solve this problem in a foreseeable time frame. In light of this, the objective set was to ensure, as far as possible, that the situation does not deteriorate further, and to focus on measures that can help improve conditions in the long term (such as international negotiations and pressures to reduce global discharges of mercury).

RBD || Global[21]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

SE1 || 1814 || 5948 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

SE1TO || 98 || 926 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

SE2 || 4062 || 10994 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

SE3 || 851 || 1130 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

SE4 || 826 || 1623 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

SE5 || 1311 || 2552 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

SENO1102 || 5 || 66 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

SENO1103 || 0 || 121 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

SENO1104 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

SENO5101 || 13 || 54 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

Total || 8980 || 23418 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

Exemptions according to Article 4(6) are not applied in Sweden.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

Exemptions according to Article 4(7) are not applied in Sweden.

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

Exemptions under article 6 (GWD) have not been applied in Sweden.

All exemptions in relation to chemical status for ground water bodies are based on that it will be technically infeasible to achieve good status. Number of water bodies for each substance or group of substances in terms of chemical status to which the exemptions apply for each type of exemption in the RBD and its component sub-units are presented in the table below.

RBD || Exemption || Article4 4 Technical feasibility || Article4 4 Disproportionate cost || Article4 4 Natural conditions || Article4 5 Technical feasibility || Article4 5 Disproportio-nate cost

SE1 || 2 Pesticides || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.6 Chloride || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE2 || 2 Pesticides || 9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.1 Arsenic || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.2 Cadmium || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.3 Lead || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.4 Mercury || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.6 Chloride || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE3 || 2 Pesticides || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.6 Chloride || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.10 Conductivity || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE4 || 1 Nitrates || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

2 Pesticides || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.1 Arsenic || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.2 Cadmium || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.3 Lead || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.6 Chloride || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

SE5 || 1 Nitrates || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

2 Pesticides || 16 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.1 Arsenic || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.2 Cadmium || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

3.3 Lead || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 11.5.1: Use of exemptions for ground water chemical status

Source:WISE

No exemptions to the achievement of the objectives of groundwater Article 7 Drinking Water Protected Areas have been reported.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[22] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

The programmes lack information on which specific measures will be implemented for which water bodies, and therefore, also, at which pressures the measures are targeted. It is mentioned in some of the RBMPs, that models are used for different parts of the “chain” and for different types of pressures (nutrients, acidification etc.). The majority of "measures" proposed in the programme of measures, are of an "administrative nature" whereby other authorities are requested to collect further information and to identify measures that are cost effective at a local level. A list of 38 such "type measures" or "administrative instructions" are listed in the start of the PoM, and for each of the identified pressures, these "measures" are selected.  As an example to reduce eutrophication, after a description of the extent of the problem and the target reduction, such administrative instructions are given for agriculture, industry and communal wastewater treatment, properties not connected to  waste water treatment, surface water run-off, and forestry. For each instruction, examples of possible measures are also given. 

The first of the 38 measures then refers to "återrapportering" or "reporting back", whereby all the authorities targeted by these measures have to provide progress reports back to the River basin authorities by the 28 February each year.   

Although the link between the status assessments, the “need” for improvement (i.e. the specific reduced load) is said to be done, it is also clearly stated in the plan that further information on the status is currently insufficient to identify specific measures. This should also be seen in the context of the Swedish data basis, as the monitoring in SE used for the first RBMPs was mainly based on the old programmes (“business as usual”).

In one RBD – SE2 – non-binding supporting documents for individual basins have been provided. In these the link becomes clearer at least for some water bodies, as a specification of (e.g. hydromorphological measures) or an account for the required improvement has been established (e.g. a certain reduction of phosphorus is needed to obtain the objective), and the reduction is divided on different measures (wetlands, catch crops, waste water treatment (agglomerations and single houses) etc.). Since these sub-district plans were not officially reported, these have not been further assessed.

The PoM’s have not been subject to international coordination with the two neighbouring countries (i.e. Finland and Norway). One chapter in SE 1 describes a few common measures (verifying the status for the common marine area (lack of data), harmonization of chemical status concentration of mercury, harmonization of the timetable) with Finland for the trans-boundary River Torne. Besides these few common measures, the Swedish plan for SE 1 contains a number of measures for the Swedish part of this IRBD.

The general scope of the application of measures is divided between a national scale (agencies etc), on RBD level and on water body level.  The main authorities responsible for the implementation are authorities at the national level, and a big role is played by regions and the municipalities. It should be noted, that a large number of institutions are involved, making the administrative set-up difficult to overview and to some extend not transparent.

Based on the assessment above, it is not clear from the RBMPs how a common goal (e.g. a certain reduction in phosphorus from different sources and with different responsible authorities) is going to be obtained.

The unclear nature of the PoM was also an issue during the public consultation in Sweden. In for example, the summary from the consultation of the PoM for SE5, one of the main remarks is the unclear nature of the PoM. It is stated in the summary of the public consultation, that “the authorities and the municipalities find it difficult to link their responsibility for the measures to the proper water body and the type of pressure”. The answer from the Water Authority to these remarks from other authorities is that the government will find opportunities to revise the PoM before 2015 or prepare “sub-PoM” within 2 years (i.e. before the end of 2011) with more precise measures for selected areas.

The mainly administrative approach with numerous players for the Swedish PoMs makes it also difficult to see, how, by whom and to what extend a specific reduction is going to be implemented.

The cost of measures related to the RBMPs is available in the plans and also divided between sectors and pressures (the costs are presented according to pressures).

Pressure || Mio. € || Comments

Diffuse sources (nutrients) || 179-316 || Administrative costs included in point sources

Point sources (nutrients) || 675-1065 ||

Hazardous substances || 141-225 ||

Water abstraction || 16 || Only SE2

Art. recharge || 0 ||

Morphological alternations || 188-217 ||

Other || 123-166 || Acidification, drinking water protection.

Total || 1625-2546 ||

Table 12.1.1: Cost estimates from RBMP 2009-15

Note: The mean of the figures differ from the WISE report (aggregated for 6 years it is app. 1700 mio. €).Costs in the RMBP’s are presented as yearly costs. It is assumed, that the period is 6 years.

Source: RBMPs

The costs are divided between basic (art. 11b-l) and supplementary measures only in two RBMP (and in WISE). For these two, the costs for the basic measures are approximately. 75% of the total. In WISE, the proportion of basic measures is approximately. 89%.  Nearly 60% of the measures in the national catalogue of measures are referred to in WISE as basic measures.  It should once more be stressed, that the majority of the measures in the catalogue are of an administrative character. The Swedish presentation in the RBMPs of the costs divided on different sectors or pressures is very good and in general clear and could be a good example for other countries, however this comment needs to be seen in the context of the criticism of the nature of the types of measures. It has not been possible to find a clear indication of a financial commitment to fully implement the PoM.

The timeline for the implementation of the measures is unclear. In the PoM’s it is stated, that it is required that the authorities and the municipalities have approved the measures according to the PoM before 22. December 2012. Later on in the PoM it is noted, that it is not required that the measures are fully operational by 22. December 2012. In WISE it is reported, that the calculated cost is for the measures assumed necessary to take until 2015.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

In the southern RBD (SE 3, 4 and 5), agriculture has been identified as a major pressure for diffuse loading of nutrients (up to 50 %). For hydromorphology, agriculture is mentioned as a major pressure in line with forestry. Pesticides (obsolete or currently in use) are also mentioned as a factor affecting water bodies. Abstraction by the agriculture sector does not seem to be a significant pressure.

It is not specifically referred in the RBMPs, that agricultural measures have been discussed and agreed with the agricultural sector - except for the public consultation of the PoM.

Reduced fertiliser application is indicated in Southern Sweden (SE 4 and 5), while measures to reduce soil erosion and also hydromorphological measures are planned for all or most of the RBDs. Many non-technical (administrative) measures have also been selected, including controls, codes of agricultural practices, advice and training.

The general statements in the section above, as regards scope and nature of the measures, timing and follow-up also apply to the agriculture section.

Information about financial sources for the implementation of agricultural measures is limited, but the Rural Development programme is mentioned as a source for financing in some RBMP without any indication of the proportion.

Measures || SE1 || SE2 || SE3 || SE4 || SE5

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || || || || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || || || || ||

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || || || || ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || || ü || ü || ü

Measures against soil erosion || ü || ü || ü || || ü

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || || || ü || ü || ü

Technical measures for water saving || || || || ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || || || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || || || ||

Nutrient trading || || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || || || || ||

Institutional changes || || || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || ü || || || ü || ü

Farm advice and training || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || || || || ||

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || || || ü || ü || ü

Certification schemes || || || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || || || || ||

Land use planning || || || || ||

Technical standards || || || || ||

Specific projects related to agriculture || || || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || || || || ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

Due to the status of the measure as described above, it is not possible to assess if the measures are appropriate. The effects of the proposed measures are mainly an improved basis for decisions upon specific measures to be taken in the next planning cycle.  In some of the PoM, a short list of effects of the measures is available, e.g. for SE 2 and 3 (examples)

· Improved basis showing the extend and impact of physical alternations

· Develop a guideline for the controlling authority

· A strategy and a plan for revising permits

· Mapping of and measures taken in relation to road and rail road under passes

· The municipalities have developed their overview and detailed planning so the EQS will be obtained

· A basis for prioritizing the most valuable cultural water environments and plants (old water mills etc.)

· Maintain or establish  wooded zones along rivers

The set-up for HMWBs does not differ from the above, so specific measures in relation to HMWB are not described and identified in the PoM

The measures related to HMWB are also mainly of an administrative character. A set of parameters has been included in some of the RBMP’s to assess the if a specific water body is substantially impacted by changes in flow

· Degree of regulation > 10 %

· Change in max. mean flow > 5 %

· Change in minimum mean flow > 10 %

· Regulation amplitude > 1 m

Measures || SE1 || SE2 || SE3 || SE4 || SE5

Fish ladders || || || || ||

Bypass channels || ü || || || ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || || ü || ü || ü ||

Sediment/debris management || || || || ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü || || ü || ü || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || || || || ||

Lowering of river banks || || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || || || || ||

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || || || ü || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || || || ü ||

Inundation of flood plains || || || || ||

Construction of retention basins || || || || ü ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || || || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || || || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || || || || ü ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

As the   status of groundwater bodies (GWB) in general is considered good and that very few GWBs are at risk of not obtaining good quantitative status., measures for tackling groundwater pollution are in a very general level, not targeted to groundwater bodies.

Measures linked to quantitative status are administrative measures as well as supplementary measures like data collection, monitoring, planning, statistics etc.

Measures to prevent and limit pollution are listed, but they are very general and not targeted at specific physical actions to be taken. Their presentation is unclear (e.g. overlaps, no distinction between surface and groundwater). Supplementary measures are mentioned like data collection, monitoring, planning, statistics etc.

There is no information on international co-ordination of measures.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

Given that Mercury is described as the main problem in Sweden causing all surface water bodies to fail to attain good chemical status, and the main source for this pollution is stated to be atmospheric deposition from other countries, no measures are included to reduce the atmospheric input of mercury. Domestic sources for mercury (e.g. rehabilitation of old contaminated sites) may be included in some administrative measures, but this is not specifically noted.

Although other priority substances and other hazardous substances/other pollutants and sources are mentioned in different documents and contexts, the description is mainly general and a specific inventory linking sources and substances has not been found in the available documents (reference to databases for contaminated sites and point sources). Models (e.g. GIS analysis, not described in detail) have been used as an indicative tool for detecting pollution with hazardous substances.

The main measures taken regarding chemical pollution are in line with other areas administrative like verification of chemical and ecological status, steering tools, advisory and educational activities for farmers. The competent authorities for rehabilitation of contaminated sites are obliged to prioritize areas in the catchment of water bodies not reaching good chemical status. The measures are not substance specific.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

Only water supply and wastewater are included as water services for the purpose of Article 9. It is not clear if self-services are included, such as individual households/properties not connected to communal waste water treatment or water supply services. The Swedish definition of water services includes the services of Swedish law that together constitute water supply and collection and treatment of sewage. The act (2006:412) defines:

· Water supply: the supply of water which is suitable for normal household use.

· Collection and treatment of sewage: remove leading storm surface water and drain water from an area with comprehensive settlement or from a cemetery, the disposal of sewage or the disposal of water used for cooling.

Sweden does not include the following water services: water abstraction for cooling industrial installations and agricultural irrigation, the impoundment or storage of surface waters for navigation purposes, flood protection, hydro power production nor well drilling for agricultural, industrial or private consumption.

The Government defines water use as "water services together with all other activities under Article 5 and Annex II having a significant impact on water status ". Abstraction, agriculture, industry, households, hydropower, irrigation, wastewater treatment, diffuse pollution from agriculture, point source pollution from domestic users, water supply and point source pollution from industry are all defined as water uses.

Cost recovery is calculated for water services as Sweden defines them, for water supply and collection and treatment of sewage. According to statistics from Swedish Waters, the overall water and sewage fee covers 99% of the costs for the whole country. The rest is covered by taxes. The contribution to cost recovery of water services is not disaggregated into different water uses (at least households, agriculture and industry), which is not in line with WDF and makes cross-subsidies among different sectors invisible.

Financial costs as capital costs, operating costs, maintenance costs and administrative costs are included into cost recovery calculations. Environmental and resource costs are not included in the calculations due to a lack of an all-encompassing method or cost calculation for environment and resource costs in Sweden. Environmental costs can be considered in some ways as internalised trough charges as they are covered by the measures imposed on the operator in connection with regulatory or licensing under the Environmental Code. Since agricultural activities use municipal water, the environmental costs are covered in the same way as for households, or through the actions required in connection with regulation or licensing under the Environmental Code. The same principles of cost recovery for water services are also applied on the industrial activities.

The Environmental Code makes reference to the polluter pays principle. This particularly applies to the industrial sector, and for households, while the agricultural sector cost recovery is low. The Swedish law gives the opportunity to differentiate taxes for different activities that generate wastewater, and it is common to have special fee arrangements between individual sewage treatment plants and industrial operators whose wastewater is expected to have a higher degree of pollution than “normal” characteristics of  wastewater. This avoids a situation with a risk of "cross subsidies" when the treatment of industrial wastewater is partly funded by contributions from fees from groups with “normal” wastewater. The polluter pays principle can in theory be achieved for all these sectors, but this is not fully developed today. In order to achieve full cost recovery for the water supply and wastewater sector, the water and sewage fee needs to be adjusted to a level which is also equivalent to the environmental cost visible in terms of the environmental impact. For this to be done, methods need to be evolved to evaluate a deteriorated environment.

Incentive pricing is reflected in the Water Services Act, where the charge for water services has been divided into a fixed part related to water and wastewater plant operations, and a variable component linked to the user's water consumption (metering and volumetric charging). In order to achieve full cost recovery for the water supply and wastewater sector, it is stated that the water and sewage fee needs to be adjusted to a level which is also equivalent to the environmental cost visible in terms of the environmental impact. For this to be done, it is explained that there is a need for methods to be evolved to evaluate a deteriorated environment.

There is no information in the RBMP or WISE summary report about any use of the provisions on flexibility in Article 9.4.

Sweden RBMPs have a common definition of water uses and water services, a common presentation of existing water prices and common approach to cost recovery calculation. Article 9 descriptions in the RBMP and WISE summary report are almost always only done at the national level. The cost recovery calculations are, however, made at the RBD level.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

The RBMP does not clearly identify the protected areas, which will not reach the more stringent objectives according to other directives.. On the other hand, it is stated in the RBMPs, that the PoM should also cover the needs for improvement in protected areas – indicating that the measures to be taken should also ensure the fulfilment of the more stringent objectives related to other directives.

In SE 5 it is stated that the favourable conservation status for NATURA 2000 areas have not been used as a more stringent objective in the RBMP’s, as the status assessment regarding NATURA 2000 areas has not yet been quality assured. It is mentioned, that the line between good and poor ecological status according to the RBMP usually is a good indicator for a favourable conservation status too.

Regarding the protection of drinking water, a number of administrative measures to support the basic measures are mentioned in the RBMP’s, but not defined as supplementary or additional. Examples are collection and storage of information, monitoring, planning, statistics etc.

13.       water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management and Climate change adaptation 13.1     Water Scarcity and Droughts

WS&D are not considered a major relevant problem in Sweden. Water scarcity occurs occasionally in dry summers, particularly in Southern Sweden (e.g. Gotland, Halland), but only a very small proportion of water bodies are thought to be affected. The problem may however be underestimated due to lack of data and knowledge. Droughts are not specifically mentioned. The causes for water scarcity during dry summer periods are primarily water abstraction for irrigation and for domestic water supply. The impacts mentioned are especially enhanced risk of salt water intrusion into groundwater bodies in coastal areas. Water availability and needs for water abstraction are considered so far when planning new urban settlements in coastal areas, but not in the context of WFD. Sector policies are not linked to impacts on water scarcity due to insufficient data and knowledge.

Data on water abstraction for public water supply are collected by the water works and compiled in a database hosted by the Swedish Geological Survey. Data are not available on water abstraction for irrigation and for industrial- and domestic water supply not connected to public water works. Models for water recharge of groundwater bodies are developed, as well as for estimating the risk of salt water intrusion to groundwater bodies. 

More monitoring and research is needed to increase the amount and quality of data and to improve the basis for other measures. A register for groundwater abstraction is needed. More knowledge is needed on groundwater-dependent ecosystems, especially among regional authorities. The current water supply law is considered sufficient to ensure efficient water use. More economic data are needed to estimate cost-recovery for water services for all sectors. Better planning is needed to estimate water needs and availability, especially when planning new settlements in coastal areas of Southern Sweden. Enhanced metering of water consumption in all sectors are needed to get a better overview of water abstraction.

No information is given on international coordination in relation to Water scarcity and droughts.

13.2     Flood Risk Management

Future scenarios indicate increased risk of intensive rain episodes and flooding in Sweden, causing deterioration of water quality through increased loads of nutrients, humic substances (browning of water), and pathogens from sewage overflows, demanding improved water purification in public water works and better sewage system capacity. Higher costs for production of drinking water and sanitation are expected.

Floods are not given as a reason for HMWB designation. For a few AWBs, channelisation of river plain areas is mentioned as a reason for designation.

No information is provided on floods related to art 4.6.

No information is provided on floods related to art 4.7.

No information is provided on flood risk reduction measures in the RBMP.

More intensive flooding  due to climate change is referred to in the plans.

The need for linking the WFD and Floods Directive in the future RBMPs are explicitly mentioned in the current RBMPs.

13.3     Adaptation to Climate Change

Climate change is included in the plans to a limited extent, mainly as expected scenarios: These are wetter winters and drier summers, more intensive rain episodes and flooding, and consecutive negative impacts on water quality due to increased loads of pathogens, nutrients and humic substances, more saline intrusion in groundwater in coastal areas (combination of drier summers and increased water abstraction), loss of arctic char and other cold-water adapted species of fish and invertebrates, invasions of warm-water species, more use of pesticides. Impacts expected are enhanced costs for water services.

Recommendations on climate change adaptation from a recent Nordic conference are available for local/municipal planning authorities, and references are made to the national Climate and Vulnerability assessment. 

No explicit climate check has been done for the PoMs, but this is mentioned in relation to the next cycle of RBMPs.

There are no specific climate change adaptation measures included in the plans other than plans for improved monitoring and research.

Improved monitoring and research are needed to provide better predictions as a basis for adaptation measures, for example, the risks of temperature increases, extreme flow and flood risks and how these interact with human activities affecting water quantity and quality. Better metering of water abstraction is also mentioned.  More use of safeguard zones in catchments of raw water sources used for drinking water production, as well as a revision of water supply and sanitation plans. 

14.       Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· Sweden needs to complete the initial characterisation, to enable the establishment of WFD compliant monitoring networks. It is important to complete this first stage of the WFD implementation process to ensure cost effective implementation of subsequent steps.

· Sweden needs to lower its minimum size threshold for lakes to ensure all relevant water bodies are included.

· A large majority of water bodies are classified without monitoring data, giving low confidence in the classification. Very few water bodies are monitored with BQEs. Sweden needs to improve its classification system for ecological status, since it has several gaps.

· The described monitoring programme is not designed to be WFD compliant, but is a continuation of previous monitoring programmes (e.g. operational monitoring for ground water bodies is missing and no or very few sites are monitored for botanical BQEs and HyMo QEs in both surveillance and operational mode). The RBMPs need for instance to be more transparent regarding which priority substances are monitored. The justifications for not monitoring certain quality elements are not adequate. Improvement of the monitoring programme to make it fully WFD compliant is ongoing and is planned to be ready by 2012.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be completed in all RBDs, and made more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, how EQS was established, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status.  It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.  

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The procedure for designation of HMWB has not been followed. Water bodies exposed to major HyMo pressures like large hydro power installations and harbours have been designated as HMWB/AWB, whereas water bodies exposed to other HyMo pressures have only been designated as candidates for HMWB/AWB. The designations of the latter will be decided for the next planning cycle. The HMWB designation process therefore needs to be completed before the next cycle. The assessment of significant adverse effects to the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· Measures for defining GEP has furthermore not been defined for each individual HMWB/AW - only general descriptions are provided of the possible measures.

· The apparent omission of data on hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be checked. The requirement for trend monitoring of several priority substances in sediment or biota as specified in EQSD Article 3(3) will need to be reflected in the next RBMPs.

· The knowledge base on groundwater should significantly be improved in Sweden. Enhanced and robust groundwater monitoring should be established based on WFD requirements. WFD based methodologies should be used to assess groundwater status correctly. Water body specific measures should be considered in the PoMs.

· Article 6 GWD exemptions can only be used if efficient groundwater monitoring is established (Art 6.3 GWD).

· There is no clear link between status assessment and the need for pressure reduction (nutrients, chemical pollutants and hydromorphology) and measures. Many of the measures are "administrative" (new investigations, monitoring etc).

· A significant number of exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. Environmental objectives are set for all water bodies, but time exemptions are applied for almost all water bodies at risk, indicating a low ambition level to meet the WFD good status environmental objective, although for chemical status the exemptions are due to long-range mercury pollution that takes a long time to change. The high number of exemptions applied in these first RBMPs is a cause of concern. Sweden should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainties.

· Where article 4(5) is used – that is setting less stringent environmental objectives, such other objectives need to be transparently applied, and they need to go beyond repeating other already binding requirements such as no further deterioration.

· The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· Sweden needs to improve its programme of measures to be more explicit on the specific measures that are being planned, to enable a transparent planning tool showing how the environmental objectives can be met in a coordinated manner across the RBDs. Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the programme of measures so the approach to achieve the objectives is clear.

· It is recommended that the more detailed sub-basin plans are reported as formal parts of the RBMPs and formally reported to the Commission and made available to the public, as they include important supplementary information.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture to collection and discharge of waste water, from scattered settlements, for which for instance environmental and resource costs also need to be recovered.  The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

· Sweden needs to ensure full co-operation with neighbouring countries, including the correct designation of trans-boundary river basin districts and co-operation on measures to ensure achievement of the environmental objectives.

[1] http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00001&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=1

[2]     Map and area from European Commission 2nd implementation report on WFD  monitoring of 2009, Annex http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm

[3]     Source: http://www.vattenmyndigheterna.se/Sv/om-vattenmyndigheterna/fakta-om-distrikten/Pages/default.aspx?keyword=Vattendistrikt+areal

[4]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[5]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[6]     Pressures and Measures study, Task 1 Governance

[7]     According to the Swedish authorities these "environmental quality standards"/"miljökvalitetsnormer"  are equivalent to the environmental objectives of the WFD, and not the "EQS" established for specific chemical pollutants.

[8]     Pressures and measures, Study, Governance

[9]     SMHI 2002/1796/1933

[10]    Bilaga A till Handbok 2007:4:"Bedömningsgrunder för sjöar och vattendrag".  (http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-0148-3.pdf)

[11]    http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/foreskrifter/nfs2006/nfs_2006_1.pdf

[12]    http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-0146-9.pdf

[13]    http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-0147-6.pdf

[14]   NFS 2007:3: Handbok 2007:3: Kartlägning och analys av ytvatten.           http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-0146-9.pdf

[15]    http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5801-2.pdf

[16]    http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5799-2.pdf

[17]    Please note the numbers reported to WISE do not always correspond to numbers reported in the RBMPs.

[18]    http://www.waters.gu.se/

[19]    http://www.vattenmyndigheterna.se/SiteCollectionDocuments/sv/bottenviken/beslut-fp/status2009/NV_rapp5799_fororenande_amnen.pdf

[20] ref. EEA/ETC Thematic assessment of ecological status and pressures, figure 3.4

[21] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[22]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management

1. general information

 Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Romania has a population of 21,5 million and a total surface area of 238 391 km2. Romania, in southeast Europe, is mountainous in the north while the main feature in the south is the vast Danube valley. The river forms a delta as it approaches the Black Sea.

97.4% of Romania’s surface is part of the international Danube River Basin District (DRBD), representing approximately 29% of its surface. The Romanian part of the DRBD encompasses 11 sub-basins.

RBD / Sub-basin || Name || Size (km2) || % of RO territory || Countries sharing borders

RO1000 || Danube || 238391 || || BG, HU, MD, RS, UA

Sub-basin

SO || Someş - Tisa || 22380 || 9.4 || HU, UA

CR || Crişuri || 14860 || 6.3 || HU

MU || Mureş || 28310 || 11.9 || HU

BA || Banat || 18393 || 7.7 || RS

JI || Jiu || 16676 || 47.1 || -

OT || Olt || 24050 || 10.1 || -

AG || Argeş - Vedea || 21479 || 9 || -

IL || Buzău - Ialomiţa || 24699 || 10.1 || -

SI || Siret || 28116 || 11.9 || UA

PR || Prut - Bârlad || 20267 || 8.5 || MD, UA

DL || Dobrogea Litoral || 19161 || 8 || BG, MD, RS, UA

Table 1.1: Overview of Romania’s River Basin District, including sub-basins

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[1]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ro/eu/wfdart13

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing borders || Co-ordination category

1

km² || %

Danube || RO1000 || BG, HU, MD, RS, UA || 238,506 || 29.6

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Romania[2]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance 2.1 Adoption of the RBMP

The Danube River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) was published on 22/12/2009 and was adopted by a Governmental Decision on 26/01/2011. The RBMP was reported to the Commission on 18/03/2011.

2.2 Key strengths and weaknesses

A common strength for Romania’s RBMP is that it identifies the major sources of pollution and the monitoring programme is continuously adjusted (e.g. the relevant BQEs are monitored). The RBMP was set up based on strong stakeholder involvement and good coordination at international level with EU Member States and third countries under the framework of the International Commission for the Protection of Danube River. The establishment of methodologies extensively uses the CIS guidance documents.

However, a range of weaknesses exist, some of them are the following:

· The use of biological quality elements for ecological status assessment is not complete.

· The link between identified pressures, objectives and measures is not always clear.

· The description of methodologies regarding e.g. cost-benefit analysis, exemptions etc. is very general.

· The evaluation of ecological potential has low confidence level.

· Harmonization between abiotic and biotic criteria is still under development for typology definition.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

The RBMP was published on 22/12/2009 and submitted to the WISE system on 22/03/2010; further completions were added on 11/03/2011, 21/03/2011, 29/06/2011, 27/02/2012 and 12/03/2012 (in response to the additional request of the EEA).

The following table shows the dates of consultations on the work programme, the significant water management issues (SWMIs), and draft RBMP (from WISE section 1.3.2), as required by Article 14 of the WFD.

In addition, the final National Management Plan for the RO part of the international DRBD was published to schedule on 22/12/2009, with national approval provided on 26//2011.

RBD || Timetable || Work programme || Statement on consultation || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Final RBMP

Due dates || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009

RO1000 || || 22/12/2006 || || 20/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009

Table 3.1.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: WISE

3.2 Administrative arrangements

The National Administration Romanian Waters (NARW) was established in 2002 as the water management authority in Romania. Together with the Ministry of Environment and Forests, NARW was designated as the competent authority to implement the Water Framework Directive in Romania throughout the 11 Water Directorates encompassed by the national part of the DRBD

NARW elaborates the River Basin Development and Management Schemes under the coordination of the Ministry of Environment. Within the NARW, the Department for elaboration of the RBMP was created while in the Institute for Hydrology and Water Management belonging to NARW, a department concerning the elaboration of the RBDPs was created, its mission being to ensure the management of the quantitative aspects of water resources.

The Romanian National RBMP was elaborated in agreement with the international Danube RBMP coordinated by the ICPDR; the frame established together with other countries in the Danube River Basin was used as a basis of the national and sub-basin management plans. The National Plan represents a synthesis of the 11 Management Plans elaborated for the 11 sub-basins.

Figure 3.2.1: Organogram of water management authorities implementing the WFD in Romania

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

The Ministry of Environment coordinated the elaboration of the National Management Plan by NARW, which supervised further the elaboration of the sub-basin Management Plans by the 11 Water Directorates. The chapters concerning the groundwater were realized by the National Institute for Hydrology and Water Management. The 11 sub-basin Management Plans were further agreed by the Basin Committees; these structures aim to support the public consultations in every Water Directorate by involving the local stakeholders in the decision making process.

In 2010, the national plan (the synthesis of the 11 sub-basin plans), undertook the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). An Environmental Report was drafted after SEA, and together with the national plan was submitted for public consultations. The finalized Environmental Report was submitted to the National Authority in order to receive the Environmental Permit. The national RBMP was finally adopted by a Governmental Decision.

The Government adopts the RBMPs with a decision. According to the Romanian Constitution, the Government adopts decisions to organise the application of laws. Therefore, the Government’s decision cannot contradict laws, and stands above any acts that may be issued by local administrations. The Water Law lays down that all programmes and administrative decisions related to water need to comply with the content of the RBMP as approved.

The binding effect of the environmental objectives set out in the RBMP is regulated according to the Water Law. However, since all programmes and administrative decisions need to be in accordance with the RBMP, the environmental objectives laid therein have a binding effect on authorities that can be in charge of developing programmes or issue administrative decisions, and also on water users which implement the provision of the RBMPs and POMs.

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

The Management Plans of the 11 sub-basins were agreed by the Basin Committees which represent the main unit for public consultation and information at basin and local level. The Basin Committee ensures the public consultation process in the field of water management, by involving local communities, water users, beneficiaries of water management services, local authorities, NGOs etc. 

Between 22/12/2008and 10/11/2009 the drafts of the 11 sub-basin Management Plans were available on NARW and Water Directorates web pages for public consultations, and public meetings were organized to obtain feedback from the relevant stakeholders. In 2010 the national RBMP, representing the synthesis of the 11 sub-basin plans, undertook the SEA. After the SEA, an environmental report was elaborated, discussed with stakeholders and submitted for acceptance to the Ministry of Environment.

Besides the four  meetings organized in 2008 in each sub-basin, with stakeholders from different sectors (local communities, industry, agriculture, hydropower, other water users, NGOs, universities), two other meetings in each sub-basin were organized in 2009. The documents were available on-line between December 2008 and November 2009, allowing a continuous feedback during the consultation period. Feedback was required through the distributed questionnaires and on-line versions available. The public was informed by press releases, articles in the media, flyers, mailing to stakeholders and discussions at the Basin Committee level.

Some of the measures suggested during the public consultations were integrated in the RBMP. As part of the feedback to the public consultations, some deadlines were readjusted, new measures included, coordination with other policies was under development; new suggestions were considered for the next RBM cycles, such as: ways to improve information dissemination/feedback for the next cycles, mechanisms to strengthen the control, supplementary measures for the WBs at risk, enhanced cooperation between water managers and different users etc.

3.5 Cooperation and coordination with third countries

In the Danube River Basin (DRB) the countries cooperate in the frame of the Convention for the Protection of the Danube River (1994). The International Commission for the Protection of Danube River (ICPDR) was established in 1998 and coordinates all the activities in the frame of this Convention, being responsible for the implementation of the WFD in the DRB and the elaboration of the DRBMP(published at the end of 2009).

The Romanian National Management Plan was elaborated under the guidance of the ICPDR and its provisions were integrated in the international DRDMP. For transboundary catchments (e.g. Tisza River Basin, Danube Delta) the management plans are elaborated under ICPDR coordination based on the contribution of the countries sharing the catchment. For the Tisza River Basin the Management Plan was finalized in 2010, while for the Danube Delta the Article 5 report is under development.

At the Danube River Basin level, the ICPDR coordinates the integration of water management activities with other sectorial policies such as navigation and hydropower.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

The Romanian part of the Danube RBD includes all 4 categories of SWBs: rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

The typology was developed for all 4 categories of SWBs. The typology for surface waters has been partially validated with biological data, and the work is still in progress. Reference conditions have been established using a spatially based approach (including the use of historical data) and expert judgement.

For rivers, inter-calibration is still needed and the use of the European Fish Index (EFI) is under development. For non-permanent (temporary) streams, which represent 35% out of the total number of the WBs, due to their diversity and heterogeneity further hydrological differentiation followed by type-specific biological communities’ investigations might be needed. At the moment of elaboration of the 1st RBMP, the process of validation of abiotic typology through the investigation of biological elements for natural lakes and for reservoirs was in progress, and it will be finalised in the future. For transitional waters, expert judgement based on historical and monitoring data was used. European guidance’s were used for all 4 categories of SWBs. For coastal waters, expert judgement was based on historical and monitoring data; inter-calibration was performed between 2004 and 2007 for some biological communities and has continued after 2008.

The number of types for each water category: rivers – 20 types of water courses (4 temporary); lakes – 18 types of natural lakes, 14 types of reservoirs; transitional waters – 2 types; coastal waters – 2 types.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

Overall, Romania has designated 3399 SWBs. Of these, 3262 are river WBs.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

RO1000 || 3262 || 23 || 131 || 8 || 2 || 391 || 4 || 143 || 142 || 1857

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

The delineation of WBs is based on surface water category, typology, physical characteristics; additional criteria: water status, hydromorphological alterations. Biological criteria were added after 2008.

Small WBs (rivers with a catchment area < 10 km2; lakes smaller than 50 ha) were grouped into one WB as long as they were subject to the same pressures, were at the same status and of the same type. In some cases (small basins), the entire river was considered as one WB if it is not impacted, or if it is mainly influenced by a certain type of pressure (e.g. hydropower, water abstraction, agriculture, industry etc.).

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

In Romania the following pressures have been identified as having a significant impact on the WBs: point and diffuse pollution including land use and hydromorphological alterations. Future infrastructure projects, sources with high potential risk of contamination, fishery/aquaculture, sand and gravel extraction from the river bed and forestry have been identified as other types of pressures which could have a possible impact on WBs. 

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

RO1000 || 1914 || 56.31 || 260 || 7.65 || 1105 || 32.51 || 49 || 1.44 || 445 || 13.09 || 115 || 3.38 || 2 || 0.06 || 6 || 0.18 || 78 || 2.29

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

The analysis of pressures and impacts was done using the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) concept. The assessment of significant pressures was made based on the requirements of the European Directives and national regulations.

The criteria for point pollution sources are based on specific thresholds/criteria defined in the water related European Directives transposed into the national legislation (UWWTD, IPPC Directive; Dangerous Substances Directive).

Major diffuse pollution sources are considered: agglomerations without sewerage systems or with systems to collect and process the sewage sludge, agricultural farms without proper storage/use of animal wastes, settlements identified as vulnerable to nitrates from agriculture, industrial deposits, unproper waste storage systems, abandoned sites etc. The National Report in 2004 highlighted that the most important diffuse pollution sources are located in the vicinity of vulnerable and potentially vulnerable areas identified according to the Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC.

Both, point and diffuse pollution sources contribute to chemical pollution, major pressures being represented by human agglomerations, industry, agriculture and land use.

The types and size of hydromorphological pressures were defined based on recommendations of CIS Guidance No 3 - Pressures and Impacts (IMPRESS) and on the criteria of the Danube UNDP-GEF Regional Project that take into consideration the hydrotechnical works, pressure magnitude and the effect on ecosystems. Major hydromorphological pressures considered are dams, weirs, river regulations and embankments, river diversion, bank protection, waterways/channels, water abstraction/restitution, navigation, future infrastructure projects and other works which are executed at WBs level for different purposes.

4.5 Protected areas

In Romania, more than 2500 protected areas have been designated, according to information provided to WISE.

1879 of these areas are for drinking water abstraction under Act. 7 of the WFD.

RBD || Number of PAs[3]

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

RO1000 || 1879 || 35 || 106 || - || 12 || 213 || - || 381 || 42 || 4 || -

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[4]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring 5.1 General description of the monitoring network

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

All four surface water categories and groundwater are monitored in separate surveillance and operational programmes developed according to WFD requirements.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

RO1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

RO1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

RO1000 || 1263 || 547 || 434 || 228 || 12 || 12 || 42 || 42 || 2365 || 1224 || 3338

Total by type of site || 1263 || 547 || 434 || 228 || 12 || 12 || 42 || 42 || 2365 || 1224 || 3338

Total number of monitoring sites[5] || 1263 || 434 || 12 || 42 || 3397

Table 5.1.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category

Surv = Surveillance

Op = Operational

Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.2 Monitoring of surface waters

The relevant quality elements are included in the monitoring programme including the optional elements, except for QE 2-7 in transitional waters which is not relevant for transitional lake WBs. However, not all the parameters are currently measured at every surveillance site, as the monitoring programme is subject to the relevance of monitoring elements to the WB categories, types and associated pressures.

The monitoring programme is carried out on an annual basis and all monitoring sites were defined as surveillance points. The networks for surveillance and operational monitoring have overlaps. One monitoring site can belong to more than one surface water programme and one monitoring site can include more than one monitoring sub-sites. One WB may have one or more monitoring stations, but the quality elements have been monitored at the representative station.

The following description gives information on the biological quality elements monitored in the operational monitoring. It is however unclear how these have been chosen to detect existing pressures.

· Rivers

Phytoplankton: are monitored in all water courses, excluding those from mountainous areas with rapid flow and ample slopes where it is not a relevant quality element; phytobenthos: are monitored only in areas where the substrate allows its development and sampling; macrophytes: are monitored only in areas where the substrate allows its development and sampling; macrozoobenthos: in all river types; fish fauna: in all river types.

· Lakes

Phytoplankton: are monitored in all lake types, in the middle of the lake; phytobenthos: in all lake types; macrophytes: are monitored in all lake types where the substrate allows its development and sampling, but excluding those situated at high altitude (>2000 m); macrozoobenthos: are monitored in all lake types in littoral and eu-littoral areas; fish fauna: in all lake types.

· Reservoirs

Phytoplankton: are monitored at dam section and the middle of the lake; phytobenthos: are monitored only at dam section; macrophytes: are monitored in all reservoir types, but only in areas where the substrate allows its development and sampling; macrozoobenthos: are not monitored according to inter-calibration outcomes; fish fauna: are monitored at dam area and at the middle of the lake.

The above information is applied to the all water categories.

The list of monitored parameters and general information about the priority substances, specific and non-specific pollutants are provided; the substances included in WFD are monitored if the pollution sources include significant discharges of such substances.

Sediment and biota are monitored in all water categories. For both surveillance and operational monitoring, the sampling frequency is annually for sediment, while biota is sampled only in the operational programme (annually).

The WBs lacking monitoring sites were evaluated by considering the monitoring data obtained in a different WB with the same typology and anthropogenic pressure. Grouping was applied especially for rivers, where only 1263 sites are monitored out of the total 3262 WBs assessed. For lakes, transitional and coastal waters, the number of monitoring sites exceeds the number of the evaluated WBs.

The Romanian monitoring programme is established according to the CIS guidance No 7 on monitoring and is coordinated with the other countries in the Danube River Basin through ICPDR.

The total number of monitoring stations has changed since the 2007 report, the current monitoring program comprising 1263 sites for rivers, 434 for lakes, 12 for transitional waters and 42 for coastal waters.  

5.3 Monitoring of groundwater

For groundwater, the monitoring programmes include quantitative, chemical surveillance and chemical operational monitoring. The core parameters are monitored, while the monitoring of other pollutants is based on the pressure analysis. The monitoring programmes include groundwater level, oxygen content, pH value, conductivity, nitrate, ammonium and other pollutants.

The monitoring of chemical status is referenced against natural background levels. The monitoring is able to detect trends. Trends were assessed using the monitoring datasets recorded between 2004 and 2008. 

The monitoring of the transboundary groundwater is performed by the countries using ICPDR approaches. The harmonization process with third countries on the river basin (Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia) is under development.

5.4 Monitoring of protected areas

There is no specific monitoring programme of drinking water protected areas (DWPAs), but the operational and surveillance monitoring includes sites dedicated to Article 7 for rivers, lakes and transitional waters monitoring (the coastal waters are not subject to drinking water abstraction): 99 sites ensure the monitoring of surface DWPAs. The situation is similar regarding GWBs, where the monitoring of DWPAs is included in the quantitative, chemical surveillance and chemical operational monitoring programs for GWBs. The total number of groundwater monitoring sites associated with drinking water abstraction is 105.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

RO1000 || 67 || 99* || 0 || 168 || 192 || 231 || 610 || 18 || 0 || 105

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring sites in protected areas[6]

Note: *Number of monitoring sites reported at programme level.

Source: WISE and RO

There are significant differences with the 2007 data presented in the 2009 Commission WFD Implementation Report, where 249 sites were mentioned under the Birds Directive, 113 under the Drinking Water Directive, 313 under Fish, 301 under Nitrates and 97 under Groundwater.

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

64% of all SWBs in Romania have been assessed as being at good or better ecological status. Only less than 2% of the SWBs are assessed as being of poor or bad ecological status.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

RO1000 || 2791 || 145 || 5.2 || 1647 || 59.0 || 946 || 33.9 || 34 || 1.2 || 19 || 0.7 || 0 || 0

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

RO1000 || 608 || 0 || 0 || 228 || 37.5 || 373 || 61.3 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0.2 || 6 || 1.0

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

For over 93% of Romania’s SWBs are assessed as being of good chemical status and only less than 7% being of poor chemical status, according to the information reported to WISE.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

RO1000 || 2791 || 2619 || 93.8 || 172 || 6.2 || 0 || 0

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

RO1000 || 608 || 546 || 89.8 || 56 || 9.2 || 6 || 1.0

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

Romania has reported that 87% of its GWBs have good chemical status while 13% of them are of poor status. All GWBs have been assessed.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

RO1000 || 142 || 123 || 86.6 || 19 || 13.4 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

All GWBs are assessed at good quantitative status according to Romania’s reporting. All GWBs have been assessed.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

RO1000 || 142 || 142 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

In total nearly 60% of Romania’s SWBs were assessed as being of good status in 2009; according to the information reported to WISE the number of good status SWBs is expected to increase by 4.7% in 2015.

86% of the GWBs were assessed as being of good status in 2009. There is no improvement expected in Romania by 2015. 

 

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

RO1000 || 3399 || 2008 || 59.1 || 2167 || 63.8 || 4.7 || || || || || || || || || 36 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[7]

Water bodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Water bodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Water bodies with unknown/unclassified/not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

RO1000 || 2791 || 1792 || 64.2 || 1891 || 67.8 || 3.5 || || || || || 32.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[8]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

RO1000 || 2791 || 2619 || 93.8 || 2634 || 94.4 || 0.5 || || || || || 5.7 || 0.04 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[9]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

RO1000 || 142 || 123 || 86.6 || 123 || 86.6 || 0 || || || || || 13 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[10]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

RO1000 || 142 || 142 || 100 || 142 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[11]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

RO1000 || 608 || 228 || 37.5 || 281 || 46.2 || 8.7 || || || || || 51.8 || 1.6 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[12]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

RO1000 || 608 || 546 || 89.8 || 561 || 92.3 || 2.5 || || || || || 6.3 || 0.8 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[13]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

The Romanian RBMP was elaborated in accordance with the DRBMP coordinated by the ICPDR. Significant progress has been made since the former reporting in 2007, the majority of the methods are being developed.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

Limited number of methods have been applied in the first RBMPs. Romanian authorities clarified in 2012 the results of the 2nd phase of inter-calibration and the methods under development.

The assessment methodology is not fully developed for all of the Biological Quality Elements (BQEs).

For rivers, WFD compliant assessment methods have been applied in the 1st RBMP for phytoplankton, macroinvertebrates and fish. As regards the macroinvertebrates and fish, the results of IC Exercise-Phase 2 have been included recently in the assessment methods.

Regarding the development of WFD compliant assessment methods for other biological quality elements, there was some progress since the finalization of the first RBMPs:

· The assessment system for phytobenthos has been developed (without being validated) after the finalization of the RBMP, and it was not applied in the 1st RBMP in progress at reporting time.

· The macrophytes method has not yet been developed, but data collection is on-going.

For lakes, a partial WFD compliant assessment method has been applied in the 1st RBMP.

In the last 2 years, the method for phytoplankton assessment in lakes was improved and a new method for phytobenthos has been developed, without being validated.

For macrophytes, the Hungarian assessment method for the evaluation of ecological status of natural lakes is going to be tested and used. For macrophytes and fish fauna data collection is on-going.

In the case of transitional waters, the data collection for angiosperms and macroalgae is on-going, but the assessment method is not yet developed. In the RBMP for fish assessment a partially WFD compliant method has been applied.

In the case of coastal waters, phytoplankton WFD compliant method has been used in the frame of 1st RBMP and thereafter improved and tested in the 2nd phase of the EU Inter-calibration exercise. For macroinvertebrates, the WFD compliant method has been used in the frame of 1st RBMP and within the Phase 2 of Inter-calibration the method was further developed and is pending finalization and validation. 

In the frame of the 2nd Phase of Inter-calibration, the Bulgarian assessment method for macroalgae and angiosperms was undertaken and will be tested further. The data collection for angiosperms and macroalgae is on-going.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

RO1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs and RO

It is not clear if the biological assessment methods are able to detect major pressures.

Standards have been set for some of the physio-chemical parameters used for the assessment of ecological status. In rivers, they comprise temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, nutrients (NH4, NO2, NO3, PO4, Total P), salinity and total N missing; in lakes, only dissolved oxygen and total P are considered, while the rest are missing; in transitional and coastal waters transparency, dissolved oxygen, oxygen saturation, BOD5, salinity, pH, nutrients (NH4, NO2, NO3, PO4, SiO4) are considered, while temperature, total N and total P are missing.

The hydromorphological elements are developed almost fully in rivers: water flow, river depth and width variation, structure and substrate of the river bed, structure of riparian zone; connection to GWB and river continuity yet to be measured. For lakes, they are developed for water flow, connectivity with GWB, dredging coefficient, structure of lake shore, coefficient of embankment, however, connectivity to GWB and structure of the lake shore are yet to be measured. For transitional and coastal waters, hydromorphological QEs are sediment parameters (sand, silt, clay), wave regime, the influence of Danube hydrological regime (or the marine/coastal currents and the return currents in case of CW). However, not all QEs are measured yet (quantity, structure and substrate of bed, wave exposure).

It is not clear how hydromorphological QEs are linked to the ecological status assessment.

The analysis of point and diffuse pollution sources reveals the existence of river basin specific pollutants at national level. In rivers and lakes, the assessment of the ecological status took into consideration the concentrations of Zn, Cu, As, Cr, toluene, acenapthene, xylen, phenols, PCB, while in transitional and coastal waters, the heavy metals, total hydrocarbons, PAHs, organo-chlorinated pesticides were considered. It is however unclear if EQS values have been developed according to the methodology of WFD Annex V 1.2.6.

The one-out-all-out principle has been applied to derive the overall ecological status.

The methodology developed according to the WFD was implemented after the first inter-calibration exercise; a reduced number of BQEs were used to assess the ecological status (and ecological potential) – hence, the confidence of the assessment was medium and low. The status assessment was presented in details consisting of ecological status/potential and chemical status on WB level. Indication on the spatial variability is provided in the Romanian National Management Plan; the evaluation of the global status (consisting of ecological status/ecological potential and chemical status) was done based on the monitoring data from the surveillance and operational programmes, based on WBs aggregation and based on risk analysis regarding the failure to achieve the environmental objectives; the WBs that are not at risk were considered in good status, while those at risk were considered in moderate status.

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

Although most of the relevant QEs are monitored, their integration in the ecological status assessment, as explained in the previous section, is still under development and has not been applied in the ecological status assessment.

The selection of river basin specific pollutants was based on the pollution sources that could generate these types of substances and on a sufficient monitoring database – available at the time – correlated with the ecotoxicological profile of each individual pollutant.

Based on this methodology, the following pollutants have been identified as national river basin specific pollutants: PCB, Zn, Cu, Toluene, Acenaphtene, As, Cr, Phenols and Xylene.

In the meantime a methodology has been developed for two more other specific pollutants: cyanide (total form) and anionic detergents, which will apply in the next RBMP.

In general, the most sensitive BQEs have been selected for the operational monitoring. However, since the methodology developed according to the WFD was implemented after the first intercalibration exercise, a reduced number of BQEs was used to assess the ecological status/potential. The integration of the missing elements after the inter-calibration exercise is expected to increase the confidence level of the assessment. 

7.3 River basin specific pollutants

RBD || CAS Number || Substance

RO1000 || 83-32-9 || Acenaphthene

RO1000 || 7440-38-2 || Arsenic and its compounds

RO1000 || || BOD5

RO1000 || 7440-47-3 || Chromium and its compounds

RO1000 || || COD-Cr

RO1000 || 7440-50-8 || Copper and its compounds

RO1000 || 72-54-8 || DDD

RO1000 || 72-55-9 || DDE

RO1000 || 64743-03-9 || Phenols

RO1000 || || Total N

RO1000 || || Total P

RO1000 || 7440-66-6 || Zinc and its compounds

Table 7.3.1: River basin specific pollutants causing failure of status

Source: RBMPs

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial water bodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

15 % of the total number of WBs being designated as HMWBs, while for the AWBs 3%.

Water body || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional waters || Coastal waters || Total

Nb. || % || Nb || % || Nb. || % || Nb. || % || Nb. || %

HMWB || 500 || 15.3 || 11 || 8.4 || - || - || 2 || 50 || 513 || 15

AWB || 94 || 2.9 || 1 || 0.8 || - || - || - || - || 95 || 3

Natural || 2668 || 81.8 || 119 || 90.8 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 50 || 2791 || 82

Total || 3262 || 100 || 131 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 3399 || 100

Table 8.1.1: Number of heavily modified, artificial and natural surface water bodies that have been designated in Romania

Source: WISE

The water uses that led to the designation of HMWBs are: drinking water storage, power generation, irrigation, water regulation, fishery, flood protection and navigation. Water regulation and embankments along rivers mainly provide the role of flood protection and support navigation. These uses induced physical modifications such as: weirs/dams, reservoirs, channelization, riverbed stabilisation, bank reinforcement, embankment, dredging, channel maintenance coastal modifications, ports, etc. 

The designation followed the complete stepwise approach as described in CIS Guidance N° 4. A WB was designated as HMWB or AWB if it is not in good ecological status as a consequence of hydromorphological alterations. There are clear criteria used to define significant adverse effects on the use: shift from river to lake; length of the affected river section (> 1 km for rivers with catchment <1000 km2, > 2 km for rivers with catchment > 1000 km2); ratio of the lentic length/total length (> 50%);  regulation/bank consolidation (> 70% of the WB); hydropeaking (> 50% of the WB);  high frequency of sills (> 2km); presence of dams/reservoirs with different uses (energy, irrigation, drinking water, flood protection, fish ponds).

The designation of HMWB or AWB was based on the evaluation of the ecological status and its alteration due to hydromorphological changes, according to WFD Art. 4.3. The ecological status of the Danube WBs was evaluated with medium confidence, except for the dams at Iron Gates I and II where there is a clear-cut situation (change from river to lake). The assessment of the ecological potential has in general low confidence level, only macroinvertebrates were considered in the evaluation for rivers, and also phytoplankton for reservoirs. The designation system still requires adaptation to the European Inter-calibration exercise for East-Continental Region and the inter-calibration initiated in 2009 for large rivers.

A screening process of alternative options took place in the process of designation of HMWB, in most cases no alternative, technically feasible being identified due to the multiple uses of the facilities.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

GEP was defined based on the evaluation of the BQEs. Where there were no WFD compliant assessment methods, expert judgement was used. The reference-based approach (CIS Guidance) was used and all the steps have been followed. The class limits are given for maximum, good, moderate ecological potential, mitigation measure families and their efficiency are mentioned in the RBMPs. Only few BQEs were used (mostly macroinvertebrates) to derive the Maximum Ecological Potential (MEP), due to the lack of data.

The methodology for setting GEP is WB specific. Different limits were set for rivers, natural lakes, reservoirs and coastal waters; where monitoring data was missing, the WBs were aggregated by altitude (mountain, hill, plain).

Some alternative measures were suggested in order to release the pressure of the current water uses, such as: replace navigation with other transportation, move recreation facilities or limit the use during a certain time interval, replace surface with groundwater abstraction, replace hydropower generation with other types of renewable energy, creation of ecological farms or reduction of activities near the WB and establishment of a buffer area.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

In Romania, 18.2% of the river WBs, 9.2 % of the lakes and 50% of the coastal waters are classified as HMWBs and AWBs. Their ecological potential ranges from 38.2% good to 60.8% moderate for river sections (1 % could not be classified), to 8.3% good and 91.7% moderate for lakes, and from 25% moderate to 25% bad for coastal waters.

Although the confidence level is currently low, after the finalisation of the inter-calibration exercise, it is expected that the confidence level of further assessments will increase. 

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

The evaluation of chemical status was based on the values included in Annex I of the Directive 2008/105/EC. The relevant QEs are included in the monitoring programme; the substances included in WFD Annex X WFD are monitored if the pollution sources include significant discharges of these kinds of substances.

The priority substances in water have been used in the assessment of the chemical status.

Background concentrations were considered in the assessment of compliance with the EQS.

There is no information provided that bioavailability factors have been used.

For the current reporting, mixing zones have not been used.

The RBMP provided information on specific substances causing failures to achieve good chemical status.

CAS Number || Substance || WBs failing good chemical status (no) || WBs failing good chemical status (%)

7440-43-9 || Cadmium || 154 || 4.53

7439-92-1 || Lead || 123 || 3.61

7439-97-6 || Mercury || 27 || 0.79

7440-02-0 || Nickel || 89 || 2.62

15972-60-8 || Alachlor || 1 || 0.03

1912-24-9 || Atrazine || 8 || 0.23

608-73-1 || Hexachlorocyclohexane || 1 || 0.03

608-93-5 || Pentachlorobenzene || 1 || 0.03

1582-09-8 || Trifluralin || 1 || 0.03

120-12-7 || Anthracene || 11 || 0.32

91-20-3 || Naphthalene || 4 || 0.12

67-66-3 || Trichloromethane || 3 || 0.09

309-00-2 || Aldrin || 11 || 0.32

60-57-1 || Dieldrin || 8 || 0.24

72-20-8 || Endrin || 8 || 0.24

465-73-6 || Isodrin || 2 || 0.06

50-29-3 || para-para-DDT || 28 || 0.82

206-44-0 || Fluoranthene || 5 || 0.15

18-74-1 || Hexachlorobenzene || 6 || 0.18

87-86-5 || Pentachlorophenol || 3 || 0.09

50-32-8 || Benzo(a)pyrene || 7 || 0.21

205-99-2 || Benzo(b)fluoranthene || 19 || 0.56

207-08-9 || Benzo(k)fluoranthene || 20 || 0.59

191-24-2 || Benzo(g,h,i)perylene || 18 || 0.53

193-39-5 || Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene || 11 || 0.32

Table 9.1.1: Substances responsible for WBs failing good chemical status

Source: WISE

10. Assessment of groundwater status

In Romania 142 GWBs were delineated. About 73% of the GWBs are interlinked with SWBs.

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

The assessment of the quantitative status was done using the following criteria: hydrological balance, connectivity with surface waters, influence on terrestrial ecosystems dependent on the GWB, saline intrusion.

The long term (10 years) trend of the piezometric level was taken into consideration: if no significant decreases were noticed, the quantitative status of GWB was considered as good. The level of abstraction is exceeded by the natural recharge capacity everywhere, all GWBs were assessed in good quantitative status.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

19 out of the 142 GWBs monitored in this RBD are in poor chemical status; the pollutants causing failure to acheive good chemical status are Nitrates (17 WBs) and Ammonium (14 WBs). 

The evaluation of the chemical status was done by comparing the monitoring values recorded between 2006-2007, to the threshold values and quality standards laid down in the Directive 2006/118/EC.

Surface waters associated to groundwater and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were considered in the chemical status assessment. The list of SWB and terrestrial ecosystems dependent on GWB is also presented.

The pollutants considered for threshold value (TVs) establishment were nitrates, nitrites, ammonium, phosphates, chlorides, sulphates, lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic. The methodology for the establishment was presented in the RBMP, it is based on drinking water standards. Natural background levels (NBLs) were considered. Due to the lack of monitoring data, for some of the indicators mentioned above it was not possible to establish the NBL and TV. There is a methodology provided for threshold value exceedances. 

The trends were assessed using the monitoring datasets recorded between 2004 and 2008. From the 19 GWBs, poor status pollutant trends is decreasing for 4 GWBs, while for 15 of them the trends are increasing.

Romania has 17 transboundary GWBs and agreements are in place for 8 GWBs (4 with Hungary, 2 with Bulgaria, 1 with Serbia, 1 with Moldova). For the remaining GWBs bilateral agreements are pending.

10.3 Protected areas

The status of GWBs associated to drinking water protected areas was not assessed, all the 1423 DWPAs being considered as unknown status. Several organizations are responsible with the collection/processing of these data in Romania (NARW, Ministry of Health, private operators).Due to the different data formats used by the involved organizations, a homogenous data basis could not be established and analysed for the 2009 reporting. 

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

Water category || Total number of WBs || Ecological status || Chemical status || Exemptions

Good or high || Moderate or worse || Unknown || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown || Subject to any exempt. of any kind || Subject to a 4.4 exempt. of any kind || Subject to a 4.5 exempt. of any kind

River WBs || 3262 || 1999 || 1257 || 6 || 3110 || 146 || 6 || 1129 || 1119 || 9

Lake WBs || 131 || 21 || 110 || 0 || 55 || 76 || 0 || 107 || 107 || 0

Transitional WBs || 2 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 0

Coastal WBs || 4 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 4 || 2 || 3

Table 11.1: Status of surface water bodies and exemptions in Romania

Source: WISE

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

It is not clear if additional objectives for protected areas have been defined. Additional measures to conserve the habitats and species directly linked to water and additional measures, and costs to diminish the impact of pollutants and improve water status are presented in the RBMP, however, the supplementary/additional measures presented in WISE are general, not linked with protected areas, although some of them will have a positive effect (e.g. floodplains restoration, new WWTPs, etc.).

Some additional measures are included in other programs: sturgeon (Acipenseridae) populations are protected by fishing prohibition (2006-2016), restocking and aquaculture. Several PHARE and LIFE projects complement the measures from the RBMP to implement the Birds and Habitats Directives: raising public awareness, monitoring species and habitats, drafting management plans for Natura 2000 protected areas, developing a national data basis regarding the protected species and habitats of community interest etc.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

The impacts that led to the use of exemptions refer mostly to hydromorphological alterations, the WBs designated as HMWB or AWB being exempted due to technical feasibility reasons or disproportionate costs; for other WBs, the diffuse pollution or point source pollution is targeted (improving of sewage system and connectivity to wastewater treatment plants is planned at a later stage as for Romania the full implementation of UWWT Directive is in 2018).

The exemptions according to Article 4.4 were applied due to technical feasibility, disproportionate costs and natural conditions, while Article 4.5 was applied for technical feasibility and disproportionate costs.

Regarding Article 4.4 technical feasibility was applied for basic measures (if they cannot be implemented by the end of 2012) and supplementary measures (for WBs that cannot reach the environmental objectives by 2015). Article 4.4 disproportionate cost was applied for supplementary measures (for WBs that cannot reach the environmental objectives by 2015). Article 4.5 (technical feasibility, disproportionate costs) was applied for WBs where measures to reach the environmental objectives cannot be applied. The transition period for the implementation of the UWWT Directive was taken into account (Article 4.4 - technical feasibility applied for basic measures).

Disproportionate costs in the frame of RBMP were relevant exclusively for supplementary measures, grouped in measures related to human agglomerations, industry, hydromorphology and agriculture. The evaluation the benefits of all supplementary measures have been done in a qualitative manner. Quantitative data was taken into account in cases where an evaluation of direct benefit (cost-income) was possible. Total estimated costs (direct & indirect), an estimated ratio of benefit and cost, and an estimated monetary benefit and global benefit in 2015 are also presented in the RBMP.

The results of Cost Benefit Analysis were used as a basis of discussion with stakeholders, in the way that if the benefit was accepted as exceeding the costs and these costs are financially accepted, then the environmental objective could be reached. Disproportionality Analysis was also developed.

During this stage the approach related to disproportionate costs was treated in a qualitative manner. It is expected to complete the analysis with studies which will lead to a clear quantified ratio between costs and benefits and implicitly to define if a cost is disproportionate or not.

Only 35% of the proposed works related to exemptions that was planned to be financed from the state/local budget has been approved due to national and local budget constraints.

Alternative funding was foreseen (SAPARD, ISPA, PHARE, cohesion funds, structural funds, etc.); however, it is not clear if this funding will be used to overcome disproportionate costs of some measures or to fulfil supplementary measures.

The technical infeasibility was applied when no technical solutions were available or they were inefficient, when a longer time was needed than the one available, if the supplementary measures are not implemented by 22/12/2012 and the environmental objectives will be reached after 2015. Some supplementary measures require a longer time for implementation such as: the application of best agricultural practices (BAP) in farms or non-vulnerable areas, best available techniques (BAT) for non-IPPC units, establishing buffer zones along rivers to reduce the pesticides pollution, application of organic agriculture, reduce soil erosion, perform research studies, awareness raising campaigns. Although the measure is going to be implemented, the effect will be visible only in a few years.

RBD || Global[14]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

RO1000 || 1211 || 7 || 66 || 5 || 22 || -

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.1.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

No exemption under Article 4.6 was used in Romania.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

Navigation projects in the Romanian sector have not been included as Article 4(7) projects in the National Management Plan – The Synthesis of River Basin Management Plan or Dobrogea-Litoral RBMP having in view that at the reporting time, the project implementation was uncertain.

Three infrastructure projects are mentioned as exempted under Article 4.7: two concerning navigation on inland waterways that aim to improve navigation along 700 km of the Danube River, that will impact the WBs by the construction of sills, channelization, and closure of side arms. Some other multiple purposes, future infrastructure projects in various stages of planning and implementation were also proposed in the RBMP without a reference to Article 4.7.

The navigation projects were not properly justified, as the potential impacts are not described, and the justification for the overriding public interest or the cost and benefit weighting have not been included, as well as the assessment of possible better environmental option and the mitigation measures.

The Romanian authorities claim that for the 2nd RBMP the navigation projects in the Romanian section of the Danube will be reanalysed in relation to the provisions of WFD Article 4.7, taking also into account the results of the monitoring programme for the environmental impact of the works. The navigation projects will be finalized by the end of 2015 and the report on the impacted WBs will be done in later cycles.

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

Exemptions were made under Article 4.4 (technical feasibility) due to the fact that basic measures that will be implemented by the end of 2012 will not produce significant effects by 2015. Most of the pollution sources for groundwater are represented by non-sewered households and connected to the derogation of Romania concerning the implementation of UWWT Directive; some supplementary measures should be developed during the next cycles; in some cases reasons are not specified.

19 GWBs are in poor chemical status and are exempted under Art.4(4). 

No exemptions were reported in drinking water protected areas.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[15] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

The PoM was defined based on status assessment and was in line with the ICPDR approach based on the pressure analysis undertaken in 2009, when nutrient, organic and hazardous substances pollution together with hydromorphological alterations were identified as Significant Water Management Issues at basin level. 

The Joint Program of Measures (JPM) includes measures of basin-wide importance oriented towards the agreed visions and management objectives for 2015. The JPM represents more than a list of national measures, as the effect of national measures on the Danube basin-wide scale is also estimated and presented. Specific measures to restore river continuity, to reduce the pollution loads with nutrients, organic and hazardous substances are included in the JPM. 

In Romania the measures at sub-basin or WB levels are addressed in the 11 specific sub-basin management plans.

The National Administration Romanian Waters is responsible for the monitoring of the implementation of the PoM, as well as for reporting the implementation status, but other national authorities are contributing to the implementation as well: Local Public Administration, Local Water-Sewage companies (state owned or private business), drinking water producers and distributors, farmers, industrial and agro-industrial facilities etc. The regional authorities are responsible for the implementation of measures at county level. The Ministry of Health, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration, Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development ensure the coordination/control of the implementation process of the PoM.

The costs of measures have been identified and the financing sources are planned and detailed at sub-basin levels; in total, 25.33% are European funds (cohesion, ISPA, PHARE, SAPARD, SAMTID), 46.22% are funds from the local and state budgets, 28.56% are own resources and loans of water users. From the total cost of PoM (€22.992 billion), for around 29% (€6 billion) of the costs, financing sources should be identified on a later stage.

Different deadlines are foreseen for the implementation such as: 2012, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2021 or 2027 (e.g. the measures to implement the UWWT Directive will be operational by 2018).

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Agriculture is considered as one of the main sources of point and diffuse pollution with nutrients, organic and hazardous substances due to the presence of animal farms without waste recycling/storage capacity, non-sewered households, use of fertilizers or pesticides, etc. Significant pressure due to water abstraction for irrigation is reported for some sub-basins.

During the public consultation period, the RBMP was discussed with the relevant stakeholders during the meetings organized by the Basin Committees and made available for comments. Some of the measures suggested during this process were integrated in the RBMP, such as: deadlines readjustment, new measures included, and coordination with other policy fields. It is assumed that the farmers were significantly involved in that consultation.

Concerning the scope of the measures, in general, the measures refer to specific areas.

No specific information is provided regarding the timing of implementation.

The costs of the measures have been identified. In general, the funding is ensured through farmers associations/agricultural units own sources, the Rural Development programme, the national project on nutrient pollution control and local authorities’ funds.

Measures || RO1000

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ü

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü

Measures against soil erosion || ü

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü

Technical measures for water saving || ü

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover ||

Co-operative agreements ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators ||

Nutrient trading ||

Fertiliser taxation ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü

Institutional changes ||

Codes of agricultural practice || ü

Farm advice and training || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making ||

Certification schemes ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) ||

Specific action plans/programmes ||

Land use planning ||

Technical standards ||

Specific projects related to agriculture ||

Environmental permitting and licensing ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

The RBMP presents the measures that should be taken in WBs that risk to fail the environmental objectives; in general, they focus on restoring lateral and longitudinal connectivity and are presented below.

However, in view of the threats posed by climate change some other measures are needed in areas affected by droughts (e.g. the Southern part of Romania and Dobrogea), such as: reconnection of side arms for the Lower Danube, construction of retention basins, operational modifications for hydropeaking and reduction or modification of dredging.

General considerations regarding the expected positive effects on habitat and biota are presented, but there is no specific remark on how these measures will improve the ecological status/potential.

The supplementary measures include actions addressed to floodplain restoration, restoring lateral and longitudinal connectivity, improvement of hydrological conditions of channels and habitat restoration (leading to improved environmental conditions in Natura 2000 protected areas), diversification of bank structure, creation of buffer strips along some river sections to decrease diffuse pollution.

A series of hydromorphological measures are planned, but it is not clear if they will be applied also on HMWBs; only indirect information given: restoring the natural habitat along some river sections, constructing fish passages, hydrotechnical works to meliorate water circulation along some Danube Delta channels, improving hydrological regime downstream reservoirs, etc.

For the first RBMP cycle there are no guidelines for defining the ecologically based flow regime; the national Water Law requires that the hydrotechnical operators (dams, abstraction points, reservoirs)  provide the necessary flow downstream according to the water uses and the ecological needs; however, at the moment there is no legal instrument in Romania to define the ecological flow. For the RBMP, based on different studies, the consideration of minimum flow was not ecologically based, but further studies are envisaged to link the ecological flow with biota’s response and detect the optimum values according to specific situations. Some supplementary measures were considered in the PoM targeting the establishment of the ecological flow downstream of different reservoirs.

Measures || RO1000

Fish ladders || ü

Bypass channels ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü

Sediment/debris management || ü

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms ||

Lowering of river banks ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ü

Operational modifications for hydropeaking ||

Inundation of flood plains || ü

Construction of retention basins ||

Reduction or modification of dredging ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || ü

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

The major pressures and risks considered in the RBMP are diffuse and point source pollution. Therefore, preventive measures were addressed, such as: prohibition of direct discharges of pollutants into GW, prior regulation of point sources discharges liable to cause pollution, measures to prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical installations and prevent/reduce the impact of accidental pollution incidents, modernization of the WWTPs by introducing a new step, extension of aeration procedure in the biological step, amelioration of effluent quality, installation of automatic monitoring system of waste water quality, neutralizing the mining waters before discharge, closing mining areas and apply the code for good practices in agriculture to limit the pesticides pollution etc.

The quantitative status of the evaluated GWBs was good, and therefore, no basic or supplementary measures were considered since the abstraction rate is lower than the natural recharge of aquifers.

General supplementary measures are considered, targeting the 19 GWBs with poor chemical status (sewerage systems for agglomerations < 2000 inhabitants, use of action plans and code of good practices in agriculture in non-vulnerable areas, use of organic agriculture etc). In some sub-basins specific measures are included in the PoM: supplementary monitoring of hazardous/priority substances lists in SW, GW and waste waters, studies regarding the ecological reconstruction of former mining areas, evaluation of the annual load of contaminants and their impact on water quality; rehabilitation of WWTPs, ecological reconstruction of polluted areas. Although not clearly linked, the supplementary measures target a reduction of pollution sources, aiming to improve the quality of the affected GWBs.

From the analysis of the transboundary GWBs no coordination was found with Ukraine; agreements are established only for part of the transboundary GWBs with Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria and Moldova. Coordination at international level was ensured under ICPDR guidance for 8 GWBs considered of transboundary importance.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

The RBMP presents the major sources of point and diffuse pollution at basin level, these sources being under continuous monitoring. Other pressures are considered as well, such as: the sources presenting potential of accidental pollution, fishery/aquaculture activities, gravel exploitation directly from the river bed and forestry that may impact also water quality and could represent a source of chemical pollution. The substances envisaged are nutrients, organic and priority/hazardous substances, according to WFD requirements.

The basic measures of the PoM address: reduction of pollution with priority substances and other substances in SWs, prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause pollution, measures to prevent pollution from diffuse sources (agriculture, industry, households), prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater, prevention of significant losses of pollutants from technical installations and prevent/reduce the impact of accidental pollution incidents; besides the basic measures, supplementary and additional measures address point and diffuse pollution, such as: construction of wastewater treatment plants, raising public awareness, habitat restoration to enhance the purification function of natural ecosystems, etc. Coordinated measures for the reduction of organic, nutrient and hazardous substances pollution are presented in the Danube RBMP (ICPDR - Joint Program of Measures).

Substance specific measures are addressed in the sub-basin management plans, such as: prevent/reduce significant losses of contaminants from technical installations, improved sewage connection of human agglomerations, floodplain restoration, creation of buffer strips along rivers etc. For heavy metals, closure of waste deposits, construction of retention basins or modernization of waste water treatment facilities are envisaged; for organic contaminants (chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, pentachlorophenol, hexachlorobutadiene), modernization of waste water treatment, extension of sewage system to connect to the industrial sewage system or stabilization of waste deposits are foreseen. 

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

As it is mentioned in the National Management Plan, the Governmental Decision no. 803/2008, specify water management activities, which are defined as public services such as: water resource storage, impoundment, allocation, regulation and flood protection. There are also following water services reported in RBMP: water supply, waste water collection and treatment for household, industry and agriculture connected to the drinking water supply and sewerage /waste water treatment plant centralized network. The use of the water resources by hydropower, navigation, abstraction, irrigation, industry, agriculture etc. are part of specific water management activities, defined as public services which are based on the cost recovery principle.

Water uses are broadly defined in the National Management Plan in relation with the type of water resource:

· surface water: economical operators (household and others), public and cultural institutions, industrial and agro-technical units, hydropower and thermo energy operators, lock services, irrigations; aquaculture.

· groundwater: industrial operators; households, public and cultural institutions and other users of groundwater, aquaculture, agricultural operators.

There is little information on how water pricing policies in Romania provide incentives for users to use water resources efficiently. Regarding the quantitative protection of water resource the incentives used are the penalties according to the Water Law. Regarding the qualitative protection of water resource the internalised environmental cost is reflected into the final tariff for waste water treatment/sewerage services and concerns waste water release to WBs. The economic incentives applied for water quality protection are penalties and bonuses based on the types of indicators (general chemical, specific, toxic and very toxic, bacteriological and physical). No information concerning metering, volumetric charging or efficiency promoting tariffs within different water uses has been provided.

Cost recovery is calculated covering only financial costs:

· the cost related to water resource administration;

· the proper cost for drinking water supply and sewerage/waste water treatment services;

· cost related to receiving pollutants and costs related to prevention of quality damage.

The cost recovery for public services of water supply/sewage is based on consumers’ contributions; the difference being due to the development and profit quota established according to the law. The investment costs were estimated based on the 27 County Master Programmes accepted (7 were still in progress at the end of 2009), of the programmes and projects, and on the cost recovery methodology elaborated by the National Administration Romanian Waters. To estimate the investment, maintenance and operational costs, a data basis of unitary prices was created in order to allocate the budget for different measures; the prices were estimated based on similar infrastructure projects from Romania or other countries; the basic prices correspond to 2008 year.

It is stated that financial cost of recovery is 100%. As it is reported that cross subsidies between water services (drinking water supply, wastewater sewerage and treatment) do not exists it means that the contribution of different water uses (households and industry) is also 100%.

Externalities regarding the environmental and resource costs were not calculated and taken into account within the cost recovery calculation. However some environmental costs concerning water quality (waste water release by industry, agriculture, households) are internalised through the penalties system.

Polluter pays principle is partially respected through the recovery of financial costs of water services and internalisation of some environmental costs (related to water quality). Polluter pays principle concerns households and industry connected to the drinking water supply and sewerage /waste water treatment plant centralized network, and also all users which discharge waste water into the water resource.

Romanian authorities reported that economic and social effects of cost recovery were taken into account at national level.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

The supplementary/additional measures are general and not linked to protected areas although some of them will have a positive effect (e.g. floodplains restoration, new WWTPs, etc.).

Some additional measures to comply with Birds, Habitats and Freshwater Fish Directives are mentioned in the RBMP: the sturgeon (Acipenseridae) populations are protected by fishing prohibition (2006-2016), restocking and aquaculture; several PHARE and LIFE projects compliment the RBMP measures with raising public awareness, monitoring species and habitats, drafting management plans for Natura 2000 protected areas, developing a national data basis regarding the protected species and habitats of community interest, etc.

Although the measures are not specifically presented, it is mentioned that in the protected areas for water abstraction some additional measures are required to restrict activities and oblige land owners in order to avoid the risk of contamination. Indeed property rights allow only 60% of Romanian drinking water abstraction points to be protected by safeguard zones. In the rest of the cases protection measures are imposed on land owners by the competent authorities.

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts and flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Some areas located in the southern part of Romania, Dobrodgea area (border of the Black Sea and Danube Delta) and part of the Central Moldavian Plateau are exposed to water scarcity and droughts.

Water scarcity and droughts were presented in general concerning the legislative status, developed strategies and further implementation. They were addressed more in the general context of climate change and less in terms of vulnerability of water resources.

Technical details have not been presented in the River Basin Management Plans since they are included in the River Basin Development Plans. The River Basin Development Plans together with the River Basin Management Plans form the River Basin Development and Management Schemes, according to the Water Law.

The River Basin Development Plans developed after approval of the River Basin Management Plans contains information regarding the influence of the drought on water resources and the pressures on water resources directly related to overexploitation of water that exceeds the resources available in certain areas.

The National Strategy regarding the Mitigation of Drought effects and Prevention of land degradation and Desertification includes measures that allow the management of emergency situations generated by hydrological droughts. Each river basin includes a plan of restricted water use, updated and approved in 2009, that comprises an information warning system of the population and economic users, all the water uses (used discharge + minimum required discharge), control sections along water courses where different situations are envisaged (normal phase, warning phase, restriction phase).

Datasets and trend scenarios were not considered in the first RBMP cycle, the topic was treated at general level in the national RBMP and ICPDR Danube RBMP as it was not considered a Significant Water Management Issue at the analysis in 2004.

Details about water demand and trend scenarios for 2010-2020 period are presented. The balance between water availability and the expected trends for water demand shows no deficit at Member State level or in the 11 sub-basins; there are only few deficitary river sections in Prut - Bârlad basin that should be carefully considered in the future.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods were addressed in the context of climate change adaptation and coordination with ICPDR regarding flood protection measures is indicated. At sub-basin level the requirements of the Floods Directive are integrated and will be implemented through the National Strategy of Flood Risk Management on medium and long term, adopted in 2010.

The SEE Floodrisk project, currently developed along the Danube River, will contribute to mitigate the risk of floods in the Middle and Lower Danube and support the implementation of the Floods Directive.

The study 'Ecological and economic redimensioning of the Lower Danube Floodplain in Romania' analyses the possibility of restoring part of the Danube floodplains as a measure to mitigate the impact of the lost lateral connectivity and create retention basins for flood protection.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

The evidence of climate change in RO is presented based on research projects results (CLAVIER, CECILIA, ENSEMBLES, CIRCLE); however, the impact is only briefly described. The prognosis of climate models shows that by 2050 the precipitation level is expected to decrease by 20% in the southern part of Romania.

The RBMP was elaborated in coordination with the National Strategy for Climate Change (2005-2007) and the National Action Plan regarding the Climate Change; some measures to adapt the water management to climate change are considered, such as: improved research, water management strategies developed at catchment scale, flood protection measures, improved monitoring system of meteorological and hydrological data, development at regional scale of the water supply/sewage systems, intensify the international cooperation and knowledge exchange for concerted measures, increase public awareness and information etc.

The RBMP indicates also a general link to the National Rural Development Program with climate measures.

Basic measures related to climate change are foreseen to promote the efficient and sustainable water use, controls over the abstraction of surface water and groundwater and impoundment of surface waters, including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior authorisation of abstraction and impoundment. Supplementary measures to increase resilience to climate change are addressed indirectly through other measures (flood protection, floodplain and wetlands restoration, hydrological studies, melioration of water circulation, creation of buffer zones, restore banks vegetation, etc.).

Currently an adaptation strategy to cope with climate change is under development at the international river basin level under the coordination of ICPDR and the foreseen measures will be included in the future RBM cycles.

The following problems will be addressed in the next RBM cycles: adaptation of monitoring system to detect the impact of climate change on water ecological and chemical status, adaptive management (by considering the observed effects), investigate the impact of climate change on eco-regions, typologies and reference sections, investigate the effect of climate change on different sectors and evaluate the indirect impact on WBs status, evaluate ecosystem vulnerabilities in the catchment, implement EIA and SEA Directives for the Future Infrastructure Projects and consider their cumulative impact.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· The characterization is not complete, harmonization between abiotic and biotic criteria is still under development for typology definition. The characterization and the harmonization of abiotic and biotic criteria should be completed.

· There is a gap in the inter-calibration. The confidence level of the evaluation of ecological potential is low. These gaps should be filled in the 2nd RBMP cycle.

· There are still gaps in establishing biological quality element methods for ecological status assessment. The assessment of biological elements needs to be strengthened in order to comply with WFD requirements (monitoring and evaluation of BQEs, the impact of pollutants on biota, etc.).

· Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived. The monitoring being carried out in sediment and biota should cover the requirement for trend monitoring specified for several substances in EQSD Article 3(3).

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· More details on some methodologies (e.g. cost-benefit analysis) should be included in the RBMP.

· Only little improvement of the water status is expected by 2015 and the objectives for subsequent planning deadlines are not always clear. Objectives should be clearly indicated and transparent in order to be able to reach good status of waters in a reasonable timeframe.

· There have been a large number of exemptions applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans. The high number of exemptions applied in these first RBMPs is a cause of concern. Romania should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainties.

· If there are new physical modifications planned, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· The monitoring activity should check also the efficiency of the implemented measures (e.g. fish passes, construction of buffer strips or wetland restoration effect on water quality etc.).

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resources in Romania. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately advised and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· The RBMPs should indicate how hydromorphological measures will improve the ecological status/potential.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

[1]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMP. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMP and WISE.

[2]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[3]     The entire Romanian surface is a nutrient sensitive area.

[4]     This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[5]     Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[6]     Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[7]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[8]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[9]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[10]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[11]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[12]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[13]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[14] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[15]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Cyprus has a population of 0.8 million[1] and a total surface area of 9,250 km2. Cyprus is the largest island in the eastern Mediterranean and is situated south of Turkey. The two main mountain ranges are the Pentadactylos in the north and the Troodos in central and south-western part of the island. Between them is the fertile plain of Messaoria.

Cyprus has one river basin district that covers the country’s whole territory.

The Cyprus RBD does not share catchments with other Member States or with other countries.

According to the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No 10 on Cyprus, the application of the acquis is suspended in those areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance 2.1 Adoption of the RBMPs

The Cyprus RBMP was adopted on 9 June 2011.

2.2 Links with other water plans

The RBMP was subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The SEA was published and made available to the stakeholders for comments from May 2010 to November 2010. On December 2010 the SEA was submitted to the Environmental Authority Board and was approved on March 2011. However, it seems that policy options of the RBMP were not included in the SEA and, of the measures, only the supplementary measures were analysed.

2.3 Key strengths and weaknesses

Cyprus’ RBMP has a number of strengths. The consultation process was extensive and transparent, and included the active involvement of the relevant stakeholders. The measures are well targeted to improve water status in practice. Even though the monitoring programme does have large gaps, these are treated transparently which will help in finding solutions to the problems in the near future.

However, a range of weaknesses also exist. It is unclear how the objectives for the different water bodies are set. There are shortcomings in the classification of ecological status and potential, in the designation of heavily modified water bodies, and in the assessment of groundwater status. Further identified problems relate to the lack of justification of exemptions and the uncertainty on specific measures to tackle the over-exploitation of groundwater bodies.

3. Governance 3.1 RBMP Timelines

Cyprus adopted and published its River Basin Management Plan on 9 June 2011 including a Drought Management Plan. The date of publication of the RBMP is later than the deadlines established in Article 14 of the WFD (December 2009), mainly as a result of the start of the consultation on the draft RBMP.

The final RBMP was reported to the EEA Central Data Repository (CDR) on 10 June 2011. Updates were submitted to WISE in 2012.

RBD || Timetable || Work programme || Statement on consultation || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Final RBMP

Due dates || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009

CY001 || 02/04/2007 || 02/04/2007 || || 03/12/2007 || 28/05/2012 || 09/06/2011

Table 3.1.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: WISE

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

There is one river basin district in Cyprus.

There is one competent authority in Cyprus, the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment (MANRE).

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

There is a national approach for RBM planning in Cyprus.

There is one RBMP with no sub-plans. The main RBMP is a short version, including a summary of the PoM. Annex 1 contains the full RBMP including a longer summary of the PoM. Various annexes specify the details of the PoM (annex 2: full PoM; annex 3: basic measures; annex 6: summary of measures). Annex 7 ("final study of water policy") and Annex 8 (“drought management plan) seem not to be completely integrated into the RBMP.

The RBMPs have been adopted by the Council of Ministers by means of a Governmental Decision. As regards the legal status of the RBMP, the RBMP is secondary legislation, falling under the laws issued by the Parliament. It has the same status as any other regulation approved by the Government, and any administrative decision should be in conformity with its provisions. There is no provision in the legislation regulating the relationship between the RBMP and individual decisions. Nevertheless, the RBMP constitutes in reality the actual implementation of the legislation on water resources and, therefore, any permit must comply with this legislation, and with any other provision (for example limit values, prohibitions, etc.) directly or indirectly connected to water resources.[2]

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

The consultation process was extensive and transparent including the active involvement of the relevant stakeholders, including water supply, energy, agriculture, NGOs, industry, fisheries, and local authorities. Navigation / ports and consumer groups were not involved. The public was involved via different publication means and consultation. The time period required by WFD for the consultation was respected.

Stakeholder comments brought new knowledge for the RBMP. After the consultation changes were made regarding some specific measures as well as new measures were included in the plan.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

The water categories that are present in Cyprus are rivers, lakes and coastal waters. The majority of water bodies are small water bodies.

No transitional water bodies were delineated. However in Cyprus there are specific water bodies, salt lakes which do not fall under the category 'transitional waters'. These salt lakes are unique ecosystems where water availability depends directly on rainfall, resulting in large salinity fluctuations, and in complete dryness of the lakes during long dry periods. The salt content of these water bodies is a result of the saline nature of the substratum, not of the inflow of seawater, since there is no connection to the sea. The reference to these water bodies as “coastal lagoons” in the RBMP has followed the Habitat´s Directive characterization, where they were assigned as “Habitat 1150 - Coastal Lagoons”.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

The 2011 RBMPs do not provide information on the validation of surface water types with biological data, the methodology described only refers to abiotic elements. At the time when the typology was devised (during the implementation of Article 5 WFD), no biological data were available for Cyprus’ freshwaters. Consequently no validation against such data was possible. According to recent information provided by Cyprus work is on-going on the validation.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

CY001 || 3 || 4 || 0 || 3

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

Three types of rivers were differentiated in Cyprus, two of them are temporary river types and one is a perennial type. Due to the obvious large differences between perennial and temporal rivers, no dedicated attempt had been made at a national level to check if the two types can be discriminated using biological data. However, it was shown in the Intercalibration Exercise that the temporary type is distinctively different from the other perennial Mediterranean river types, both for benthic invertebrates and for phytobenthos-diatoms. In addition, the relation of biological data to typology is being investigated, amongst others, on benthic invertebrates in Cyprus Rivers.

Reference conditions are available for the applied biological quality elements.  

Reference conditions are determined as follows:

· Rivers & lakes:

o For benthic invertebrates in rivers, reference sites exist in Cyprus and reference conditions were determined following the REFCOND Guidance criteria based on pressure criteria. The absence of pressures was illustrated by using various methods and indices.

o For phytobenthos in rivers, reference sites exist in Cyprus. The diatom community structure and the IPS index values were the main criterion. Pressure data were also used and their intensity and impact was evaluated using expert judgement, following the guidelines of the Intercalibration Exercise.

o For phytoplankton in reservoirs (water category: lakes), reference conditions were derived in the process of the Intercalibration Exercise using existing reference sites from all Member States that participated in the Mediterranean Lake Geographical Intercalibration Group.

· Coastal waters: reference conditions were determined based on the combination of expert knowledge/judgement, absence or minor anthropogenic activities (pristine, undisturbed areas, Natura 2000 sites) and historical data (where available, depending on the BQE)

4.3 Delineation of surface water and groundwater bodies

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

CY001 || 216 || 12 || 18 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 27 || 33 || 20 || 313

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE and CY

Overall, Cyprus has designated 261[3] surface water bodies. In the first RBMP cycle smaller watercourses with only occasional surface flow were included as water bodies. However, during the first monitoring period, it became apparent that it would be impossible to include minor watercourses in the monitoring programme, and impractical to treat them as water bodies within the framework of the Directive. The reason behind this is that many smaller watercourses only experience episodic surface flows, in the form of events that may last some days or, in some cases, only hours after heavy rainfall. For numerous watercourses, such flow events occur, on average, less than once a year with no flows at all for one or more years in a row. Cyprus is therefore considering deleting 62 river water bodies in the 2nd RBMP cycle.

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

The identification of pressures was carried out for the implementation of Article 5 of the WFD. The plan does not include concrete thresholds to define significant pressures. An example of a criterion used in the determination of the significance of a pressure was whether IPPC facilities discharge their effluent to a suitable treatment plant or not. Expert judgement was used in other instances. Wide range of pressures was identified with expert judgement. The pressures identified under Article 5 WFD were updated in the framework of the development of the RBMP.

Diffuse source pollution is significant pressure in 43% of surface water bodies. 53% of surface water bodies are not subject to significant pressures.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

CY 001 || 138 || 52.9 || 43 || 16.5 || 112 || 42.9 || 0 || 0 || 51 || 19.5 || 7 || 2.69 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 00 || 1 || 0.38

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE and CY

4.5 Protected areas

In Cyprus 174 protected areas have been designated, according to information provided to WISE (see the table below). Most of these areas are related to bathing waters. 5 of those protected areas may be associated with SWBs and 13 of them with GWBs.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

CY001 || 18 || 113 || - || - || - || 36 || - || - || 5 || - || 2

Table 4.5.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Cyprus has reported the number of monitoring sites for its RBD (see the table below). In total, 50 sites were reported for surface waters, and 170 sites for groundwater. The number of surface water monitoring sites is similar to those provided for the European Commission’s 2009 report on monitoring in the EU.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

CY001 || 19 || 12 || 10 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 1 || 86 || 68 || 84

Total by type of site || 19 || 12 || 10 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 1 || 86 || 68 || 84

Total number of monitoring sites[4] || 31 || 11 || - || 8 || 170

Table 5.1: Number of monitoring sites by water category

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

Not all biological quality elements are monitored in Cyprus.

Rivers:

BQE || Cyprus situation

Aquatic flora – phytobenthos || monitoring programme is ongoing

Aquatic flora – macrophytes || Was not considered for the 1st RBMP cycle. The BQE will be monitored and used for the next RBMP.

Benthic invertebrates || monitoring programme is ongoing

Fish || Was not considered for the 1st RBMP cycle. The BQE might be used in a supplementary way within biological assessment in certain types or limited stretches of rivers for the next RBMP. 

Table 5.1.1: BQEs monitored in rivers

Source: RBMP

Reservoirs (water category: lakes):

BQE || Cyprus situation

Phytoplankton || Monitoring programme is ongoing

Other aquatic flora - phytobenthos || Not applicable in Mediterranean Reservoirs (seasonal fluctuations in water level do not allow their growth)

Other aquatic flora - macrophytes || Not applicable in Mediterranean Reservoirs (because of seasonal fluctuations in water level and the great reservoir depth)

Benthic invertebrates || Not applicable in Mediterranean Reservoirs (great seasonal water level fluctuation, high siltation rate and restrictive chemical conditions near the bottom)

Fish || Not applicable in Cyprus Reservoirs

Table 5.1.2: BQEs monitored in reservoirs

Source: RBMP

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

CY001 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

CY001 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1.3: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

|| || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

Coastal waters: In coastal waters (surveillance & operational monitoring programme) all BQEs are monitored, that is: Benthic Macrorinvertebrates, Phytoplankton (Chlorophyll-A), Macroalgae and Angiosperms (Posidonia oceanica).

In the framework of the operational monitoring, physico-chemical parameters and Chlorophyl-A are monitored on a monthly basis, whereas Angiosperms and Benthic Macroinvertebrates are monitored once a year. Moreover, heavy metals are monitored on a monthly basis in seawater, while heavy metals and synthetic compounds are monitored once a year in the fish stripped mullet (Mullus barbatus).

For surface waters, no national method for the assessment of hydromorphological quality elements has yet been adopted by Cyprus. Nevertheless, during 2005-2012, hydromorphological quality elements were assessed for almost all river water bodies that are monitored for BQEs. However, based on the information received from the Cyprus authorities, there was no need to use this information in the status classification for the current RBMP, because all river WBs were assessed as having good or less than good status, based on either BQEs or physico-chemical elements.

For coastal waters, no specific method for the assessment of hydromorphological quality elements has been developed by Cyprus so far. However, in the high status WBs (based on the biological and chemical status) and in the reference sites Hydromorphological QEs correspond in general with this status (e.g. there are no alterations that would result in changes of the undisturbed hydromorphological conditions).

Regarding surface waters, the BQE assessment methods applied by Cyprus were tested for their response to pressures during their development, and were shown to respond to pressures. The pressure response of the Cyprus methods was also tested and confirmed in the Intercalibration Exercise. For coastal waters, the BQE assessment methods applied by Cyprus were tested for their response to pressures (pressure index) during their development in the Intercalibration Exercise, and were shown to respond.

As regards priority substances, pesticides, metals and the majority of industrial pollutants included in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored in surface freshwaters. The substances included in Directive 2008/105/EC that are not monitored are considered not to be discharged to Cyprus’ waters. Efforts are currently made though to monitor more 2008/105/EC substances that are not currently monitored, in order to collect further data on the priority substances.

As regards priority substances in coastal waters, organo-chlorine pesticides and metals are monitored. All the substances included in Directive 2008/105/EC for monitoring in fish are monitored, as well as other organic pollutants and metals (also in fish).

A few specific pollutants (boron and some metals) have been identified for rivers and lakes, Polychlorinated biphenyls have been monitored in coastal waters.

For rivers, three specific pollutants were identified: Cu, Zn (based on Directive 2006/44/EC) and Boron (based on Directive 98/83/EC). For reservoirs the following specific pollutants were selected: Cr, As, B, Fe (based on Directive 75/440/EC), and Cu and Zn (based on Directive 2006/44/EC).

Grouping of water bodies was done based on similar typology, geography (altitude), hydrology, hydrogeology (permeability), pressures (point and diffuse sources, hydromorphological pressures) and risk status.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

The RBD has both surveillance and operational monitoring programmes for groundwater, and these cover both quantitative and chemical status.

The parameters for the groundwater operational monitoring include a core set of parameters comprising of dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, nitrate, ammonium, temperature. Since operational monitoring is required only for the groundwater at risk, nitrates and chloride are considered to be the fundamental indicators of the major pressures exerted on the groundwater bodies at risk; that is pollution of nitrates and seawater intrusion as a result of over-exploitation.

The monitoring is reported to be insufficient in relation to both time series and spatial coverage to investigate significant and sustained upward trends of pollution. As mentioned above, a specific measure was included in the Programme of Measures to address this problem.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

The number of monitoring sites associated with protected areas is 52 and more than half of them are related to the Habitats Directive and to drinking water abstraction.

The Cypriot authorities (Department of Fisheries and Marine Research) are implementing an on-going monitoring programme of salt lake water bodies. In the context of this programme, the salt lakes are monitored at a monthly basis during the wet season (that is, when the lakes have a sufficient volume of water) for many chemical (nutrients, priority substances: heavy metals and organic pollutants), biological (Chlorophyll-A), ecotoxicological and general abiotic (temperature, salinity, pH, water depth) parameters.

Also within the framework of the surveillance monitoring programme in the coastal waters, two marine Natura 2000 sites (Cape Greco & Akamas) are monitored for all the parameters and quality elements mentioned in the section of monitoring of surface waters.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

CY001 || 17 || 5 || 4 || 0 || 8[5] || 13 || 3 || 0 || 5 || 5

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas[6].

Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

83 surface water bodies in Cyprus have been assessed as being at good or better ecological status; 4.7% of all the surface water bodies are in high status. For 45 surface water bodies the status has not been determined. The water bodies with unknown status are mainly small water bodies with episodic surface flows that occur on average less than once a year and which Cyprus is considering deleting as water bodies in the second RBMP cycle.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

CY001 || 192 || 9 || 4.7 || 74 || 38.5 || 56 || 29.2 || 7 || 3.6 || 1 || 0.5 || 45 || 23.4

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE and CY

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

CY001 || 69 || 0 || 0 || 22 || 31.9 || 26 || 37.7 || 9 || 13.0 || 3 || 4.3 || 9 || 13.0

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

Three quarters of the surface water bodies are reported to be in good chemical status in Cyprus and only less than 5% failing good status. For 56 surface water bodies, the chemical status is unknown for similar reasons to that mentioned above for ecological status.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

CY001 || 192 || 141 || 73.4 || 5 || 2.6 || 46 || 24

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

CY001 || 69 || 52 || 75.4 || 7 || 10.1 || 10 || 14.5

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

More than half of the groundwater bodies have good chemical status in Cyprus while 8 GWBs are in poor status. Only one groundwater body have not been assessed.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

CY001 || 20 || 11 || 55 || 8 || 40 || 1 || 5

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

Only every fifth GWB is assessed at good quantitative status in Cyprus while three quarters of them are reported to be in poor quantitative status. The status of only one GWB is unknown.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

CY001 || 20 || 4 || 20 || 15 || 75 || 1 || 5

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

39% SWBs were assessed as being of good status in 2009. According to the information reported to WISE, the number of good status is expected to increase to 58% in 2015.

For groundwater bodies, only 20% were assessed as being of good status in 2009, and the proportion is not expected to increase in 2015. This shows a lack of ambition in improving the status of groundwater in Cyprus that is primarily related to a reluctance to tackle quantitative problems.

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CY001 || 261 || 102 || 39.2 || 169 || 65.0 || 25.8 || 189 || 63 || || || 195 || 95 || || || 17 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[7]

Water bodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Water bodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Water bodies with unknown/unclassified/not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CY001 || 192 || 82 || 42.9 || 130 || 68.1 || 25.1 || || || || || 11.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[8]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CY001 || 192 || 141 || 73.8 || 146 || 76.4 || 2.6 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[9]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CY001 || 20 || 11 || 55.0 || 11 || 55.0 || 0.0 || || || || || 40 || 5 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[10]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CY001 || 20 || 4 || 20.0 || 4 || 20.0 || 0.0 || || || || || 70 || 5 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[11]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CY001 || 69 || 22 || 31.9 || 39 || 56.5 || 24.6 || || || || || 30.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[12]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CY001 || 69 || 52 || 75.4 || 59 || 85.5 || 10.1 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[13]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters 7.1 Ecological status assessment methods and application of methods and ecological status results

The first RBMPs indicated significant gaps in the establishment of assessment methodologies but Cyprus authorities updated the information in 2012.

Rivers:

In Cyprus there are no completed baseline studies on fish, or their distribution through the island. At the same time, the island has a species-poor native fish fauna and therefore Cyprus considers that it is not possible to base any type of ecological quality assessment solely on fish species.

Consequently, 'fish' are not monitored as a WFD biological quality element, and Cyprus does not participate in the River-Fish Intercalibration Exercise. However, in order to provide an initial understanding of the potential use of this BQE, an investigation is being undertaken in an on-going research project. In this project, the most significant Cyprus rivers are being investigated. Depending on the results of this research project, the potential to use fish in a supplementary way within biological assessment and water management exists, especially through the localized Eel and naturalized Brown Trout populations. Cyprus might, in the future, start fish-based assessment and monitoring in certain types or limited stretches of rivers.

Regarding phytobenthos, the BQE is being monitored using the IPS index as a national method. The method has been successfully intercalibrated in the 2nd phase of the Intercalibration Exercise. The monitoring results have been used for classification in the RBMP.

Methodology for macrophytes has recently been developed but not yet considered in the 1st RBMP cycle. Cyprus participated in the related Intercalibration Exercise phase 2. The BQE will be monitored and used for the next RBMP.

A Nutrient Classification System (NCS) is applied in rivers. It is principally based on the average values found in five quality classes of a biological classification system, which has been developed using benthic macroinvertebrates.

Lakes:

A classification system has been developed for one lake type, but not for the others due to the absence of reference conditions and of similar water bodies elsewhere. The value of ecological status / ecological potential was based on expert judgement.

Reservoirs:

Macrophytes are not used because the seasonal fluctuations in water level do not allow their growth. For the same reason, and also because of the depth of the reservoirs, the index of phytobenthos cannot be applied. Similarly, benthic macroinvertebrates are also not applicable in Mediterranean reservoirs generally, and specifically not in Cyprus. Fish is a non-expedient, not applicable BQE in Cyprus’ lakes and reservoirs as there are no indigenous fish populations in Cyprus rivers (except eel) and all fish in the reservoirs have been introduced by stocking. The composition of introduced fish species is different from one reservoir to the other. Because of these reasons, fish is considered as a BQE that is not relevant in this situation, therefore it is not monitored and no assessment methods are developed.

The class boundaries for Total P were set based on real monitoring results. The class boundary for Ammonium (NH4) was based on Directive 2006/44/EC, for cyprinid waters.

Coastal waters:

Cyprus finalised the assessment method for angiosperms in 2011, during the 2nd phase of the Intercalibration Exercise. Cyprus uses the already developed and approved PREI Index for Posidonia oceanica as the national assessment method. Moreover, the assessment methods for Phytoplankton (Chlorophyl-A), Macroalgae and Benthic Macroinvertebrates have been finalized in the 1st phase of the IC Exercise and included in the Commission Decision 2008/915/EC, and were also revised in the 2nd phase. 

Physico-chemical parameters are monitored in the coastal waters of Cyprus (salinity, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and nutrients). The measured values of all the aforementioned parameters show no significant differences between sites (sampling stations and WBs), rather they exhibit a remarkable stability and reflect the ultra-oligotrophic character of the whole area. For this reason, the ecological status of coastal waters of Cyprus is determined by the status of the BQEs in each WB.

No methods have been developed to address specifically hydromorphological pressures in the coastal waters.

Methodologies for the assessment of hydromorphological quality elements

There are no methods for the assessment of hydromorphological quality elements adopted yet by Cyprus, nevertheless hydromorphological quality elements were assessed for almost all river water bodies that are monitored for BQEs. However, this information was not used in the status classification for the current RBMP. According to recent information, a project for the consolidation of the available data and official establishment of a national method for the assessment of hydromorphological quality elements is envisaged in Cyprus.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

CY001 || - || || || || || || || || || || || - || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant or BQE not applicable

Source: RBMPs and CY

7.2 River basin specific pollutants

A few specific pollutants (boron and some metals) have been identified for rivers and lakes, polychlorinated biphenyls for coastal waters.

For rivers three pollutants were identified: Cu, Zn (based on Directive 2006/44/EC) and Boron (based on Directive 98/83/EC). For reservoirs the following pollutants were selected: Cr, As, B, Fe based on Directive 75/440/EC), and Cu and Zn (based on Directive 2006/44/EC).

There were no cases causing failure to ecological status due to specific pollutants.

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage of Heavily Modified and Artificial water bodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

In total 67 HMWBs and 1 artificial water body (AWB – a lake water body) have been designated. 49 of them are river WBs (22.69% of total river WBs), 12 lake WBs (72.22%) and 7 coastal WB (26.92%).

There is no systematic designation of HMWBs. The designation process of CIS guidance document No. 4[14] is mentioned and described, but the steps are not always followed. There is no clear definition of what 'substantial changes' are, there is only a very general reference to 'adverse effect on the water use', and significance is not defined. Although it is stated that there are no better environmental options, there is no justification but are statements that apply in general to all physical modifications for particular uses.

The water uses in the sense of Article 4(3)(a) are mentioned in general and for each HMWB designated. The physical modifications are not described in detail, but generally.

For river bodies, the most frequent reason is the existence of a dam upstream (for water storage and there is one diversion weir). The only other reason for HMWB designation is canalisation within urban areas.

Lake water bodies are designated as HMWB as a result of being artificial reservoirs (impounded rivers) with the primary objective of the storage and abstraction for water use.

Coastal water bodies are designated as HMWB only within seaport areas.

Reservoirs have been reported as heavily modified lakes, not as heavily modified rivers, as recommended. This limits the comparability with information from other Member States.

Some types of the WB have been designated as HMWB during the first RBMP cycle due to uncertainties and insufficient data (downstream dams, reservoirs, urban areas). It is mentioned that the data available should be improved in the 2nd cycle and may change designation of some current HMWBs.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

Good ecological potential has not been defined for most of the water types.

In river HMWBs, the same methods are applied that for non-heavily modified rivers.

For reservoirs, the method developed for phytoplankton does yield GEP.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters

The overall proportion of WBs failing good status due to chemical pollution is 4.2% for river WBs and 16.7 % for lake WBs. All coastal WBs are considered to be in good chemical status.

Cyprus provided information on the specific substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status.

CAS Number || Name of substances || Number of water bodies failing good chemical status

7440-43-9 || Cadmium || 2

7439-92-1 || Lead || 7

7439-97-6 || Mercury || 4

7440-02-0 || Nickel || 5

15972-60-8 || Alachlor || 3

1582-09-8 || Trifluralin || 4

Table 9.1: Substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status

Source: RBMP

The assessment of chemical status is based on monitoring data. Not all pollutants/ measurements are used for the assessment of chemical status.

Some priority substances are discarded from the assessment of chemical status on the basis of the sensitivity of the analytical methods used.

In the framework of the Cyprus coastal waters monitoring programme for the WFD and other programmes (e.g. MEDPOL), several priority substances (chemical pollutants and metals: Pb, Cd and Hg) in water and biota (Mullus barbatus) are being monitored at a regular basis. A number of synthetic compounds are being monitored in biota samples from coastal sites. Up to now, the results of the analyses show that organo-chlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls are present only in trace levels in biota samples taken from the coastal areas.

Regarding heavy metals in seawater (Cu, Zn, Pb, Ni, Cr, Cd, Fe and Hg), monthly water sampling has been carried out since 2007 in 4 selected coastal water stations which belong to 2 WBs. In addition, sediment samples were taken at two of the above sampling stations in the years 2007 and 2008. Water sample analyses show that metal concentrations are at low levels without any significant site and seasonal differences. Sediment concentrations are also low and show no significant differences during the whole sampling period.

10. Assessment of groundwater status 10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

15 GWBs are reported to be in poor quantitative status.

Abstractions and saline intrusion are considered in the assessment.

It is not clear whether the concept of "available groundwater resource" is applied as described in Article 2.27 of the WFD.

Significant diminution of surface water status is a reason for poor groundwater status at one GWB. A list of surface/groundwater body interactions is given and the connection and feedback of surface water bodies to and from groundwater was taken into account in order to draw conclusions on quantitative status, although the minimum flow requirement for surface waters was not available for all surface waters. A water balance was established.

In addition, at least one groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystem was reported to exist. However, groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were not considered in the groundwater quantitative status assessment.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

8 GWBs are in poor chemical status in Cyprus.

Most of the coastal aquifers in Cyprus are suffering from seawater intrusion (caused by over-pumping) and therefore these groundwater bodies are at risk not achieving good status.

Surface waters associated to groundwater appear not to be considered in the groundwater status assessment. The transfer of chemicals between the only groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystem and the related groundwater body warrants investigation and monitoring.

Threshold values (TVs) are based on drinking water standards taking into account natural background levels of substances, existing and future water uses and hydrogeological conditions. A groundwater body was declared of poor chemical status if one (or more) representative monitoring station(s) exceeded the TV. Expert judgment was only used in deciding whether a monitoring station was representative of the status of the whole groundwater body.

Trend assessments were carried out using the methodology given in the CIS Guidance document although monitoring is reported to be insufficient in time series and spatial coverage to investigate trends. The aim was to identify areas where further attention is required and appropriately modify monitoring practices. The methods used apply the trend reversal identification practices, with the caveat that they are indicative and lack adequate record lengths and spatial coverage. All available data was used in the first RBMP cycle, but now the monitoring network may need to be revised, therefore a specific measure was included in the Program of Measures to re-evaluate the monitoring network.

Trend reversals are planned for the 2nd RBMP cycle.

10.3 Protected areas

Information reported in WISE on the status of groundwater drinking protected areas is fragmented. Only 13 such areas are reported, 4 of them are in poor chemical status.

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

CY001 || 8 || 4 || 1

Table 10.3.1: Status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

Source: WISE and CY

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

The information found in the RBMPs on the environmental objectives and exemptions for water bodies is fragmented.

An overview of the information for SWBs is provided in the table below.

RBD || Total no. of SWBs || Percent of SWBs at good status || SWB exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027 || Art. 4.4 || Art. 4.5 || Art. 4.6 || Art. 4.7

CY001 || 261 || 38.7 || 58.2 || 73.2 || 100[15] || 17.2 || || ||

Table 11.1: Objectives and exemptions for surface water bodies

Source: WISE

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

Protected areas have been defined (for drinking water, bathing water and Natura 2000) and there are references to the relevant legislation, although there are no specific additional objectives are defined in the RBMP.

No additional objectives, on top of the WFD general objectives, have been set in nature protected areas to achieve the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directives (although there is a clear inventory of water dependent Natura 2000 areas). A detailed assessment of the needs for these additional objectives has not been carried out. The specific management plans for the Natura 2000 areas in Cyprus have not been completed and the necessary conservation measures have not yet been established.  It is planned that these additional objectives will be set in the next programming cycle.

No shellfish areas exist in Cyprus.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

In total, exemptions of all types have been reported for 45 water bodies in Cyprus, about 17% of the total. All the exemptions related to surface water are under Art. 4.4 (extension of the deadline for meeting good status) and are related to ecological status. The groundwater exemptions are related to quantitative status.

Technical infeasibility is cited for 33 exemptions, natural conditions are cited for 12 exemptions and all exemptions for groundwater.

There is no justification for the argument of technical infeasibility to justify the exemptions. The information given is minimal: for 3 exemptions no technical solution is available; for the rest the reason is either uncertainty in the identification of the causes of inferior status or because a longer recovery time is needed. For groundwater bodies, a longer recovery time is the only reason.

The natural conditions argument is used with no further justification. Disproportionate costs are not used as argument for exemptions.

No exemptions under Art. 4.5, 4.6 or 4.7 were reported. Regarding Art. 4.7, there are no planned projects liable to cause deterioration of status of water bodies. For all planned projects it was either concluded that they are not liable to cause deterioration of the status of water bodies or, in the case of the planned Souskious dam, conclusions will be drawn at a future stage, following the execution of an Environmental Impact Assessment.

RBD || Global[16]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

CY001 || 33 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 12 || 0

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[17] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

The RBMP contains a Programme of Measures. The measures are well targeted to improve the water status in practice.

The geographical scale for all measures is indicated – for most of them it is RBD level (national), for some other it is sub-basin or WB level.

The total cost of measures is €340.35 million, but there is no further explanation or breakdown by sector, pressure or water category. €10.2 million is dedicated for supplementary measures up to 2015 (mainly legislative/administrative, awareness raising/communication, research etc.).

On the cost effectiveness analysis, the measures which are effective in all water bodies are measures that promote the ecological restoration of degraded water bodies and wetlands; measures related with the monitoring of WBs; measures promoting research, development and better control of the quality characteristics of water bodies; administrative measures; and, measures of efficiency and reuse such as promoting environmental responsibility, training and awareness campaigns held an important position. The cost effectiveness assessment has been carried out only for measures which were already selected in the Programme of Measures so it had no effect on the selection of measures.

Uncertainties on effectiveness on the measures are considered in the context of designation of HMWBs.

The majority of the measures are funded through the national budget, a few are financed through private funds and some others are co-financed through EU funds.

For Government financed measures the capital expenditure for their implementation is included in the proposals of the Government Budget. In the case of co-financed projects/measures the total cost of these projects is included in the Government Budget and the contribution of the other parties will be endorsed following the progress of the project.

The majority of measures are planned to become operational by 2012, however, certain measures linked to a significant financial expense will be delayed up to year 2015. The co-financed projects are planned to be completed and operational by the end of 2015.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

The farming sector represents a significant pressure on the water resources in Cyprus. Diffuse pollution and over abstraction are the two main problems.

The main point source pollution from agriculture is related to livestock wastes from regulated unit farms, such as poultry, pig and cow farms. 67 such farms were identified since they fall under the provisions of the Directive on Integrated Prevention and Pollution Control (IPPC). Reference is also made to nitrates and recycled water.

Substantial information on the agricultural measures is lacking in the RBMP. This puts into question the level of ambition on this issue.

The overall water demands of the sector seem not to be tackled as a whole, although measures exist.

Farmers seem to have had a significant involvement in the selection of the WFD measures for the agricultural sector.

A new water pricing policy towards agriculture has been established, taking into account the ability of farmers to pay for water.

Problems with over-abstraction and self-abstraction are highlighted. The RBMP and the annexed Report on Water Policy address quantitative water management issues. It prescribes specific and comprehensive quantitative abstraction rules for each surface water source and groundwater body. It also defines specific minimum flow requirements and dam releases for each body. In addition, it includes a policy for increased recycled use and policy rules that aim to optimize the production of desalinated water.

Other measures addressing abstractions are also included in the Programme of Measures such as those related to reuse, relicensing and metering of boreholes, reducing the mandatory value for network losses for the water councils, mandating the preparation of a losses report for each irrigation scheme, and extending the existing cultivation plot database of the Cyprus Organization for Agriculture Payments to include water use data etc. Reuse of treated waste water and recycled water in existing irrigation networks in particular, are deemed to bring a significant potential to increase water efficiency.

No measures to address pesticide diffuse pollution are foreseen, based on the monitoring data pesticides do not seem to be a significant issue for groundwater.

The timing of implementation of the WFD measures in agriculture is not precise.

Moreover there is no clear information on how the measures will be funded. In particular the link with the Rural Development programme (RDR) is not clear in the PoM. However the Cypriot Authorities have submitted additional information specifying that the Rural Development programme will support investment measures consisting of improving irrigation systems for more efficient use of irrigation water, and the construction of storage reservoirs of rain water, etc. Moreover although Cyprus does not currently use the RDR Article 38, it plans to implement the similar RDR Article 31 under the next Rural Development cycle (period 2014-2020).

Beyond the usual controls linked to the enforcement of the Common Agricultural Policy, information is missing on how the WFD measures will be practically controlled and how the implementation in the agricultural sector will be followed up.

Measures || CY001

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application ||

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü

Measures against soil erosion ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü

Technical measures for water saving ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover ||

Co-operative agreements ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || ü

Nutrient trading ||

Fertiliser taxation ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü

Institutional changes || ü

Codes of agricultural practice || ü

Farm advice and training || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || ü

Certification schemes ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) ||

Specific action plans/programmes || ü

Land use planning ||

Technical standards ||

Specific projects related to agriculture ||

Environmental permitting and licensing ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

The Cyprus RBMP includes measures related to hydromorphology. There are general explanations on the link between water uses and pressures, and pressures, impacts and measures.

There is no specific definition or guidance for ecologically based flow regime, but it was calculated for each WB with a dam (all are HMWBs), and included in the PoM.

Minimum flows are set, but they are not related to the objective of good ecological status because of a lack of adequate knowledge regarding reference conditions related to good ecological status and, more importantly, good potential.

Cyprus also established a priority in water use: as water is very scarce in Cyprus, drinking water supply from reservoirs has priority over the preservation of the fish populations in the reservoirs.

There is a reference in the plan of hydromorphology and the management plans of Natura 2000 sites.

Measures || CY001

Fish ladders ||

Bypass channels ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas ||

Sediment/debris management ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement ||

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms ||

Lowering of river banks ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ü

Operational modifications for hydropeaking ||

Inundation of flood plains ||

Construction of retention basins ||

Reduction or modification of dredging ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

The RBMP includes groundwater general measures relating to the chemical states of groundwater, which are implemented in the fields of agriculture, mining and WWTPs.

There are targeted supplementary measures in groundwater bodies in poor status covering nitrates pollution and good agricultural practice. No measure to address pesticide diffuse pollution is foreseen, based on the monitoring data pesticides do not seem an issue in groundwater; this is due to the island’s semi-arid conditions and the generally thick unsaturated zone.

Basic groundwater quantitative measures have also been implemented; they include the establishment and improvement of legislation (like licensing of abstractions) and strengthening of the infrastructure for the evaluation of monitoring results.

Supplementary measures are included in the field of agriculture, desalination and artificial recharge covering trainings, studies and consultations with stakeholders.

The programme of measures includes some planned actions to be taken tackle the serious problem of over-exploitation of groundwater, but they are not yet implemented and it is questionable whether they are sufficiently robust to solve the serious problem.

There are improvements in the legislative framework for the licensing process. The Law 79(I)/2010 “Integrated Water Management Law” gives the right to the Director of the Water Development Department (WDD) to set and change the groundwater extraction limit. This applies to all existing and new permits. Targets on annual abstraction volumes per groundwater body have been set, and these are to be taken into account as the borehole extraction limit is reviewed on an annual basis and as the installation of water meters measure is implemented. The monitoring of the extraction limits for each permit is planned to be carried out by the WDD.

However, over-exploitation is a result of pumping through both registered and non-registered boreholes and the Law provides for a period for compliance for non-registered boreholes until May 2013.

In addition, supplementary measures are mostly "soft" measures (studies, training) and it is not clear whether they will be able to tackle the over-exploitation that affects 80% of groundwater bodies.

There are only a couple of other measures that appear effective to reduce groundwater consumption: the gradual prohibition of water provision through private boreholes, the policy of reduced abstraction (but it is not clear through which tools these measures are going to be implemented), and to some extent water reuse.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

A range of measures to address chemical pollution are proposed, some of them to tackle concrete sources. However, the measures are not clearly linked to status failures or specific substances.

Due to the specific characteristics of WBs in Cyprus (dry for most of the year) the classification involves considerable uncertainty. Thus, two specific monitoring programmes were included as supplementary measures in the PoM (ad hoc monitoring of water bodies and exploration of river basins with uncertain sources of pollutants). In one case, where the presence of priority substances was confirmed, a specific action programme was proposed.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

The following water uses were identified in Cyprus: agriculture, industry, households, tourism and farming livestock. They were identified with reference to the impact of water uses on water status (quantitative and qualitative).

There is a narrow approach to water services: only drinking water supply, irrigation, wastewater collection and treatment, and recycled water supply are identified as water services. Each water service is divided in several sub-services for the purpose of economic analysis and calculation of total cost, so as to link the water services to the uses. Water services such as self-abstraction, storage, and impoundment are not identified. The narrow definition of water services is related to the fact that they were identified through the financial cost of water services instead of the economic costs which includes those related to the environmental impacts.

The collection and utilisation of rain water was not considered as a water service in Cyprus, because there is not an institutional structure for managing this area yet. Therefore, it was not possible to carry out an economic analysis of this service. The issue will be re-examined in the next management cycle, in conjunction with the implementation of the Floods Directive 2007/60/EC in Cyprus.

Regarding incentive pricing policy, Cyprus is in the process of applying the provisions of Article 9 of the WFD. Thus, the aim is to maintain the advantages of the pricing established so far (metering, volumetric pricing, overconsumption charge, rising block tariffs etc) whilst adding and promoting the use of new concepts, such as pricing the environmental and the resource values of water.

A special study was implemented regarding existing costing and pricing policies and the results have undergone a public participation process. They have also been discussed by the competent authority and the interested parties, at administrative level, within the process to establish a framework that will legally bind all water sectors and water uses to a common practice.

The calculation of cost recovery takes into account financial costs (capital costs, M&O costs, administrative costs, other direct costs) and environmental and resource costs, but not for all water services. Subsidies and cross-subsidies are not included into the cost recovery calculation.

Cost recovery rates are not calculated as a contribution of different (at least agriculture, industry, households) water uses to cost recovery, but as recovery rates for some water services.

The basic principle is to fully recover the cost of drinking water supply and partially recover the cost of irrigation water (irrigation networks were part of the rural development policy applied). The price of tertiary treated water is set at considerably lower levels than the price of fresh water, considering the environmental benefit of the use, and to encourage the use when appropriate. The lower recovery rate for irrigation should be justified by flexibility provisions (having regard to the social, environmental and economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the region or regions affected). It hasn't been done so far.

The new water pricing legislation proposal have been adopted and promoted to the Parliament in July 2011, but no vote has yet taken place. Elasticity and affordability based pricing was examined and considered in the proposal.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

Protected areas under other Directives are clearly identified, but no specific additional measures to reach the more stringent objectives have been described for some of those protected areas.

Measures are taken by the WDD for the construction of new WWTP to replace the existing lagoon system for septic waste discharge.  

Additional measures have been taken within the Management Plans for Natura 2000 sites. The protection of salt lakes is ensured by their designation in the Cyprus Natura 2000 network and by the subsequent management plan and measures that have been developed aiming in the protection and conservation of the lakes.

According to the provisions of the Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EC the establishment of Bathing Water profiles took place for all bathing waters before March 2011 and also management measures were identified.

Regarding Nitrate Vulnerable Zones, a revision of the Action Plan under the Nitrates Directive is expected to be issued soon which includes a) the rational use and storing of fertilizers and manure, b) closed time periods for fertilizer and manure soil application. 

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts and flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity and droughts (WS&D) are stated as very relevant concerns in Cyprus but they are not systematically treated in the RBMP. Some measures to tackle WS&D are in place.

Water scarcity is a normal condition for Cyprus and is dealt with in the Report annexed to the RBMP on Water Policy. This report is a result of a study, and deals with all water sources and types of demand, including future trends.

Sources of water are surface water (exclusively dams), groundwater, recycled water and desalination. Future water availability trend scenarios are presented for water resources available in dams.

Drought is dealt with both in the Report on Water Policy and in the Drought Management Plan, both of which are annexed to the RBMP.

Demand reduction is dealt with in the Report on Water Policy, and Measures for demand management form a significant part of the Programme of Measures. The Drought Management Plan deals with the identification of measures to deal with high intensity / prolonged drought conditions, and mainly develops indicators for the definition of a "drought situation" and how to then manage the existing dams.

In the reply to the questionnaire sent by the European Commission to follow-up the implementation of the Communication on Water Scarcity and Droughts (COM (2007) 414 final), Cyprus reported to have undertaken activities to integrate water scarcity and droughts into sectoral policies and that these would be included in the RBMP. Although agricultural measures (authorisation and contracts for irrigation, approval of maximum quantities of water, over-consumption fees, the possibility to suspend the supply of water in cases of over-consumption) exist, no concrete measures relating to the integration of water scarcity and droughts into sectoral policies could be clearly identified in the RBMP. However, it is stated that water concerns have to be taken into consideration in land use planning and civil protection mechanism must intervene in drought situations.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

The implementation of the Floods Directive 2007/60/EC is mentioned in the context of rainwater harvesting in the Cyprus RBMP relating to the next RBMP cycle.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

Climate change is only mentioned in a very general way on a few occasions in two of the annexes of the RBMP. No further information provided.

Climate change is not even mentioned in the Drought Management Plan that is annexed to the RBMP.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· Objectives for water bodies should be clearly indicated in order to be able to reach good status of waters in a reasonable timeframe.

· The classification of ecological status and potential should be further developed and completed.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· Efforts should be made to improve the quality of monitoring.

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· Where it helps to achieve the necessary analytical sensitivity, priority substances whose concentrations are difficult to measure in water should where possible be monitored in sediment or biota so that they can be included in the chemical status assessment. The trend monitoring already being carried out in one or other of these matrices needs to cover at least the substances in Directive 2008/105/EC Article 3(3).

· Groundwater trend assessments and trend reversal should be improved in the 2nd RBMP cycle.

· The Programme of Measures includes some planned actions to be taken to tackle the serious problem of over-exploitation of groundwater, but they are not yet implemented and it is questionable whether they are sufficiently robust to solve the serious problem. There is a need for ambitious measures to tackle water demand and illegal abstractions.

· Water efficiency could be improved by increasing the reuse of treated waste water in existing irrigation networks.

· While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans.

· It is unclear whether there are new physical modifications planned in RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resource in Cyprus. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farming community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately advised and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

[1]     European Commission - http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/cyprus/index_en.htm

[2]     Pressures & Measures Study "Governance".

[3]     There are 261WBs out of which the Republic of Cyprus exercises effective control over 259 (except over 2 coastal WBs)

[4]     The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[5]     Number of monitoring sites reported at programme level.

[6]     Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[7]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[8]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[9]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[10]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[11]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[12]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[13]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[14]http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/gds04shmwbspolicyssummar/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[15] 100% refers to water bodies which are under effective control of the Government of Cyprus only.

[16] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status

[17]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin Districts

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The Danish population is 5.6 million (the exact number on 1st January 2012 is 5 560 628[1]).  Denmark has a total area of 43 321 km2 ([2]).

RBD || Name || Size[3] (km2) (Area including coastal waters shown in brackets) || Countries sharing RBD

DK1 || Jutland and Funen || 31999 || -

DK2 || Zealand || 9318 || -

DK3 || Bornholm || 588 || -

DK4 || International (Vidå-Kruså) || 1100 (DK) + 250 (DE) || DE

Table 1.1: Overview of Denmark’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[4]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/dk/eu/wfdart13

Denmark has one international RBD (Vidå-Kruså, DK4) shared with Germany. The international river basin districts shared with Germany is not jointly designated. There are more than one trans-boundary river basin in the RBDs.

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing borders || Co-ordination category

3

km² || %

Krusaa/Krusau || DK4 || DE || 15 || 71.4

Vidaa/Wiedau (Rudboel Soe/Ruttebüller See) || DK4 || DE || 1081 || 80.5

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Denmark[5]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

All RBMPs were adopted on 21.12.2011, and reported to the Commission on 22.12.2012. Electronic reporting to WISE was submitted in the Spring of 2012. The infringement case against Denmark for not adopting and reporting RBMP was closed early 2012.

Reported plans and data are available on EIONET: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/dk/eu/wfdart13.

There are no main RBMPs for DK1 and DK2, but within DK1 there are 15 sub-river basin districts, each with their own RBMP. Within DK2 there are 6 sub-river basin districts each with their own RBMP. Each sub district plan is reported as a separate pdf-file within a zipped folder for the main RBD in EIONET.

2.1 Main strengths[6]

Fairly good common structure of the sub-RBMPs linked closely to the WFD requirements.

A national approach on governance has been followed in the WFD implementation. The main competent authority is the Danish Nature Agency. A comprehensive and transparent consultation process has been carried out. More than 4,200 consultation responses were received. The comments received and the replies given to the comments are given in the plans.

There is a relatively high density of monitoring stations reported for inland waters, and this is mainly due to the number of operational monitoring sites in rivers.

Of the few BQEs that are developed for the classification system,  EQR class boundaries that are consistent with the inter-calibrated boundaries in the IC phase 1 Official Decision have been developed.

EQSs are applied for all chemical pollutants monitored in water, and annual average(AA) and maximum allowable concentration (MAC) values have been considered. Selection of relevant pollutants for monitoring is based on a screening survey from 2008. There are also results from national monitoring programs on contaminants in sediments.

Nutrient loads are quantified and a source apportionment has been carried out.

There is a comprehensive economic analysis of the water use in Denmark attached in annex 8 in the RBMPs.

In each RBMP all planned mitigation measures, including agricultural measures, have been listed, and the approximate area has been described together with the costs and the effect of these measures. The measures have also been described in a catalogue of measures, containing information on effect and costs. Several measures to reduce the hydromorphological impact have been implemented.

Implementation of the WFD and the Habitats Directive are integrated. Links with the other directives are also described.

2.2 Main shortcomings

The ecological status classification system is weakly developed, and a large proportion of the BQEs is missing. The Danish classification methods are only developed for benthic fauna in rivers, chlorophyll in lakes, and angiosperm depth limit and benthic fauna (fjords) or chlorophyll (open coast). HyMo QEs are missing in the classification system for lakes and coastal waters, and for rivers, there are no class boundaries given for continuity, flow and morphological variation of river banks.

There are no criteria or thresholds given on how to define significant pressures from point and diffuse sources. There is no information on tools to assess significant hydromorphological pressures.

The reported monitoring system is a new one (NOVANA) and not the one used for developing the first RBMPs. Although it is new, it appears to not yet be WFD compliant. There is no operational monitoring of drinking water protected areas (groundwaters). For the first RBMPs several quality elements were not monitored, and the new programme is still missing several quality elements, e.g. phytobenthos in rivers. No surveillance monitoring stations for lakes have been reported.

The ecological status is assessed with only one BQE for rivers (benthic fauna) and only chlorophyll a for lakes. The assessments are reported with "no info on confidence" for 95% of all water bodies. It also seems like fewer methods are available now compared to what was reported in 2007. This needs to be clarified.

The basis for assessing quantitative status in groundwater bodies is weak. Groundwater monitoring is only done by the water supply works, and  any GWBs exceeding drinking water standards (e.g. nitrates or pesticides) is abandoned, and monitoring is stopped. Thus trends are difficult to analyse. Water abstraction for irrigation is a major source of this pressure.

Denmark takes a narrow approach to water services. The polluter pays principle is applied for wastewater treatment and water supply with 100 % of the funding of the service provided by users, but there is no information about cost recovery for other water services (e.g. for water used for irrigation and directly abstracted from the source by farmers).

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

Denmark has taken a national approach for the different consultations as required by Article 14 of the WFD, so the dates for the consultations were the same for all RBDs.

Consultations on draft RBMPs took place in two phases, starting with consultations of local authorities in the spring of 2010 before a public hearing.

RBD || Timetable || Work programme || Statement on consultation || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Final RBMP

Due dates || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009

All DK RBDs || Started 20/12/2006 || Started 20/12/2006 || 07/12/2010 || 22/06/2007 || Started 14/10/2010 || 22/12/2011

Table 3.1.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: WISE

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

The main competent authority for the development of the RBMPs is the Danish Nature Agency, under the Ministry of Environment. The Danish Nature Agency is in charge of the work of implementing the WFD and preparing the RBMPs.

The competent authority develops RBMP and accompanying programs of measures. The RBMPs set targets for all waters covered by the water planning, and the programs describe how environmental objectives are going to be achieved. The Minister for the Environment is the water district authority. That implies that the Minister has the overall responsibility for ensuring that the RBMPs are established, and that environmental objectives are met. The Danish Nature Agency undertakes the practical task of preparing water management plans and programs. Based on the RBMPs, municipalities shall develop local action plans for how water management plans and programs should be implemented locally. The local action plan shall describe the local initiatives necessary to implement the RBMP, and the RBMP shall be taken into account when providing new environmental permits and environmental approvals.

A national approach has been followed in the WFD implementation. This argument is supported by the substantial number of national documents available for the Water Authorities containing for example regulation, guidelines for the programmes of measures, catalogue of instruments to use in the programmes of measures, etc.

The 15 sub-district areas in DK1, and the 6 sub-district areas in DK 2 are divided as follows and are said to respect the hydrological boundaries.

Figure 3.2.1: Map of the division of Denmark into 4 RBD, and 23 main river basins/water catchment areas

Source: RBMP Vadehavet, Hovedvandopland 1.10,  RBD Jylland og Fyn, p. 13

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

In general the RBMPs are well structured and easy to overview (they seem to be written in a national framework) and contain the main categories of necessary information according to the WFD annex VI.

There are 4 river basin districts in Denmark. Each water district includes land and sea areas, consisting of one or more river basins and associated groundwater and coastal water. The water districts are subdivided into 23 main water catchments areas, for which sub-district RBMPs have been produced and reported. There are no 'top level' single RBMPs covering DK1 and DK2.

As regards the legal status of the RBMPs, the RBMPs are instruments to achieve the objectives outlined in the EU Water Framework Directive: that all water - groundwater, streams, lakes and coastal area of the sea - must have "good status" by 2015. The Water Framework Directive is implemented in Danish legislation in 2004 in the Law of Environmental Objectives. The act prescribes the State to develop water plans and programs, which outlines how Denmark will reach the EU objective of "good status" for the Danish waters.

The Minister of the Environment is the approving authority, and the RBMPs are adopted by Ministerial Orders. The RBMP is a planning document of a status similar to Ministerial Orders, i.e. in the hierarchy of legal acts it falls below laws and cannot contradict them. On the other hand, it stands above administrative decisions. [7]

As regards the legal effect of the plans, there is the general obligation for individual decisions to take the RBMPs into account. The river basin management plans are binding for national, regional and local authorities. Authorities need to take into account and ensure compliance with the RBMP objectives/provisions in carrying out their duties. The RBMP is not binding to individual persons i.e. operators, water users. The obligation of compatibility of the RBMP with other decisions and plans applies to the RBMP in its entirety.[8]

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

Consultations on draft RBMPs started late, due to the need to reach a political agreement in the Danish Parliament. This agreement called "Green Growth" was reached in April 2010, after which the draft plans were developed. A special website, www.vandognatur.dk, was set up with information for the public about the water plans. The consultation phase of the draft water plans was divided into two parts. The first part was the implementation of a consultation of water plans in municipalities, regions and governmental institutions. The second part was the public hearing. Written contributions came from individuals, business organisations, environmental organisations, agricultural counselling centres and public authorities. Meetings with municipalities, regions and governmental institutions were also organised. During the public consultation of the water and nature plans, more than 4200 consultation responses were received. In the supplementary consultation process, 1700 responses were received. In addition, there were 1700 responses received in the idea phase. The numbers of meetings and participants etc. are not stated.

There is a general description of the impacts of the public consultation on the final plans and  how the comments received were considered is set out in the RBMP. It is stated that the contributions are summarised and presented on the Nature Agency's website (www.naturstyrelsen.dk). The contributions are described to be of importance to ensure that the RBMPs are developed based on accurate data. The contributions have in several cases led to the reassessment around discharges, of water body conditions, of proposed actions etc., which further led to adjustments in the final plans. All consultation responses received were examined, and water plans were amended further. It is however not clear from the RBMPs which specific changes the consultations led to, but such information is available on the website of the Nature Agency.

There is no information about whether continuous involvement of stakeholders and general public will exist for the future, but in the consultation phase, a water and nature board was established, consisting of political representatives from municipalities, representatives from nature protection NGO`s and representatives from the regional authorities.

3.5 International co-operation and co-ordination

The cross-border international river district includes the main water district Vidå - Kruså, formed by the Danish section of river basins which spans the Danish-German border.  The international character of this RBD is briefly handled in the Vidå-Kruså RBMP. There is also a summary of action to deal with transboundary pollution. There is no single shared international RBMP for these transboundary waters.

Denmark and Germany expressed their commitment to co-ordinate the management of catchments to transboundary watercourses in 2005 in a joint statement and the RBMP for the Danish part of the international Water District has been prepared accordingly. With the common statement describing the general framework for co-operation between the Danish and German water authorities, the relevant authorities considered it unnecessary to establish an international water plan or an international water board or co-operation body. Instead, the existing structures of co-operation across the border are used. These catchments are therefore so called Category 3 catchments (see CSWD).

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

All water categories are relevant to Denmark. However, the category for transitional waters is not used, and no justification is given as to why this water category has not been used. Danish Authorities have defined two separate types of coastal waters: “open coastal waters” and “fjords”. Some of these fjords are even called 'inner fjords' such as Limfjorden, where turbidity, water depths, freshwater exchange and salinity seem more similar to transitional waters. In practice this designation means among other things that fish is not used for classification of this water type.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

A surface water typology has been developed for all water categories used, e.g. rivers, lakes and coastal waters (incl. fjords).

The Danish typology has been developed to provide a physical typology which is as simple as possible. There is no information on whether this typology has been tested with biological data, although Danish Authorities state the typology is ecologically relevant. They admit that there is a need to supplement the typology with more precise descriptions of complex reference conditions within the variation existing within a type. This statement is general and applies to all water categories used in Denmark (for transitional waters, see above).

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

DK1 || 6 || 17 || 0 || 15

DK2 || 6 || 17 || 0 || 8

DK3 || 6 || 17 || 0 || 1

DK4 || 6 || 17 || 0 || 1

Total || 6 || 17 || - || 15

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

Reference conditions have been provided for all river types, but only partly for lakes and coastal waters. The actual reference conditions provided are type-specific for rivers.

For lakes reference conditions are set according to intercalibration results and are type-specific for the three lake types that have been intercalibrated (covering 7% of Danish lakes). Reference conditions are to be developed for the remaining lakes.

Reference conditions for coastal waters are given for chlorophyll a for different coastal areas, but the links to the coastal types are unclear.

There is no information on the methodology used to set the reference conditions for rivers.  The general reference value of 7 for the Danish rivers invertebrate fauna index is not explained in the RBMP but is in national guidance and relates to the benthic invertebrates. No other BQEs are used for setting the reference values in rivers. For lakes, there is no information on how the reference values for chlorophyll a were derived. Danish authorities have clarified that reference conditions for chlorophyll a in lakes have been developed based on expert judgement.

For coastal waters the reference conditions are based on historical data. For the depth limit of eel grass there is a large historical material on the depth distribution of seagrasses in Danish coastal waters from the year 1900 and the following few decades until 1930 that can be used to define reference conditions. For certain types of coastal waters there are no historical data available on depth limit of seagrasses, and for those types the reference value for seagrass depth limit is based on modelling, using nitrogen as a proxy together with the regression between depth limit and total nitrogen. The method used to set reference values for phytoplankton chlorophyll a in coastal waters is explained in national guidelines on the elaboration of PoMs. Benthic fauna was not used in the first cycle for the assessment of ecological status.

The following background reports have been reported by the Danish authorities:

· National guidelines on the elaboration of programmes of measures, notably Annex 5. (in Danish: Retningslinjer for udarbejdelse av indsatsprogrammer), version 5.0, from the Ministry of Environment, December 2010[9].

· National guidance on characterisation (in Danish): Basisanalysen del 1. Karakterisering af vandforekomster og opgørelse av påvirkninger, Guidance no. 2, 2004[10].

· Rivers: Annex 9 to the National guidance on Classification[11].

· Coastal waters: Annex 5 to the National guidance on Classification, page 3[12].

· Lakes: Annex 13 to the national guidelines on the elaboration of programmes of measures.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

Rivers with a catchment area smaller than 10 km2 can be separate water bodies if needed according to specific laws (such as for nature protection law, river law, environmental protection law). For lakes, all lakes larger than 5 ha are delineated as water bodies. Also smaller lakes can be separate water bodies if delineated by the regional plans or based on guidelines given by other sector authorities according to sector laws. Natura 2000 lakes are also separate water bodies.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

DK1 || 12640 || || 619 || 7 || 0 || || 104 || 242 || ||

DK2 || 3601 || || 269 || 107 || 0 || || 55 || 212 || ||

DK3 || 340 || || 19 || 1 || 0 || || 3 || 1357 || ||

DK4 || 300 || || 33 || 15 || 0 || || 0 || 0 || ||

Total || 16881 || || 940 || || 0 || || 162 || 252 || ||

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

Denmark has not reported pressures and impacts to WISE[13]. Quantitative data on the number of water bodies subject to specific pressures are therefore not presented below. The major pressures and impacts listed in the RBMP sub-plans are:

Pressures || Impacts

Pollution from agriculture || Nutrient enrichment Organic enrichment Contamination (pesticides)

Urban waste water from households and industry || Nutrient enrichment Organic enrichment Contamination (heavy metals, POPs)

Pollution from aquaculture || Nutrient enrichment Organic enrichment Contamination (heavy metals, POPs)

Hydromorphological pressures, e.g. barriers, channelization, impoundments, piped streams, drainage || Altered habitats

Water abstraction for irrigation and public water supply || Water scarcity (local only)

Table 4.4.1: Types of impacts per pressure

Source: Summarised and translated from Danish based on information given in Table 2.2.1 in the sub-plan for DK1.2 Limfjorden (similar tables for the other sub-plans)

There are no criteria or thresholds given on how to define significant pressures from point and diffuse sources. The RBMP sub-plans provide tables with numerical accounts of emissions of N and P (and organic carbon given as BOD5 in some of them) from point sources like urban waste water treatment plants, storm overflows, industry, fish farms and households not connected, and also source apportionment. The accounts were based on national and regional and municipal statistics and web-GIS based information, as explained in national guidelines, but this information is not clear from the sub-district RBMPs. The sub-district plans also provide tables with numerical accounts of diffuse loads of N and P from agriculture and long-range transboundary air pollution. Source apportionment with diffuse loads in absolute and relative terms shows the contribution to total loads relative to loads from point sources. There is no information in the sub-plans on how the calculations were carried out, but a reference is made to a report from DMU 2010 (but the full citation of the referenced report is not given in the plans).

For water abstraction there is a pie chart in the sub-plans showing water abstraction permitted from public and private water supply, agriculture and other sectors. Most of the water abstraction is from groundwater, although some irrigation is from rivers. There is also a table showing actual water abstraction from groundwater bodies, giving information on number of m3 abstracted and percentage used relative to permitted. There is a rule that maximum abstraction of groundwater should not exceed 35% of the natural recharge of groundwater. The tables in the sub-plans show that very few groundwater bodies are overabstracted, but irrigation was not assessed for the first RBMPs. The method for calculating the water abstraction is not reported anywhere in the plans or in the national guidelines. The only information in the national guidelines for pressures on surface waters is that the public water works provide data on water abstraction. The methodology described in this guidance is basically to check all national, regional and municipal statistics as well as web-GIS based information.

There is no information in the RBMPs on the tools used to assess significant hydromorphological (HyMo) pressures. The only information found is in the sub-plans chapter 2.2.6 on "Other pressures", where different HyMo pressures and other pressures are described. A physical index was used to assess morphological pressures (physical variation) for rivers, but not for lakes or coastal waters. All pressures are assessed using official statistics and web-GIS, according to the national guidance on characterisation.

The information on chemical pollution and the main sources is very limited and general. Urban waste water, agriculture, aquaculture, navigation and historical contaminated sites are generally mentioned as sources, but not quantified in any way.

Background documentation: WISE chapter 2.2.4.2 is referring to The Danish Act on Methodology, annexes 2 and 3, there are guidelines given on where information on significant pressures can be found referring to official statistics and web-GIS[14].

4.5 Protected areas

Denmark is exempt from designating specific sensitive areas for the Nitrates Directive and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, since it considers the whole territory sensitive or vulnerable. Denmark is not using surface waters for drinking water abstraction purposes.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates[15] || Shellfish || UWWT[16]

DK1 || 256 || || 76 || || || 169 || || || || 23 ||

DK2 || 99 || || 31 || || || 71 || || || || 13 ||

DK3 || 6 || || 2 || || || 12 || || || || ||

DK4 || 7 || || 4 || || || 5 || || || || ||

Total || 368 || || 113 || || || 257 || || || || 36 ||

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[17].

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring 5.1 General description of the monitoring network

Figure 5.1.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

There has been a substantial change of monitoring stations between article 8 (as given in the 2009 WFD implementation report) and article 13 reporting. Denmark has a relatively high number of monitoring sites, although not all types of monitoring seem to take place and not all quality elements are monitored at the reported sites.

The monitoring network used for the preparation of the current River Basin Management Plans was not reported in the RBMPs, instead a new monitoring programme was reported, the new national guidance on monitoring, NOVANA[18]. This new programme, to run from 2011 to 2015, is said to be more WFD compliant, whilst the previous programme was built on existing pre-WFD monitoring. The RBMPs include a very brief description of the new programme, and reference is made to the webportal WebGis[19] for more information. Information was partly reported to WISE, and there are some inconsistencies. This assessment tries to distinguish between the two generations of monitoring as far as possible, and it is assumed that the monitoring network described in the 2009 implementation report was used for the first RBMPs. Denmark did not report which (types of) quality elements are monitored at the specific reported sites. Quality elements monitored have however been reported for the different monitoring programmes.

Denmark did not report which specific quality elements were monitored to WISE. Because of this lack of data, any data presented on the basis of WISE shows no quality elements are, and therefore the relevant tables are not included in this Member State Annex

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

DK1 || 607 || 1971 || 0 || 250 || 0 || 0 || 162 || 312 || 419 || 419 || 419

DK2 || 140 || 393 || 0 || 89 || 0 || 0 || 77 || 119 || 185 || 185 || 185

DK3 || 15 || 27 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 3 || 13 || 13 || 13

DK4 || 14 || 84 || 0 || 9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 19 || 19 || 19

Total by type of site || 776 || 2475 || 0 || 351 || 0 || 0 || 243 || 434 || 636 || 636 || 636

Total number of monitoring sites[20] || 3251 || 351 || - || 677 || 636 || || 5391

Table 5.1.1: Number of monitoring sites by water category

Surv = Surveillance

Op = Operational

Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

For rivers, there has been a large increase in the number of operational monitoring stations (from 748 to 2477), and a smaller increase in the number of surveillance monitoring stations (from 728 to 776) reported to WISE. In the new national guidance there are 800 river stations for surveillance monitoring (table 6.3, p. 90) and 5700 stations for operational monitoring (table 6.5, p. 93). However the information is not clear (as explained above).

For lakes, the WISE data indicate that there are 190 stations for surveillance monitoring and 351 stations for operational monitoring, while the 2009 report shows 263 stations for surveillance monitoring and 265 stations for operational monitoring. The new national guidance shows 150 stations for surveillance monitoring (table 7.1, p. 110) and 310 stations for operational monitoring (table 7.7, p. 118).

For coastal waters there has also been an increase in the number of stations, the WISE data shows 243 stations for surveillance monitoring and 434 stations for operational monitoring, whereas the 2009 report shows only 34 stations for surveillance monitoring and 51 stations for operational monitoring. In the new national guidance the number of stations varies with quality elements, from 13 stations for phytoplankton to 65 stations for angiosperms (table 8.1, p. 132).

For groundwater there has been a decrease in the number of stations, 636 stations for both quantitative monitoring and chemical surveillance and operational monitoring were reported to WISE, compared to 858 stations in the previous report. The monitoring programme for drinking water protected areas (only groundwater) is not included in the NOVANA programme.

5.2 Monitoring of surface waters

The information below is based on the new Danish national guidance on monitoring (NOVANA 2011-2015), which has been reported with the RBMPs (see above).

For rivers, the phytobenthos (benthic algae) is not monitored. There is no justification given why this parameter has been excluded. Also phytoplankton in rivers is excluded, but this is justified by saying that this BQE is not scientifically relevant to Danish rivers (p.88 in NOVANA). According to this programme, the connection to groundwater is not to be monitored, and it is unclear whether the other HyMo QEs are monitored, or only some of them. For the physico-chemical QEs, conductivity (salinity), chloride and sulphate are parameters missing from the monitoring programme. There is no justification given why these supporting QEs are missing from the monitoring programme.

For lakes, phytobenthos is missing, as well as the supporting QEs chloride and sulphate, morphological conditions and connection to groundwater. No justification is given why these are missing. For coastal waters, all the HyMo QEs are missing. No justification given.

Denmark has established an operational monitoring programme for all water categories used in Denmark (rivers, lakes and coastal waters). For rivers only benthic fauna is used. Danish authorities have clarified that only BQEs that have been intercalibrated in the 1st decision and for which a Danish method is available have been monitored and used in the first RBMP phase, more BQEs are foreseen to be used for the second RBMP. For lakes, chlorophyll α and macrophytes are the only BQEs used. For coastal waters the QEs are the same as for surveillance monitoring (all BQEs and physico-chemical QEs).

Screening has been used to identify relevant pollutants (both priority substances and national specific pollutants). The new national guidance document (NOVANA) provides long lists of potentially relevant substances and EQS values for water and for some substances also sediments. Mercury is also monitored in fish in lakes. Only substances found in concentrations considered to be significant for the water environment in the screening survey are monitored, and only in water bodies exposed to emissions of these substances.

Denmark has ca. 17000 river water bodies, 940 lake water bodies and 162 coastal water bodies (see preceding table). In WISE table 5.1.2.b, the total number of water bodies monitored is not given, only the total number classified. For rivers, benthic invertebrates are reported to be classified in over 10000 water bodies (ca. 60%) of all water bodies, while the monitoring guidance says that benthic invertebrates are monitored in 5700 stations. For lakes, 78% of the water bodies are classified (using only chlorophyll α), and for coastal waters 66 of 104 (or 162 according to the table above) water bodies are classified (using angiosperms and/or chlorophyll α). Although these numbers indicate that grouping of water bodies must have been applied, there is no information found on grouping in the RBMP subplans, nor in the national guidance documents on monitoring and on classification. Information about grouping is available in the national guidelines for the programme of measures.

There is no common transboundary monitoring programme in place. Monitoring of the transboundary water bodies (two lakes, one major border river and several smaller transboundary rivers) is carried out according to the NOVANA guidelines for Denmark and according to the German guidelines for the German water bodies. The designation of water bodies was done in a co-ordinated way between DK and DE according to an international agreement from 2005.

Background document/national guidance: The RBMP sub-plans refer to the new National guidance on monitoring, NOVANA (Nasjonal overvågning av vand og natur), 2011-2015, part 2. Ministry of Environment, "Naturstyrelsen". ISBN: 978-87-7279-013-8. http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/­Naturbeskyttelse/­National_naturbeskyttelse/­Overvaagning_af_vand_og_natur/­NOVANA/­novana.htm.

5.3 Monitoring of groundwater

The number of monitoring stations are different in the WISE aggregation report on GWST_sites compared to the report submitted in 2007 (see above), but the number of monitoring stations in the WISE aggregation report is inconsistent with (much higher than) the information given in the new NOVANA national monitoring guidance, as detailed in the following paragraph.

A quantitative groundwater monitoring programme has been established. The number of sites is unclear, as the information in the WISE aggregation report (638 stations) is not consistent with the information given in the National Monitoring guidance (NOVANA 2011-2015) (116 stations). Water quantity parameters are included where the quantitative status is at risk from over-abstraction: groundwater level, water abstraction relative to size and age of the groundwater resource. The water balance and groundwater recharge are modelled on national scale based on a Danish method.

It is unclear whether there is a separate surveillance and operational monitoring programme for groundwater in Denmark. There is a monitoring programme for the current network of 116 stations according to NOVANA (p. 68). The selection of parameters is different for water bodies that are at risk and not based on exceedance of the nitrate value in the Nitrates Directive (50 mg/l NO3 corresponding to 15 mg/l N-NO3). For water bodies at risk the selection of parameters are based on exceedance of drinking water standards for other major components (major ions, including sodium and chloride (salt)), using screening data for specific and priority pollutants from 1993 to 2008. The following major groups of parameters are used: nitrate and other major components (ions, and CO2), metals, POPs including pesticides. A full list of parameters that can be included in the monitoring programme depending on the screening results are given in the national monitoring guidance. There is no particular explanation of the relationship between parameter selection and specific pressures or impacts.

Trend analyses for groundwater chemical status are so far said to be at a preliminary level, but for water bodies exceeding the Nitrates Directive standard and/or standards for pesticides and other pollutants, a programme is planned for monitoring trends for nitrate and selected major components based on samples taken annually or every three years. It is not clear if this trend programme will include other pollutants, as nothing is said about this in the national guidance.

There are many groundwater bodies for which an Article 6 exemption is applied. However, the only monitoring programme described is not specific to these water bodies, but rather general regardless of whether exemptions have been applied or not. The programme established for trend monitoring is specifically used for water bodies at risk, but nothing is said about exemptions under that section in the monitoring guidance. As most of the groundwater bodies seem to be on the list of exemptions, the national programme of monitoring seems to be applicable also for those.

No international monitoring programme of groundwater is in place. Monitoring of the transboundary water bodies (no information on transboundary GWBs) is carried out according to the NOVANA guidelines for Denmark and according to the German guidelines for the German water bodies. The designation of water bodies was done in a co-ordinated way between DK and DE according to an international agreement from 2005.

5.4 Monitoring of protected areas

There is a specific monitoring programme in place for groundwater protected areas used for drinking water. This monitoring programme is not included in the national programme (NOVANA), but done by the water works operators. The monitoring is not carried out in the raw water resource, but only in the drinking water after simple purification. Any groundwater body exceeding drinking water standards are abandoned and no longer monitored by the water works operators. There are 421 monitoring sites included in this programme. Surface waters are not used for drinking water in Denmark. No monitoring stations for groundwater drinking water abstraction protected areas are reported to WISE. In 2007, 70 such monitoring stations were reported (DK1 : 35, DK2 : 32, DK3: 1, DK4 : 3).

There is also a surface waters monitoring programme for the Natura 2000 sites under the Habitats Directive. No specific sensitive areas or specific vulnerable zones were designated under the Nitrates and UWWT Directives (see above).

In addition to drinking water protected areas as mentioned above, more monitoring stations have been reported for other protected areas compared to the 2007 report, in which no other monitoring stations than for  groundwater for drinking water were reported.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

DK1 || 0 || 0 || 49 || 369 || 0 || 554 || 554 || 177 || 0 || 309*

DK2 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 153 || 0 || 0 || 183 || 82 || 0 || 164*

DK3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 13*

DK4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 16 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 10*

Total || 0 || 0 || 60 || 543 || 0 || 554 || 750 || 259 || 0 || 496

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring sites in protected areas[21]

Note: *Number of monitoring sites reported at programme level.

Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

DK1 || 2234 || 182 || 8.1 || 597 || 26.7 || 611 || 27.4 || 226 || 10.1 || 191 || 8.5 || 427 || 19.1

DK2 || 3237 || 69 || 2.1 || 646 || 20.0 || 1259 || 38.9 || 463 || 14.3 || 187 || 5.8 || 613 || 18.9

DK3 || 351 || 55 || 15.7 || 167 || 47.6 || 60 || 17.1 || 3 || 0.9 || 1 || 0.3 || 65 || 18.5

DK4 || 31 || 13 || 41.9 || 3 || 9.7 || 4 || 12.9 || 3 || 9.7 || 3 || 9.7 || 5 || 16.1

Total || 5853 || 319 || 5.5 || 1413 || 24.1 || 1934 || 33.0 || 695 || 11.9 || 382 || 6.5 || 1110 || 19.0

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

DK1 || 1359 || 11 || 0.8 || 244 || 18.0 || 149 || 11.0 || 82 || 6.0 || 28 || 2.1 || 845 || 62.2

DK2 || 680 || 0 || 0 || 72 || 10.6 || 110 || 16.2 || 46 || 6.8 || 23 || 3.4 || 429 || 63.1

DK3 || 11 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 100

DK4 || 68 || 1 || 1.5 || 23 || 33.8 || 5 || 7.4 || 15 || 22.1 || 11 || 16.2 || 13 || 19.1

Total || 2118 || 12 || 0.6 || 339 || 16.0 || 264 || 12.5 || 143 || 6.8 || 62 || 2.9 || 1298 || 61.3

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

DK1 || 2234 || 29 || 1.3 || 3 || 0.1 || 2202 || 98.6

DK2 || 3237 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3237 || 100

DK3 || 351 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 351 || 100

DK4 || 31 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 31 || 100

Total || 5853 || 29 || 0.5 || 3 || 0.05 || 5821 || 99.5

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

DK1 || 1359 || 3 || 0.2 || 6 || 0.4 || 1350 || 99.3

DK2 || 680 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 680 || 100

DK3 || 11 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 100

DK4 || 68 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 68 || 100

Total || 2118 || 3 || 0.1 || 6 || 0.3 || 2109 || 99.6

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

DK1 || 271 || 138 || 50.9 || 133 || 49.1 || 0 || 0

DK2 || 101 || 72 || 71.3 || 29 || 28.7 || 0 || 0

DK3 || 6 || 6 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK4 || 7 || 5 || 71.4 || 2 || 28.6 || 0 || 0

Total || 385 || 221 || 57.4 || 164 || 42.6 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

DK1 || 271 || 190 || 70.1 || 81 || 29.9 || 0 || 0

DK2 || 101 || 49 || 48.5 || 52 || 51.5 || 0 || 0

DK3 || 6 || 6 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK4 || 7 || 4 || 57.1 || 3 || 42.9 || 0 || 0

Total || 385 || 249 || 64.7 || 136 || 35.3 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DK1 || 13364 || 15 || 0.1 || 67 || 0.5 || 0.4 || || || || || || || || || 24 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK2 || 3925 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 26 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK3 || 362 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK4 || 333 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 40 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 17984 || 15 || 0.1 || 67 || 0.4 || 0.3 || || || || || || || || || 24 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[22]

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DK1 || 2234 || 779 || 34.9 || 1361 || 60.9 || 26.1 || || || || || 22.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK2 || 3237 || 715 || 22.1 || 1803 || 55.7 || 33.6 || || || || || 27.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK3 || 351 || 222 || 63.2 || 269 || 76.6 || 13.4 || || || || || 5.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK4 || 31 || 16 || 51.6 || 17 || 54.8 || 3.2 || || || || || 29.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5853 || 7047 || 29.6 || 3450 || 58.9 || 29.3 || || || || || 24.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[23]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DK1 || 2234 || 29 || 1.3 || 32 || 1.4 || 0.1 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK2 || 3237 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK3 || 351 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK4 || 31 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5853 || 29 || 0.5 || 32 || 0.5 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[24]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DK1 || 271 || 138 || 50.9 || 138 || 50.9 || 0.0 || || || || || 49 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK2 || 101 || 72 || 71.3 || 72 || 71.3 || 0.0 || || || || || 29 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK3 || 6 || 6 || 100.0 || 6 || 100.0 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK4 || 7 || 5 || 71.4 || 5 || 71.4 || 0.0 || || || || || 29 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 385 || 221 || 57.4 || 221 || 57.4 || 0.0 || || || || || 43 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[25]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DK1 || 271 || 190 || 70.1 || 190 || 70.1 || 0.0 || || || || || 30 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK2 || 101 || 49 || 48.5 || 49 || 48.5 || 0.0 || || || || || 51 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK3 || 6 || 6 || 100.0 || 6 || 100.0 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK4 || 7 || 4 || 57.1 || 4 || 57.1 || 0.0 || || || || || 43 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 385 || 249 || 64.7 || 249 || 64.7 || 0.0 || || || || || 35 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[26]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DK1 || 1359 || 255 || 18.8 || 291 || 21.4 || 2.6 || || || || || 18.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK2 || 680 || 72 || 10.6 || 137 || 20.1 || 9.6 || || || || || 16.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK3 || 11 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK4 || 68 || 24 || 35.3 || 27 || 39.7 || 4.4 || || || || || 41.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 2118 || 351 || 16.6 || 455 || 21.5 || 4.9 || || || || || 18.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[27]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DK1 || 1359 || 3 || 0.2 || 9 || 0.7 || 0.4 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK2 || 680 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK3 || 11 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DK4 || 68 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 2118 || 3 || 0.1 || 9 || 0.4 || 0.3 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[28]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

Denmark has a national approach to the assessment of ecological status.

There have been many changes between the 2009 WFD implementation report and the reporting of the first RBMPs in 2011. The assessment of the current situation is based on new guidelines from 2010, describing details of the different BQE methods and gaps.

Comparison between the RBMPs and the 2009 WFD implementation report for Danish methods shows that fewer methods are available now, however Danish authorities have clarified that new assessment methods are in development.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

DK1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DK2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

DK3 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

DK4 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 7.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

Denmark has still not developed ecological status assessment methods for all BQEs. Danish authorities state that only BQEs for which methods are fully developed and intercalibrated have been used for classification. For rivers, the only BQE method developed is benthic invertebrates. For lakes, the only phytoplankton (chlorophyll a) was used, and for coastal waters, chlorophyll a and angiosperms were used. Methods for phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates are not developed for rivers and no justification is given. For coastal waters, the method for phytoplankton is only partly developed (only chlorophyll a) and there is no method yet available for macroalgae.

The biological methods are developed to detect all major pressures, which according to the Danish authorities are morphological changes in rivers and nutrient enrichments in rivers and coastal waters. For rivers, the pressures detected with the benthic invertebrates are primarily organic enrichment and morphological changes, whereas nutrient enrichment may not be well detected, as the most sensitive BQE is missing (phytobenthos). For lakes and coastal waters, the BQE methods developed primarily detect nutrient enrichment, while HyMo pressures may not be well detected. Other potential pressures seem not to be detected by the biological methods chosen.

Standards have been set for most physico-chemical QEs in lakes, but not in the other water categories. For hydromorphological QEs, the only standard set is for the Danish physical index for rivers (which describes physical variation). Danish Authorities have clarified that in their view, hydromorphological quality elements are not relevant to lakes and coastal waters in Denmark.

EQS values have been set in a national Decision[29] for most specific pollutants identified in a screening survey, but it is unclear from the RBMPs whether these have been set according to WFD Annex V, 1.2.6. These EQS are listed in annex 6 to the sub-district plans, which also include what seem to be "guidance values" that are the 75th and 90th percentile of the concentrations of relevant pollutants found in sediment, used as a basis for a preliminary basis for the assessment of status (and for screening).

The one-out-all-out principle has been applied to derive the overall ecological status. In practice however only one BQE has been used for each water category in the first plans (benthic fauna for rivers, chlorophyll a for lakes and angiosperms depth limit for coastal waters), but the physico-chemical QEs or the specific pollutants are used to downgrade from good to moderate if the supporting QEs are worse than the BQE used for each water body.

As regards uncertainty, there is no information on confidence or precision of the biological assessment, except for chlorophyll a in lakes, where precision is shown to increase with increasing sampling frequency. There is no information on whether grouping has been used. The uncertainty issue is planned to be addressed in the next RBMPs.

Ecological status assessment methods have been developed for the surface water body types as follows:

· Rivers: The only biological method for rivers is the benthic fauna index that is applied to all river types. For the supporting QEs, it is not clear whether the assessment methods apply to all types or not.

· Lakes: The classification system is only developed for three types for chlorophyll a (lake types 2, 9, 10), and two types for all other QEs (lake types 9 and 10). There are 16 national lake types altogether, but most Danish lakes are said to belong to the types 9 (very shallow, clear, high alkalinity) and 10 (deep, clear, high alkalinity).

· Coastal waters: Classification systems for chlorophyll a are developed for some coastal water types, but not for all. There are 15 types of coastal waters altogether; two types are included in the chlorophyll a system. For the other BQEs (depth limit of angiosperms and benthic fauna on soft-bottoms) the system is applied to all national types. Classification systems are not developed for the supporting QEs.

All intercalibrated metrics were checked and found to be consistent with the values given in the IC official decision for all three water categories. The following metrics were intercalibrated for Denmark:

· Rivers: Danish benthic fauna index for rivers.

· Lakes: Phytoplankton, Chlorophyll a.

· Coastal waters: Phytoplankton, Chlorophyll a, Angiosperms, growth limit, and Benthic fauna on soft-bottoms.

For rivers, the classification methods apply to all types. The lake types not corresponding to the IC types are consistent with the IC results in terms of absolute values for chlorophyll α. For coastal waters, there is only a guideline saying that the boundary setting for other national types than those corresponding to the IC types should use the same EQRs, and that any deviation from these values has to be justified and documented properly. Danish authorities have clarified that development of a monitoring method and assessment method for phytobenthos is underway.

A background document or national/regional guidance document has been reported: National guidance on classification, included in the guidelines on elaboration of RBMPs (in Danish: Retningslinjer for udarbejdelse av indsatsprogrammer), version 5.0, from the Ministry of Environment, December 2010, also referred to in the RBMPs[30].

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

Due to the lack of several assessment methods in Denmark (see above), there are no water bodies assessed using all relevant quality elements. The BQEs used for assessment are those that have been intercalibrated in phase 1, as well as supporting physico-chemical QEs. This means that for rivers, benthic fauna is the only BQE used, for lakes only chlorophyll α is used, while for coastal waters the assessment is primarily based on angiosperm depth limit (as this is the only BQE with good relationship to pressures), although also the other two intercalibrated BQEs (or part of BQEs), chlorophyll α and benthic fauna, are recommended to be used as soon as dose-response relationships are established.

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)

DK1 || 7440-38-2 || As ||

DK1 || 7440-47-3 || Cr ||

DK1 || 7440-50-8 || Cu ||

DK1 || || Li ||

DK1 || || PCB7 ||

DK2 || 7440-50-8 || Copper ||

DK3 || || Fe-oxides ||

DK4 || || Fe-oxides ||

Table 7.2.1: River basin specific pollutants causing failure of status

Source: RBMPs

The sections of the sub-district plans on surface water status also indicate which pollutants exceed these "guidance values" in sediment. Some water body specific information is available, for instance exceedances of these "guidance values" in sediment and biota (mussels) in selected water bodies. No overview has been found concerning exceedances of water EQS specific river basin specific pollutants in specific water bodies, and no information was reported to WISE. There is some scattered information in the RBMP sub-plans that small rivers may have exceedances of certain pesticides, and that several surface water bodies might fail to achieve good ecological status due to elevated concentrations of As, Cr, Cu, Li, and PCB7. High concentrations of several specific pollutants are also found in sediments in some lakes and in harbour areas, but EQS values are not yet available, so exceedances cannot be assessed. From the RBMPs it appears EQS exceedances of RBD specific substances were not used to assess ecological status, and the sediment analysis was not used to assess ecological (or chemical) status since no guidelines for sediment EQS exists. Danish authorities have clarified that specific pollutants are used for the classification of ecological status.

As regards selection of the most sensitive biological quality elements, operational monitoring in rivers is based only on benthic invertebrates, which are primarily sensitive to organic enrichment and to a certain extent to hydromorphological changes. Other pressures in rivers, e.g. diffuse source pollution causing nutrient enrichment may not be sufficiently well detected, as phytobenthos is ignored. In lakes, phytoplankton chlorophyll α and macrophytes are used. Both are sensitive to nutrient enrichment caused by diffuse and point source pollution, which is the dominant pressure on Danish lakes. In coastal waters, mainly angiosperms depth limit is used, which is well related to nutrient enrichment, while other pressures may not be well detected.

As regards confidence and precision or uncertainty, confidence class is given for each classified water body. More than 90% of rivers and lakes are classified with no information on confidence, while for transitional and coastal waters all water bodies are classified with high confidence (ref. EEA/ETC Thematic assessment of ecological status and pressures, figure 3.4). It is not clear why the confidence is reported so differently for rivers and lakes, versus coastal waters. There is no information on the criteria used for choosing the different levels of confidence.

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The provisional identification of Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWBs) and Artificial Water Bodies (AWBs) for DK in the Article 5 report[31] was estimated to approximately 9% of the total number of WB, with about 2% being AWBs and 7% HMWBs . In the RBMPs, 1546 HMWBs and 570 AWB have been designated in the 4 main RBDs representing 12% of totally 17983 WBs in Denmark[32]. This is a slight increase relative to the provisional designation reported in Article 5.

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

The water uses for which the water bodies have been designated as HMWBs or AWBs are clearly stated in the national guidelines from 2008: navigation including port facilities, recreation, storage for irrigation, flood protection, land drainage, urban or agricultural development requiring piped streams and culturally or historically valuable remnants (dams). The physical modifications related to these uses are locks, weirs/dams/reservoirs, channelization, straightening, bank reinforcement, land reclamation and ports. These modifications are listed as examples of water bodies that can be designated as HMWBs or AWBs. In cases where these modifications only affect a minor part of a water body, not affecting the status of the whole water body, there should be no designation of those water bodies as HMWBs or AWBs. Rivers channelized to achieve land drainage should not be designated as HMWBs if they can be restored to good status with minor changes in maintenance (e.g. less cutting of weeds) or with minor restoration measures. There is a recommendation that piped streams in urban areas should be reconsidered to be re-opened.

The methodology used for designation of HMWBs partly follows the CIS Guidance document Nº4[33]. Steps 1 to 6 have been partly followed, but slightly modified with somewhat different wording. Steps 7 to 9 are followed.

No information is given on uncertainty in the designation process and Danish authorities state that there is no uncertainty in the process.

Background/guidelines: Chapter 4 in the National guidelines on the designation of HMWBs and AWBs including methodology for assessing ecological potential, called: "Bilag 12 Retningslinjer for definition og udpegning af stærkt modificerede vandområder", v. 5, March 2008 and published by Naturstyrelsen[34]. This document is an Annex to the main Danish national guidance on elaboration of RBMPs from 2010.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

GEP has been defined for rivers, coastal waters (ports), and lakes.

The mitigating measures approach (Prague approach) has been used to define GEP. All mitigation measures without significant adverse effects on the use or the wider environment have not been identified, and Maximum Ecological Potential (MEP) has not been defined by estimating the biological values expected if all mitigation measures were taken. The information in the RBMP sub-plans do not provide any information on the first two steps. It is also unclear if Step 3 has been used.

The RBMP sub-plans state that for rivers GEP is defined for benthic fauna by comparison with the natural water bodies that most closely resemble the HMWBs, but where it is accepted that the existing HyMo status will not be changed.

The following types of mitigation measures are foreseen and are expected to restore the benthic fauna to achieve GEP: sediment/debris management; removal of structures: weirs, barriers; bank reinforcement; reconnection of meander bends or side arms; restoration of bank structure; minimum ecological flow and reopening piped river reaches.

For coastal waters, GEP is defined as having the same values for the supporting QEs (nutrients) as the equivalent natural types of coastal water bodies. GEP is not defined for biological QEs for coastal waters. So it is unclear whether these definitions of GEP have been related to the measures, as specified in step 3.

The term "minor modifications not affecting the status of the main water body" is used as a reason not to designate a water body as heavily modified or artificial, but no information is given in quantitative terms concerning what is meant by "minor modifications". The RBMP describes an approach on how the significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment (Article 4.3.a) have been defined, although no criteria or specific thresholds have been developed to identify these adverse effects (e.g. unacceptable social and economic costs, or historical/cultural value). Numerous examples of significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment are given for each water category. Examples given for rivers are: a) if the removal of an impoundment will cause draining of specially valuable nature sites or if the impoundment has special historical value or social preservation value; b) if the restoration of natural flow in a drained river reach would be technically difficult or cause large economic costs; c) if the reopening of piped rivers in urban areas to provide natural physical conditions allowing good ecological status is not possible due to technical, cultural or economic causes; d) if restoration of rivers that are channelised for flood protection in urban areas cannot be done due to technical difficulties or large economic costs. Examples for lakes are: a) if the removal of an impoundment will cause draining of specially valuable nature sites or if the impoundment has special historical value or social preservation value; b) impounded artificial lake with large mercury concentrations in the sediment, where restoration would cause spreading of mercury to downstream water bodies; c) impoundments done for hydropower production or drinking water supply or freshwater aquaculture that cannot be removed due to large economic costs. Examples for coastal waters are: dredging carried out to maintain navigation cannot be stopped due to socially or economically unacceptable costs.

Background document/guidance document: Chapter 4 in the National guidelines on the designation of HM and AWBs including methodology for assessing ecological potential, called: "Bilag 12 Retningslinjer for definition og udpegning af stærkt modificerede vandområder", v. 5, March 2008 and published by Naturstyrelsen (Danish EPA)[35]. This document is an Annex to the main Danish national guidance on elaboration of RBMPs from 2010.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

Table showing the percentage of water bodies in less than good ecological status or potential of the total number of classified water bodies in Denmark.

Water category || Modification category || Number of water bodies classified || % less than good

All || HMWB || 410 || 64.1

AWB || 410 || 50.2

DK total || 14508 || 51.4

Rivers || HMWB || 388 || 63.1

AWB || 408 || 50

DK total || 13642 || 50.4

Lakes || HMWB || 20 || 80

AWB || 2 || 100

DK total || 783 || 64.6

Coastal waters || HMWB || 2 || 100

AWB || 0 || 0

DK total || 83 || 100

Table 8.3.1: Percentage of water bodies in less than good ecological status or potential

Source: WISE

The assessment results given in the table above show that the proportion of water bodies that are reported as being less than good is higher for the heavily modified rivers and lakes (64%) than for the total number of classified water bodies (51%). Artificial water bodies have almost the same proportion of less than good water bodies (50%) as the total number of classified water bodies.

Only 27% of the HMWBs have been classified, while more than 80% of all water bodies have been classified. Thus the results shown above may not be representative of the majority of the HMWBs. Moreover, the ecological potential assessment in the heavily modified and artificial rivers is only based on benthic fauna, and the assumed impacts of hydromorphological changes. Thus the reliability of the assessment is doubtful. The Danish authorities have clarified that more monitoring is needed to increase the certainty of the classification and to identify mitigation measures.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

The basis for the assessment are the environmental quality standards (EQS) of Annex I of the EQSD (Directive 2008/105/EC).

· Few of the EQSD substances have been monitored, and the number of   samples analysed (water and biota) is low, this is also mentioned in the RBMP sub-plans. The substances monitored have been selected based on a screening survey. Substances that have been used in Denmark or that can be long-range transported and that have been found to occur in water bodies in Denmark are included.

· EQS according to the EQSD for biota are applied. Some results are shown for mercury and hexachlorobenzene in biota, no results for hexachlorobutadiene were found. Denmark has conducted a lot of work on sediments on many of the EQSD substances.

Background concentrations are not considered in the assessment of the compliance with the EQS. Bioavailability (e.g. pH, filtered/not filtered, water hardness, DOC content) is not taken into account in the assessment of compliance with the EQS for metals.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

There is a large proportion of water bodies for which the classification is unknown or no information has been provided in Demarks RBDs.

The substances exceeding EQS are reported in the WISE summary, and in the RBMPs, but it is not completely straightforward to find the information in the RBMPs (see comment chapter Ecological status).

RBD || Priority substance or certain other pollutant Aggregated into type or named individual substances || Number of water bodies where EQSs are exceeded and chemical status is less than good

DK1.2 || 1.3 Mercury || 1

DK1.5 || 1 Heavy Metals - aggregated || 37

1.3 Mercury || 2

DK1.7 || 1 Heavy Metals - aggregated || 14

1.3 Mercury || 2

DK1.8 || 1.3 Mercury || 1

4.17 Tributyltin compounds || 1

DK1.9 || 1.3 Mercury || 1

DK1.13 || 1.3 Mercury || 3

3 Industrial Pollutants - aggregated || 1

DK1.14 || 1.3 Mercury || 1

DK1.15 || 1.3 Mercury || 1

2.7 Isoproturon || 2

Table 9.2.1: Priority Substances and other pollutants causing exceedances by sub-RBMP for DK1. DK 1.2 indicates the number of the sub-district plans.

Source: WISE

9.3 Other issues

To a certain extent, mixing zones have been used according to Article 4 of the EQSD.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

The main pressures on groundwater are point and diffuse source pollutions, and in some areas also water over-abstraction. The status information reported (see tables in chapter 6 above) shows that 35% of all GWBs are in poor quantitative status and 42% in poor chemical status.

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

The basis for assessment of quantitative status are GIS map layers e.g. water abstraction, recharge and infiltration, numeric models (DK NOVANA model) or water balance equations.  Regarding groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems, the RBMP’s states that the assessment (both regarding quantity and quality) is based on insufficient data and that new information/data, methods etc. will be collected/developed during the first implementation cycle.

As regards the methodology for the balance between re-charge and abstraction, a Danish model is said to be used, but needs improvements due to weaknesses. According to the sub-plan for DK 2.3, the DK model has high uncertainty, as it has not been updated according to recent hydrogeological knowledge in water exchange with nearby aquifers. In some areas, this uncertainty causes a mismatch between estimated large remaining water availability in a GWB and observed water scarcity in the rivers connected to that GWB.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

The basis for assessment of chemical status is monitoring data and threshold values for As, Cd, Pb, Hg, NH4, Cl, SO4, trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene, conductivity. The substances considered for threshold values (TV) are laid down in a national regulation. Some RBMPs use nitrate, pesticides and chloride, others add for example sodium, potassium, fluoride, sulphate, ammonium, phosphorous and trichloroethylene. The TVs for most of the substances are identical with the drinking water TVs.

Background concentrations have been considered for ions (ammonia, phosphorous, potassium, fluoride, chloride).

A methodology for TV exceedances is established in figure 3.9 of the National guidance on classification, included in the guidelines on elaboration of RBMPs, also referred to in the RBMPs[36].  This method is based on two steps, where the first step is to assess whether there is any exceedance of threshold values, and the second step consists of several tests (or control questions) to decide if the exceedance is significant. These tests include questions on whether there is salt water intrusion, whether surface waters or connected terrestrial ecosystems are affected and whether the groundwater is a protected area for drinking water. The status is poor if the exceedance is found for at least one substance and the water body fails one or more of these tests.

Trends have not been found due to a lack of data for assessing pollution trends, i.e. long enough time series.

10.3 Protected areas

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

DK1 || 97 || 159 ||

DK2 || 40 || 59 ||

DK3 || 6 || ||

DK4 || 2 || 4 ||

Total || 146 || 222 || 0

Table 10.3.1: Number and status of groundwater drinking water protected areas.

Source: WISE

The table above shows the status of the GWB associated to drinking water protected areas. The main reasons for failing to achieve good are over-abstraction and/or nitrate pollution.

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

A risk assessment of the water bodies sort the water bodies in two main categories, the ones that are likely to meet the environmental objectives by 2015 and the ones that will fail to meet the targets by 2015 with a certain probability.  For the latter category, impacts causing the problems of achieving good ecological/chemical status are assessed.

The RBMP describes environmental objectives for some sub-basins for 2015. Current environmental quality is described for all water bodies and summarised in the WISE summary report. It is however stated that all water bodies (except the ones where exemptions are applied) are going to reach good ecological status/potential by 2015. Environmental objectives for 2021 and 2027 are not described.

Many water bodies are still unclassified. In the RBMPs, an overview of the number of natural water bodies and groundwater bodies in 2015 at good ecological status or better is presented on the basis of already taken or planned environmental improvements.

There is some inconsistency between the summary statistics in chapter 5 of the WISE summary report and the reporting in the rest of chapter 5 describing ecological/chemical status of rivers, lakes and coastal waters for the different kinds of water bodies. WEBGIS provides more detailed information.

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

It is possible to introduce stricter requirements in Natura 2000 areas and water quality in 5 lake habitats to ensure their favorable conservation status. A condition assessment system has not currently been developed to enable assessment of need  for any additional efforts to achieve favorable conservation status. With regard to groundwater, there will not be a knowledge base to set stricter requirements for associated terrestrial habitats in the first plan period (2009 -2015).

For protected areas related to shellfish and bathing water areas, it is not clear from the RBMPs and WISE summary report whether additional objectives (i.e. additional to good status) have been set.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

The Danish Nature Agency has used the WFD exemptions options in a number of areas to postpone efforts to later plan periods. The Danish Nature Agency has thoroughly considered the scope of individual exemptions, and their use stated in the individual water plans. The use of exceptions is divided into the following causal categories: 1) Technical reasons: there is no or insufficient information about the problem, and therefore a solution cannot be identified. 2) Natural reasons: natural conditions make it impossible to achieve goals within time and 3) Disproportionate costs: There will be excessive costs associated with completion on schedule.

The RBMPs state that disproportionate costs, technical feasibility and natural condition arguments justify exemptions. Danish authorities have clarified that disproportionate costs are used to distribute measures over time, notably for measures to ensure wastewater treatment for scattered settlements. There are some discrepancies between WISE and RBMP reporting.

Numbers are given in the RBMP for rivers, lakes, coastal waters and groundwater bodies in each of the 23 sub-districts in Denmark, but these are not summarised in the WISE summary report. An example of how this is presented is given below (RBMP Nordlige Kattegat and Skagerrak, page 48):

Water body ID number || Problem to be addressed || Exemption || Justification of  exception

DK1.1.1.2 || Quantitative and chemical influences from saltwater intrusion || Postponement of deadline for the achievement good chemical status || Natural conditions make it impossible to achieve goals within time.

Table 11.2.1: Example of exemption reported in sub-district plan

Source: RBMP Nordlige Kattegat and Skagerrak

Tables presented in the RBMP provide an overview identifying water bodies for which exceptions are applied in addition to a general description of any problem, type of exemption (postponed deadline), and reason for exemption (disproportionate costs, natural conditions and technical feasibility.) Numbers are given in the RBMP for rivers, lakes, coastal waters and ground water bodies in each of the 23 sub-districts in Denmark and are not summarised in the WISE summary report. An example of how this is presented is given below (RBMP Nordlige Kattegat and Skagerrak, page 45):

Lake || Problem to be addressed || Exemption || Justification of  exception

Gersholt Sø, Dybvad Sø, Guldager Sø, Lillesø, Råbjermile Sø, øst; Råbjerg Sø,   Nørlev Sø, Vandplasken Vandet Sø || Lack of knowledge about the effort required. The lake does not meet the environmental target in the baseline but the evidence is insufficient to estimate the necessary effort to reach fulfillment. || Postponement of deadline for the achievement good chemical status || There is no or insufficient information about the problem, and therefore a solution cannot be identified

Table 11.2.2: Example of water bodies identified for exemption reported in sub-district plan

Source: RBMP Nordlige Kattegat and Skagerrak

The economic consequences of alternatives will be assessed and compared with the consequences of making no changes. The economic impact analysis and assessment of whether the cost is disproportionate will be made before the next water plan. Thereafter it may be evaluated whether there is basis for reducing objectives for water bodies. No further information is provided, such as if basic measures are considered in the disproportionate costs.

It is reported in the WISE summary report that no use is made of the technical infeasibility criterion and the influence of natural conditions on recovery to justify exemptions. There is only a general statement that technical reasons are the basis for exemptions where there is no, or insufficient information about the cause of the problem, and therefore a solution cannot be identified. There is also a general statement that exemptions due to natural reasons can be justified when the natural conditions will not make it possible to improve the status of the water body to achieve goals within time. Technical infeasibility and the influence of natural conditions on recovery are generally stated in the RBMPs as a reason for the suggested exemptions in the first plan period.

RBD || Global[37]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

DK1 || 1701 || 0 || 1264 || 0 || 296 || -

DK2 || 672 || 0 || 233 || 0 || 111 || -

DK3 || 9 || 0 || 11 || 0 || 2 || -

DK4 || 64 || 0 || 58 || 0 || 11 || -

Total || 1701 || 0 || 1264 || 0 || 296 || -

Table 11.2.3: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

Exemptions according to Article 4(6) are not applied in Denmark.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

Exemptions according to Article 4(7) are not applied in Denmark in the first cycle, some projects may be developed in the second linked to the implementation of the Floods Directive.

11.5 Exemptions to the Groundwater Directive

Tables presented in the RBMPs provide an overview identifying water bodies for which exceptions for groundwater under the Environmental Act § 16 and 19 are applied in addition to a general description of problem, type of exemption (postponed deadline), and reason for exemption (natural conditions and technical feasibility).

No exemptions to the achievement of the objectives of groundwater Article 7 Drinking Water Protected Areas have been reported.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[38] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures (PoM) – general

According to the RBMPs, the PoM is prepared on the basis of status assessment. The general measures will be implemented to all WB, but the specific targeted measures will be applied in relation to the specific need to reach the goal for each WB. For some measures, notably nutrient pollution, Denmark has linked the protection of eelgrass to specific nutrient loads, and designed specific cost-effective measures on that basis, involving stakeholders in the process.

The PoM is not co-ordinated with other the neighbouring countries. For the international RB (Vidå-Kruså), a general co-operation exists.

The scope of application of the measures is specified e.g. as km of buffers, area of changed agricultural practice (Table 1.3.1. for each subunit of RBMP).

Measures have been established at national, regional, sub-basin and water body level. At the national level, the Danish Nature Agency (regional offices) is responsible for the agricultural measures. The municipalities are responsible for most measures on wastewater,  and there are additional measures in the RBMPs to reduce point sources from scattered dwellings, stormwater overflows and discharges from smaller public wastewater treatment plants. The information on responsibility of different authorities is not easily accessible in the RBMPs. The municipalities are also responsible for measures improving river continuity and the physical condition of rivers(restoration) and for the establishment of wetlands (N and P removal). Finally the municipalities are responsible for controlling water abstraction(permit), taking into account the objectives for groundwaters and freshwaters.  In some catchment areas abstraction should be reduced in order to maintain ecologically based flow regimes.

The cost of measures has been clearly identified at the RB sub-district level, but the costs are not summarized for the RBDs. It is stated in the RBMPs that the measures are mainly funded through taxes on water use (water supply and wastewater treatment), additionally from general taxes and a minor part from private business. Measures on agriculture are funded by the acgriculture sector, by EU funding(RDP) and the Government.

Plans for measures will be operational at the latest by December 2012. The PoM will not be sufficient to reach the goal of good ecological status for all water bodies. But for some WB the measures will be implemented to reach the target. No other information on deadlines for implementation of measures within the plan period was found in the RBMPs, however Danish authorities have clarified that that some measures are operational now and some are subject to consultation at local level, with the aim of all measures being operational at the end of 2012. A detailed assessment of which measures are needed at what locations are provided in the WebGIS portal. Some measures, such as wetland creation, improved waste-water treatment and changing of physical conditions are being negotiated at local level, with the object of making these measures operational by the end of 2012.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Nutrients (nitrates and phosphorus) and pesticides from diffuse sources have been identified as significant pressures. Also channelisation of streams for improved drainage of agricultural fields is a threat to ecological status of the water bodies. Water abstraction is a significant pressure.

In all the RBMP, there is a time schedule describing the planning process (Table 2.7.1). Between 2007 and 2011 there have been 4 hearings where stakeholders such as inhabitants, organisations - including farmer organisations - municipalities and regional authorities have had the opportunity to comment on the plans. Some comments have caused changes in the plans. Comments and answers have been published.

The main focus in the RBMP is on technical measures. Technical measures in agriculture include changes in soil tillage practices and reduced fertilizer application. Also buffer zones have been implemented as a general measure. The economic instruments were not described in detail in the RBMPs.

The scope of measures is specified e.g. as km of buffers, area of changed agricultural practice (Table 1.3.1. for each subunit of RBMP).

The cost of measures has been identified at the sub-district level, but the costs are not summarized for the RBDs. The measures are mainly funded through a tax on water use, additionally from general taxes and a minor part from private business / finance, but no information was found on the financial commitment for implementation of measures.  Danish authorities have clarified that the Rural Development Programme is foreseen to be used for the financing of measures.

Plans for measures will be ready at the latest by December 2012. No detailed information on the timeline for implementation of agricultural measures was found, however clarification has been provided by the Danish authorities that measures like strengthening of the norm system, buffer zones creation or ligation, limited ploughing and catch crops are currently in place and/or required.

Measures || DK1 || DK2 || DK3 || DK4

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || || || ||

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || || || ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || ü || ü || ü

Measures against soil erosion || ü || ü || ü || ü

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü || ü || ü || ü

Technical measures for water saving || || || ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || || || ||

Co-operative agreements || ü || ü || ü || ü

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || || ||

Nutrient trading || ü || ü || ü || ü

Fertiliser taxation || || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || || || ||

Institutional changes || || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || ü || ü || ü || ü

Farm advice and training || ü || ü || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || || || ||

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || || || ||

Certification schemes || || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || ü || ü || ü || ü

Specific action plans/programmes || || || ||

Land use planning || ü || ü || ü || ü

Technical standards || ü || ü || ü || ü

Specific projects related to agriculture || || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || || || ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

Measures are appropriate to target the pressures. Building of fish ladders are planned to overcome problems of barriers. Stream meandering will be implemented to reduce the impact of channelisation. Re-opening of piped streams to improve the ecological status is also included in the variety of measures. Reduced maintenance of water courses, and removal of physical obstacles are the most important measures.

All measures have been evaluated regarding their effects on the WBs. Table 1.3.1 in each of the RBMP describes the expected effects.

Hydromorphological measures have been planned for some HMWB, but are less comprehensive when compared to other water bodies. For some HMWB improved knowledge is needed and will be investigated to be able to improve the status.

As regards ecologically based flow regime, specific limits for water abstraction are established in permit system, but not reported. Additional limits to water abstraction have been suggested in several RBMPs, but will not be implemented during the first plan period. The influence of water abstraction on flow requires further investigation.

Background document: short description of measures, the background, effects and economy are stated in the Catalogue of Measures (Virkemiddelkatalog) on www.naturstyrelsen.dk.

Measures || DK1 || DK2 || DK3 || DK4

Fish ladders || ü || ü || ü || ü

Bypass channels || || || ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || ü || ü || ü

Sediment/debris management || || || ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || ü || ü || ü || ü

Lowering of river banks || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü || ü || ü || ü

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ü || ü || ü || ü

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || ü || ü || ü || ü

Construction of retention basins || || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || ü || ü || ü || ü

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || ü || ü || ü || ü

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

For all water bodies failing to achieve good status according to the method described in the Chapter on groundwater status assessment, measures should be taken. The measures are based on varying degree of expert judgements, calculations or modelling.

In addition to the permit regime in place for water abstractions, the measures related to the quantitative status are to move the point of abstraction if an exceedance is identified, reducing the abstraction or requiring better planning. Abstraction is an issue for major cities like Copenhagen, Arhus and Odense.

No measures related to improving chemical status are planned, since this is assumed to be managed by the regulation of drinking water. More knowledge is needed to determine specific measures needed.

There is no information on international co-ordination of measures.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

Priority substances and other hazardous substances are mentioned in the RBMP and WISE, but the description is mainly general and no inventories related to specific substances have been found. The RBMPs note that knowledge related to chemical pressures and measures are missing in the 2010-2015 plan.

Basic measures required by Article 11(3)(a), Article 11(3)(b-l), and measured listed in Annex VI Part A have been implemented in the RBMPs. Main measures are not indicated, but the plans note overall that measures related to chemical pollution from agriculture, fish farming, point/diffuse sources, and industry will be considered. Danish authorities have clarified that a key task for the first cycle is to increase the knowledge base regarding chemical pollution.

The only substance specific measures that included in the first RBMP   are further investigations and general permitting regime.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

In practice the narrow definition of water services and uses has been applied i.e. Public and private suppliers, private water supply, private sewage disposal and private abstraction for crop irrigation in accordance with water plans (no further details described).

No further information is available if at least households, industry and agriculture are defined as water users.

Cost recovery is calculated for all defined water services; the coverage of costs of water use is regulated through the Water Supply Act (Act No. 635 of June 7 2010), the Act on payment rules for wastewater (Act No. 633 of 07th June 2010) and water sector law (L No 469 of 12 June 2009). User charges include users' direct payment for the services water supply and wastewater treatment. A fee for mapping of groundwater and a sewage tax are also included. Private operators ' cost of water abstraction, wastewater treatment and remedial action in relation to contaminated land is categorized here as self-financing because the cost is usually paid directly by those private operators. The level of general taxation and tax financing is calculated residually; as the amount needed for the total recovery of expenses. In addition to user charges on water supply and wastewater treatment, a number of green taxes are also paid (see below). This implies that households and companies' total costs related to water is greater than the total cost of the water sector. As for most other public activities, there is nothing that indicates that an area's activities should be covered by taxes related to this area.

A principle for cost recovery was established by law in 1998. This principle implies that the revenue of water supply cannot exceed its expenses, and that it may only incur costs that are directly related to the regular water supply activities. The law specifies that the water price may include the necessary financial costs of extraction and distribution of water, salaries and other operating costs, administration costs, operational costs, depreciation, interest on external finance and losses from prior periods arising from the construction, substantial expansion of supply systems and provision for new investments. In addition, the water price covers advising clients about saving water, financing water-saving measures as well as participation in water company collaborations. Cost of construction, operation and maintenance of wastewater facilities are to be covered by the affected property owners who are connected to the public sewage system or who are contractually affiliated to the public sewage system. Expenses for the fulfilment of e.g. recipient maintenance or restoration are not covered by user fees.

To some degree some environmental and resource costs are recovered. The cost of water supply recovers costs of mapping, monitoring and protecting water resources as water suppliers have a current or potential interest in being able to recover from water resource areas. The act on payment rules for waste water treatment plants is based on a principle that wastewater treatment is a public utility to be fully funded by users and thus the "polluters pay" in accordance with uniform guidelines.

The polluter pays principle functions for wastewater treatment. There is no information about other water services. The "polluter pays" principle is implemented by a 100% user funding.

The current water pricing policy provides adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently by metering water and applies volumetric charging. Water use is charged kr (danish kroner) per m3 water used. User charges include consumers direct payment for the services water supply and wastewater treatment. In addition to user charges on water supply and wastewater treatment, a number of green taxes are also paid.. In this case, the water related green taxes, i.e. piped water tax and sewage tax, give a larger revenue than the tax-funded activities within the water sector. It is common practice in Denmark, to charge a green fee per. m3 water from all users. This is to create incentives for reducing water consumption. Businesses can recover the tax if they are VAT registered. Other green taxes (e.g. waste tax and CO2 tax) are included in the user charges. There is no information if the situation is also relevant for self-abstraction and other water services, which hasn't been identified.

The RBMP states the use of provisions in article 9.4 as not relevant. No further information is given.

Denmark has a common definition of water uses and water services, common presentation of existing water prices and a common approach to cost recovery calculations. The methodological approach for this topic generally follows a national approach, the information in the RBMPs and the WISE summary report is very similar for all the river basin districts. Annex 8 in each RBMP about the economic analysis of water use is common for Denmark as a whole. International co-operation is not reported in the application of Article 9.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

In Denmark every areas is a nitrate vulnerable zone and hence only general and no additional measures will be implemented to reach the goal of the Nitrates Directive. Water bodies for bathing water quality have been identified and presented in the Danish webGIS (miljoegis.mim.dk). Some additional measures are suggested for example to remove sewage from discharging into bathing water.

The measures in the RBMP are co-ordinated with measures in the Natura2000-plan (e.g. Habitat-directive). There are specific plans for measures in the Habitat- and Birds-directive. For the Shellfish, specific areas are selected for growth of shellfish (areas from which shellfish (mussels and gastropods) may be sent directly for human consumption without treatment). No specific plan for measures for shellfish was found in the RBMPs. However through the analysis of additional national sources of information[39] the Danish Department of Environment has established guidelines for the development of Programmes of Measures (PoMs) in the designated shellfish waters. Production and protection areas largely overlap and production areas are regulated through the “Order on mussels etc.” , which is based on the Commission’s decision 2002/226/EF. Measures to improve bathing water quality are included in the RBMP. In RBMP, freshwater fish have been mentioned as a parameter for the ecological status of water bodies. Additional measures to fulfil the Freshwater fish directive were not found.

Plans for Drinking water are implemented at the national scale and therefore no additional measures are needed. General regulations on drinking water are more strict than regulations in the WFD.

13. water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management and Climate change adaptation 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity and droughts are not considered a major problem in Denmark. However water scarcity affects a large proportion of groundwater bodies, particularly in DK2 (e.g. Zealand), where half of the GWBs are reported to be in poor quantitative status (see table in chapter 6 above). Also in DK1 (Jutland and Funen) 30% of the GWBs are reported to be in poor status. The classification of quantitative status for GWBs is uncertain due to lack of data and knowledge on abstraction for irrigation and on re-charge. Also rivers are reported to be affected by water scarcity in dry periods in summer. Droughts are not particularly mentioned in the RBMP sub-plans. The causes for water scarcity are primarily water abstraction for irrigation and for domestic water supply. The impacts mentioned are an especially enhanced risk of salt water intrusion into groundwater bodies in coastal areas, as well as low flows in rivers, with adverse effects on their ecological status. In some areas, particularly in DK2, the public water works had to abandon the groundwater body, and find new groundwater bodies.

Data on water abstraction for public water supply are collected by the water works as well as for water works for abstraction for irrigation and for industrial use. Data are not available on domestic water supply not connected to public water works. Data on annual water consumption is given for different sectors connected to public water works (not including agriculture) from 1997 to 2009, showing a slight decrease in water consumption, especially in households (12% over the last decade)[40]. The decrease is attributed to the introduction of green fees in the 1990s (see next point below). Models for recharge of groundwater bodies (the DK model) are being improved to increase the accuracy of water accounts. The trend scenarios provided in the sub-district RBMPs are that the water abstraction will be stable (in DK1) or slightly increasing (2% in DK2) for the years 2010-2015.

Measures: Green fees on water supply and sanitation were implemented in the mid-1990s and have reduced the consumption of water from the public water supply. Limits for water abstraction of groundwater have been set to 35% of annual re-charge. The abstraction needed to meet demand for public water supply can exceed these norms if the status of the GWB is in good quantitative status, and there is no risk of not achieving the good status objectives for that water body and related surface waters. Additional measures are now needed to prevent further over-exploitation of groundwater bodies. The main additional measures mentioned in the sub-district RBMPs are restrictions to new irrigation schemes, better management of groundwater abstraction in terms of controls and registers, improvement of the Danish model for groundwater accounts, moving the groundwater abstraction to other groundwater bodies with better water availability, based on knowledge of the water availability and re-charge in potentially new sources, and better documentation of water demand.

The reduction and management of groundwater abstraction is definitely regarded as the most important measure against water scarcity, especially focusing on irrigation. A pre-requisite to achieve this is to get more knowledge on groundwater re-charge and connectivity to surface waters, and providing guidance to local river basin managers. Most of the measures indicated above will be implemented in the next cycle of RBMPs.

No information is given on how to ensure (international) co-ordination in relation to water scarcity and droughts. The influence of other sector policies on water scarcity is not described, although irrigation is stated as one of the main reasons for water scarcity. There is no information provided to link the measures mentioned above to other sector policies (e.g. agriculture).

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods are addressed as a significant water management pressure related to intensive rain episodes causing flooding of riparian areas and urban areas, large run-off from paved surfaces in urban areas, sewage overflows, and deterioration of environmental status. Traditional flood protection measures have been used for many years and include land drainage, regulation and physical modifications of the rivers in the form of embankments and channelisation. Several potential new flood protection measures are listed, e.g. allow flooding of riparian areas whilst giving economic compensation to farmers, enhancing the capacity in the sewage networks, building water retention ponds along roads and other paved surfaces. There is a large concern that other measures to reduce nutrient loads and improve water quality and ecological status in the rivers, e.g. reduced drainage and reduced week cutting of river vegetation, will pose a severe risk for enhanced flooding and reduced agricultural production. An in-depth EIA is required in the RBMP consultation to estimate this risk before these measures are implemented on broad basis in Denmark.

Rivers channelised to obtain better land drainage should not be designated as HMWBs if they can be restored to good status with minor changes in maintenance or with minor restoration measures. However, if this is not the case then channelised rivers can be designated as HMWBs.

No information is provided on floods related to Article 4.6.

No information is provided on floods related to Article 4.7.

Floods were considered in the context of climate change adaptation.

No information has been found in the sub-district RBMPs on the future co-ordination of the implementation of the WFD and the Floods Directive.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

Some of the measures defined in the first RBMPs will contribute to mitigate the consequences of changed precipitation, e.g. buffer zones along rivers will counteract increased precipitation, similar effects are expected for construction of water retention ponds to receive run-off from paved surfaces related to heavy rain episodes. The RBMP authorities intend to prioritise measures that can support a synergy effect related to climate change adaptation, e.g. enhancing the capacity of sanitation systems.

The climate change issues found in the plans are climate change scenarios, increased pressures from point sources, and adaptation measures. The national climate change strategy contains challenges for different sectors related to climate change, research strategy and general information on a new data-portal and on how to organise the future work on adaptation measures across all sectors, including the water sector.

No explicit climate check has been done for the programmes of measures, but several are mentioned to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

As regards future insights, more research is needed on climate change impacts on flow, on nutrient pressures and on status. These climate change impacts are foreseen to be considered in the next cycle.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· Given the late adoption of the sub-district RBMPs, Denmark needs to take special care to ensure that the preparation of the next cycle of RBMPs is carried out in accordance with the WFD timetable, to ensure the 2nd cycle RBMPs are adopted no later than December 2015.

· Transitional waters are not designated, and no justification is given as to why this water category has not been used. Denmark should review its designation of at least some coastal waters, notably those referred to as inner coastal fjords water, and consider transitional water designation, considering physical and chemical factors that determine the characteristics of transitional waters and hence the biological population structure and composition.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· Denmark needs to further develop water typologies which are tested against biological data, and develop and provide further information on reference conditions for all water types. Appropriate methods for assessing all potential pressures need to be developed.

· Denmark needs to further develop the assessment methods for a large proportion of the biological QEs, since it seems that the Danish classification methods are only developed for benthic fauna in rivers, chlorophyll in lakes, and angiosperm depth limit and benthic fauna (fjords) or chlorophyll (open coast).

· Denmark needs to extend its classification system for lakes and coastal waters to address hydromorphological QEs. For rivers, class boundaries given for continuity, flow and morphological variation of river banks need to be developed.

· Denmark needs to improve the identification of significant pressures, describe the methodologies, thresholds and tools better in the plans and report more detailed data by water body. This applies also to hydromorphological pressures and chemical pollution.

· Denmark needs to further extend the monitoring programme to include all biological, physical-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements as relevant, for all water categories (rivers, lakes, coastal waters) and ensure there is adequate monitoring of ground waters to enable assessment of status, pressures and trends.

· Surveillance monitoring stations for lakes need to be established and reported, and the types of quality elements monitored per station need to be reported.

· Denmark needs to be more transparent on the use of grouping of water bodies for monitoring and classification.

· Denmark needs to improve the certainty of its ecological status assessment.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status.  It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combating chemical pollution from river basin specific pollutants and that adequate measures are put in place. Denmark needs to provide clearer reporting on the methodologies used to set the EQS values for national specific pollutants.

· Denmark needs to ensure that the correct procedures to establish Good Ecological Potential (GEP) are carried out, and are clearly described in the RBMP. The mitigation measures methodology has been used to define GEP, but it seems from the RBMPs that steps 1 and 2 have not been used, in spite of national guidance requiring this.

· Denmark will need to provide data on the chemical status of a much higher proportion of its water bodies, if necessary by monitoring more extensively. The apparent omission of data on hexachlorobutadiene should be addressed.   Denmark needs to specify exactly which industrial pollutants are causing failure of the chemical status objective. Groundwater monitoring and methodologies should all be made WFD compliant. Measures to ensure good chemical status of groundwater should be established considering all WFD aspects, not only drinking water use. Trend assessments and reversals should be carried out in the 2nd RBMP cycle.

· A large number of exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans. Denmark should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing sinificantly the degree of uncertainties.

· Only little improvement in the water status is expected by 2015 and the objectives for subsequent planning deadlines are not always clear. Objectives should be clearly indicated and transparent in order to be able to reach good status of waters in a reasonable timeframe.

· Denmark has indicated there may be new physical modifications  in forthcoming RBMPs, falling within the scope of Article 4(7). If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so that  the approach to achieve the objectives is clear. All the relevant information on basic and supplementary measures should be included in the summary of the PoM to ensure transparency on the planned actions for the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in the WFD.

· Denmark needs to ensure that hydromorphological measures are implemented where relevant, in the first plan period.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs shall be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

[1]     Eurostat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00001&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=1 )

[2] (Commission report of 2009, Annex on MS methods (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf).

[3]     Source: http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/Vandet/Vandplaner/.

[4]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[5]     EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

[6]     Due to the late reporting Denmark did not, unlike other MS,  receive a letter with preliminary findings upon which they could react in writing. Instead an email was sent in July 2012, and a meeting was held in August. The information has been taken into account in the annex as appropriate.

[7]     EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

[8]     Ibid.

[9]     http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/­NR/­rdonlyres/­C88AD233-0775-45B5-8C50-0A93B11F133D/­120333/­Retningslinjer.pdf

[10]    http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/NR/rdonlyres/87C17030-22C0-4E59-8283-751EAA1E1F16/0/Vejledningomkarakteriseringafvandforekomsterogopg%C3%B8relseafp%C3%A5virkninger.pdf

[11]    http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/NR/rdonlyres/C88AD233-0775-45B5-8C50-0A93B11F133D/120350/Bilag9.pdf

[12]    http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/NR/rdonlyres/C88AD233-0775-45B5-8C50-0A93B11F133D/120342/Bilag5.pdf

[13] Because of this lack of data, any data presented on the basis of WISE shows all water bodies as being without pressures, and therefore the relevant tables are not included in this report.

[14]    Danish Act (bekendtgørelse) nr. 1355 of 11 December 2006. (https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=13004&exp=1).

[15]    Denmark has established and applies action programmes in the whole of its territory and therefore, in accordance with article 3.5 of the Nitrates Directive (1991/676/EEC), it is exempted from designation of specific vulnerable zones.

[16]    Denmark applies more stringent waste water treatment in the whole of its territory and therefore, in accordance with article 5.8 of the Urban Waste Water Directive (1991/271/EEC), it is exempted from designation of specific vulnerable zones.

[17]    This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[18]    (Nasjonal overvågning av vand og natur), part 2. Ministry of Environment, "Naturstyrelsen". www.naturstyrelsen.dk  .ISBN: 978-87-7279-013-8, sections 6.3 for rivers, 7.3 for lakes and 8.3 for coastal waters.

[19]    http://miljoegis.mim.dk/cbkort?profile=miljoegis_vandrammedirektiv2011

[20]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[21]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[22]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[23]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[24]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[25]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[26]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[27]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[28]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[29]    BEK nr 1022 af 25/08/2010. https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=132956

[30]    This document is available at the url: http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/­NR/­rdonlyres/­C88AD233-0775-45B5-8C50-0A93B11F133D/­120333/­Retningslinjer.pdf

[31]    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2007_0362_en.pdf

[32]    Ref. SWB_STATUS_NATURAL_6May.xls-extract from WISE done by WRc.

[33]    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2007_0362_en.pdf

[34]    (Danish EPA), available at http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/NR/rdonlyres/C88AD233-0775-45B5-8C50-0A93B11F133D/120353/Bilag12.pdf

[35]    ), available at http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/NR/rdonlyres/C88AD233-0775-45B5-8C50-0A93B11F133D/120353/Bilag12.pdf

[36]    This document is available online at: http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/­NR/­rdonlyres/­C88AD233-0775-45B5-8C50-0A93B11F133D/­120333/­Retningslinjer.pdf 

[37] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[38]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

[39]    'EC Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU'

[40]    The data source is specified as DANVA Vand i tal, DANVA benchmarking og vandstatistik 2010 (http://www.danva.dk/Default.aspx?ID=219&TokenExist=no ).

1. general information

 Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The population of Hungary is 10.1 million and the area of the country covers 93 030 km² (ICPDR, 2009).

Hungary is a landlocked state. It is mostly flat with low mountains in the north. Lake Balaton is the largest lake in central Europe.

The entire territory of Hungary is situated in the middle of the Danube River Basin, which is the second largest basin in Europe. The Danube River Basin is shared by 19 countries.  The Danube River Basin District (Danube RBD) has a total area of 807 827 km², of which 11.52% belongs to Hungary.

The Hungarian part of the Danube RBD is coded as HU1000. Beside the national river basin management plan, Hungary has developed 4 sub-basin plans (namely for the Hungarian part of the Tisza River Basin, Drava River Basin, Lake Balaton and the rest of the country, called Danube Basin).

Name international river basin || Countries sharing borders || Co-ordination category

1

km² || %

Danube || Slovak Republic, Austria, Slovenia, Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Ukraine || 93030 || 11.5

Table 1.1: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Hungary[1]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. STATUS OF River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance 2.1 Adoption of the RBMPs

The National River Basin Management Plan was adopted by the Hungarian Government on 21 May 2010 with the Governmental Decision No. 1127/2010.  The Decision was published in the Hungarian Official Journal 2010, No. 84. Due to formal legal mandate reasons the Governmental Decision was later repealed and the RBMP, with unchanged content, was newly adopted on 23 February 2012 with the Governmental Decision No. 1042/2012. The new Decision was published again in the Hungarian Official Journal 2012, No 21.  

RBMP was reported to WISE on 3 June 2010. Institutional change of the Hungarian administration was reported to WISE on 5 June 2012.

2.2 Key strengths and weaknesses

The RBMP has been developed in detail at national, sub-basin and sub-unit levels. It has a number of problem-specific annexes and background documents. Stakeholders and public consultations were given a high importance. International co-ordination is good through multi- and bilateral agreements. Important pressures affecting surface water bodies are identified in the RBMP. The RBMP gives a comprehensive overview on objectives. The Programme of Measures is thoroughly developed providing water body level information about basic, supplementary and additional measures.

Several significant gaps exist though:

· The testing of typology of surface water bodies against biological data has not been completed in the first RBMP cycle because of the lack of sufficient data. There is a significant development in biological quality elements but data gaps still exist. As the methods were not completed for all BQEs, the reference values and class boundaries were not completed for all types.

· Status assessments of surface water bodies are not reliable enough therefore an extremely high percentage of surface water bodies are indicated in unknown status in Hungary. There is also a high uncertainty in HMWB designation.

· Exemptions are extensively used and the justifications for the exemptions are very general.

· Financing of some of the measures does not seem to be ensured.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

During the river basin management planning process, stakeholders and public consultations received high priority. The first step was the discussion on the schedule of planning and working methodology between December 2006 and June 2007. In the second step, not only national, but local level consultations were carried out on significant water management issues (SWMIs). This process started on December 2007 and ended on 22 September 2008, when a summary hearing was held. In the third step, the consultation on draft plans started on 22 December 2008 and ended on 18 November 2009.  During this period the published plans and related documents could be commented on through the www.vizeink.hu internet site, written submissions or presentation of oral comments at thematic or regional hearings. 

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

The Ministry of Environment and Water was in charge of strategic leadership, keeping contact with relevant EU organisations, collaborating on the development of the Integrated International Danube River Basin Management Plan, and the preparation of official national reports linked to the implementation of WFD.

The operational duties were shared among different national and regional organisations. The responsible organisation for the preparation of national RBMP and the co-ordination of national planning process was the Central Directorate for Water and Environment. The responsible organisations for the preparation of 4 sub-basins RBMPs and the co-ordination of planning unit plans were the appointed regional environmental and water directorates.

Figure 3.2.1: The four sub-basins of the Danube RBD in Hungary (Danube, Tisza, Lake Balaton and Dráva)

Responsible organisations for the preparation of 42 planning sub-unit plans and involving stakeholders and the public in the process were the relevant 12 regional environmental and water directorates in co-operation with the national park directorates and the regional inspectorates for environment, nature and water.

Figure 3.2.2: Organogramme of the institutions, which were involved in the preparation of the Hungarian RBMP (framed in red)

In 2011 the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment and Water were merged into the new Ministry of Rural Development. Under the new Ministry, the State Secretariat for Environmental Affairs took over the responsibility for the implementation of the WFD. At the same time some duties related to water management were transferred to the Ministry of Interior.

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

Hungary has reported one RBMP for the entire territory of the country because the entire area of the country is within the Danube RBD. It was developed in close co-operation with the International Danube River Basin Management Plan. 

The national RBMP as well as the 4 sub-basin and 42 planning unit RBMPs were prepared with the same national approach.

The National River Basin Management Plan was adopted by the Hungarian Government on 21 May 2010 who issued Governmental Decision No. 1127/2010 putting the RBMP into force.  Due to formal legal mandate reasons, the Governmental Decision was later repealed and the RBMP, with unchanged content, was newly adopted on 23 February 2012 with the Governmental Decision No. 1042/2012. The new decision was published again in the Hungarian Official Journal 2012, No 21.  

The RBMPs are adopted by Government Decisions, which cannot be considered as formal sources of law, as they do not create rights and obligations for individuals, but have legally binding effects only on public authorities. There is no legal instrument that formally regulates the legal effect of the RBMP; its legal effect is a consequence of its nature as a Government Decision. However, legal value is given to the RBMP by other laws that provide direct reference to the RBMP. In particular, the Law on water management stipulates that environmental objectives must be taken into account while planning and carrying out activities that concern the environment. The RBMP calls for the revision of legislation applicable to permitting procedures, in order to make sure that existing and new installations comply with the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive. The RBMP considers the revision of the legislation applicable to permitting procedures as a necessary step for its implementation. The RBMP also calls for the revision of existing permits, without specifying a timeline. Legislation applicable to the permitting procedures does not contain a time-frame for the revision of existing permits. Finally, it is noted that the RBMP does not refer to any circumstances that could trigger the review of permitting procedures.

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

The planning process was a multi-step, iterative type in which ecological, technical, social and economic aspects were harmonized.

Prior to the consultations, a Strategy paper on the involvement of public into the planning process was developed, brochures and a guidebook on the methodology of public involvement and consultation in the WFD implementation process was issued and made available for stakeholders.

Detailed discussion materials were also issued on the national / Sub-basin / sub-unit RBMPs. These materials were made available on the internet and in printed forms. Public / stakeholders consultations were held in each sub-basin / sub-unit. RBMP documents were mainly provided via the web, but for some selected stakeholders (i.e. National and Regional Water Management Councils; professional associations, NGOs etc.) printed versions of draft RBMPs were also made available.

Regional and thematic hearings were organised to discuss the national, sub-basin and sub-units draft RBMPs. The 25 thematic hearings covered issues such as agriculture, nature protection, forest management, municipal government tasks, thermal waters, fishery, regulatory and comprehensive measures, institutional development and financing.

In total around 700 organisations were represented in the thematic hearings and 3800 opinions, questions, comments, additions were received during the consultation of the draft RBMP. These hearings were widely advertised in advance and the outcomes of them were processed and utilized in the final version of the national, sub-basin and sub-unit plans.  A memorandum was prepared for each forum and made available on the official web site of the Hungarian RBM planning process at www.vizeink.hu.

The following groups of stakeholders were invited to the consultations: professional state organisations (such as Central Agricultural Office, National Public Health Institute, State Forest Service, agricultural extension service etc.), municipalities, civil organisations (for environmental protection, tourism, sport, education, regional development etc.), economic sectors representative organisations, associations (industry, agriculture, regional development, engineering chambers, agricultural chambers etc.), associations of water management (water utility, agricultural water management, fisheries, owners of hydro engineering structures, etc.), scientific communities and the general public.

3.5 International co-operation and co-ordination

Hungary is member of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). ICPDR has been authorised by the founder Danube River Basin States to co-ordinate the elaboration of the Danube River Basin District Management Plan. ICPDR has organised numerous international public and stakeholders forums held in different locations throughout the Danube Basin.

The Danube countries have agreed to develop sub-basin management plans. The Tisza RBM Plan was developed by the Tisza countries (UA, SK, HU, RO and RS) also under co-ordination of the ICPDR.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts

There are two water categories in the Hungarian RBMP, rivers and lakes. Hungary is a land-locked country without coastal area. Thus no transitional and coastal water bodies were delineated.

For river water body typology determination, Hungary used altitude, geology, average bed slope, size of watershed, and grain size distribution of river bed material as selection criteria. For lake water body typology, lake surface area, average depth, altitude, hydrogeochemical characteristics, ratio of open water surface and water cover were used.

Type-specific reference conditions have been established for rivers and lakes. The reference characteristics of each river water body type and each lake water body type are given in the RBMP. The selected reference characteristics for rivers were hydromorphological character, water chemistry (pH, conductivity, chloride, oxygen saturation, dissolved oxygen, BOD, COD, NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, Total N, PO4-P, Total P) and biology (riparian vegetation, fish, suspended algae, Chlorophyll-a, phytoplankton, phytobentos and macroscopic invertebrates).

The reference parameters for lakes are hydromorphological character, water chemistry (pH, conductivity, chloride, oxygen saturation, dissolved oxygen, BOD, COD, NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N, Total N, PO4-P and Total P) and biology (riparian vegetation (IMMI index), fish, suspended algae, Chlorophyll-a, phytoplankton and phytobentos).

The typology of all surface water bodies has been tested against biological data but the process has not been completed in the first RBMP cycle because of the lack of sufficient data.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

HU1000 || 25 || 16 || Not relevant || Not relevant

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level.

Source: WISE and HU

4.1 Delineation of surface water bodies

River waters with catchment area larger than 10 km2 were delineated as  water bodies. The grouping of small watercourses and water bodies with the same characteristics was commonly used.

It was also common to group lakes and lake groups with smaller than 50 ha into one water body. Wetlands were recorded as protected areas rather than lakes.

Statistics of river and lake water bodies are given in the table below.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

HU1000 || 869 || 22 || 213 || 6 || 185 || 1511

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions.

Source: WISE

The number of groundwater bodies identified is 185 (in 4 layers, 1.99 GWBs per 1000 km2) with an average size of 1511 km2. The number of transboundary groundwater bodies is 40. There are 56 groundwater bodies with directly dependent terrestrial ecosystems.

4.2 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

Important pressures affecting surface water bodies are identified in the RBMP.

In cases of organic material or nutrient pressures, communal or industrial point sources were considered significant if the load from these sources contributed more than 30% of the total load of a given water body. The method applied was not unified for all pressure types.

In cases of diffuse sources from agriculture, nutrients and pesticides were considered as significant pressures. These pressures were calculated from surface water monitoring data and with a river water quality model for phosphorous pressure. For nitrogen compounds and pesticides a mass balance method was used.

Data from obligatory reports and statistics for 2006 from water users on different kinds of water abstractions (domestic, industrial, irrigation, fish pond, energy production, mining, bathing and other, such as ecological and recreational) were used to estimate water abstraction pressures on surface water bodies.

Water abstractions have been summarized for sub-units and compared with a typical low-flow and with the discharge that has to be kept in the river bed for ecological reasons. Water abstraction is significant at sub-unit level if abstraction exceeds 50% of the low-flow of the given river water body.

In 2006 and 2008 Hungary carried out detailed surveys on hydromorphological alterations on all surface waters. The results of these surveys were used in determination of significant pressures. Barrages, flood protection dams, structures for river regulation, newly built river beds, trapezoid shape river reaches, sluices, river bed dredging, vegetation removal, covering, embankment  structures and water diversion were considered as hydromorphological alteration pressures. Hydromorphological alterations were considered as important when the ratio of the river affected exceeded 50% within a water body. In some cases, this condition was supplemented with the constraint that the continuous length of the affected part did not exceed 30% of the total length of the water body.

In cases of engineering activities, fisheries enhancement, land infrastructure and dredging it was unclear what tools were applied to define a significant level from these pressure types. Only the number of water bodies affected with these types of pressures was given.

The water quality problems of surface water bodies are predominantly caused by organic and nutrient material loads. 2/3 of the river water bodies and 80% of the lake water bodies are affected by such kinds of significant pressures. 

The pollution of surface waters with hazardous substances was not evaluated because of the lack of data.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

HU1000 || 173 || 15.99 || 180 || 16.64 || 264 || 24.4 || 90 || 8.32 || 543 || 50.18 || 876 || 80.96 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 143 || 13.22

Table 4.2.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures.

Source: WISE

Figure 4.2.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

4.3 Protected areas

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

HU1000 || 1756 || 265 || 55 || - || 7 || 467 || - || 210 || 1 || - || 3

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[2]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring 5.1 General description of the monitoring network

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Hungary has put surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in place.

In the monitoring report from 2007, Hungary indicated 891 RWBs, 221 LWBs and 108 GWBs. After revisions of the water bodies Hungary reported in the RBMP of 2009, 869 RWBs, 213 LWBs and 185 GWBs. Table 5.1.2 shows the number of monitoring stations in Hungary.  

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

HU1000 || 122 || 474 || 26 || 41 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2014 || 427 || 1802

Total by type of site || 122 || 474 || 26 || 41 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2014 || 427 || 1802

Total number of monitoring sites[3] || 557 || 65 || - || - || 3471

Table 5.1.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category

Surv = Surveillance

Op = Operational

Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.2 Monitoring of surface waters

All quality elements are being monitored in surface waters in the surveillance monitoring programme. All required QEs are monitored at all sites that are included in surveillance monitoring.

8 sub-programmes for operational monitoring were established, 2 programmes for lakes and 6 programmes for rivers. Monitoring sites for water bodies at risk were selected to represent different impacts.

The selection of biological quality elements for the different operational monitoring sub-programmes was based on available biological monitoring data and the stressor-response relationship of each BQE.

The RBMP reported that there is no investigative monitoring of surface waters.  Statistics for the surveillance and operational monitoring of surface water bodies are given in the following table.

Water category || Surveillance || Operational || Total number of monitored water bodies || Total number of reported water bodies

River || 101 (11.62) || 390 (44.88) || 443 (50.98) || 869

Lake || 20 (9.39) || 32 (15.02) || 50 (23.47) || 213

Table 5.2.1: Summary of numbers (and % of total reported in brackets) of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Hungary.

Source: RBMP

All 33 priority substances specified in the WFD are monitored. The monitoring programme of rivers at risk due to hazardous substances pressures runs on 81 water bodies at 103 points. In these investigations, priority or other hazardous substances are only tested if other surveys showed exceedances of the limits of a substance released into the basin. The monitored substances can vary from point to point. Priority substances and other hazardous substances are monitored in rivers and lakes under the surveillance monitoring programme with 12 samples per year during every 3 years.

Grouping of water bodies was planned to be used in case of river and lake monitoring operational programmes, but there was no strict correlation between water bodies even with the same type and same pressure. Therefore grouping was not used to extend and extrapolate monitoring results from one water body to any other.

For transboundary water bodies Hungary operates surveillance monitoring. Monitoring data are provided to neighbouring countries based on bilateral transboundary agreements or co-operation. For significant water bodies in the Danube River Basin, surveillance monitoring data are shared with Danube countries through ICPDR.

5.3 Monitoring of groundwater

Hungary has set up 10 monitoring programmes for groundwater. Out of 10, there are 2 quantitative, 4 chemical surveillance, and 4 chemical operational monitoring programmes. In monitoring programmes for vulnerable groundwater bodies, besides the basic chemical parameters, measurements are carried out for special pollutants, like industrially used organic compounds (solvents, carcinogenic substances, heavy metals, pesticides, etc).

Trend assessment was carried out for the design of monitoring programmes and for the selection of parameters. 4 groundwater bodies were identified with upward trends in nitrate concentration and 1 GWB with an upward trend in ammonium. For the majority of GWBs there were not enough available data to carry out a reliable trend assessment. Only some pollutants were included in trend assessment.

Hungary is participating in the basin wide transboundary groundwater monitoring programme co-ordinated by ICPDR.

The Hungarian RBMP reports 2014 surveillance and 427 operational groundwater quality monitoring sites, while at 1802 sites groundwater quantity parameters are measured.  

5.4 Monitoring of protected areas

There is a specific monitoring programme in place for surface water to monitor bathing waters, NATURA 2000 areas, drinking water protection areas, fresh waters fish protection and areas designated according to the Nitrates and UWWT Directives. The total number of such specific surface water monitoring sites is 407.  The specific monitoring programme for groundwater in drinking water protected areas includes 1754 sites.

RBD || Surface water || Ground water

Bathing water || Habitats/ Birds || Drinking water || Fish || Shellfish || Nitrates || Urban waste water || Drinking water

Danube || 30 || 115 || 13 || 23 || - || 197 || 27 || 1754

Total || 30 || 115 || 13 || 23 || - || 197 || 27 || 1754

Table 5.4.1: Number of monitoring sites in protected areas[4]

Source: HU

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

11% of the surface water bodies are in good ecological status in Hungary. More than half of the surface water bodies are in less than good status while the ecological status of one third of the river water bodies and of nearly two thirds of the lake water bodies is unknown.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

HU1000 || 442 || 5 || 1.1 || 44 || 10.0 || 138 || 31.2 || 85 || 19.2 || 37 || 8.4 || 133 || 30.1

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

HU1000 || 640 || 0 || 0 || 56 || 8.8 || 182 || 28.4 || 108 || 16.9 || 5 || 0.8 || 289 || 45.2

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

An extremely high percentage of surface water bodies are in unknown chemical status in Hungary. Only 3% of the SWBs were indicated to be in good chemical status.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

HU1000 || 442 || 14 || 3.2 || 10 || 2.3 || 418 || 94.6

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

HU1000 || 640 || 21 || 3.3 || 18 || 2.8 || 601 || 93.9

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

80% of the groundwater bodies (147 GWBs) are in good chemical status in Hungary and 20% of them in poor chemical status (38 GWBs).

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

HU1000 || 185 || 147 || 79.5 || 38 || 20.5 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

Quantitative status of 158 GWBs is good (85%) while 27 of them are in poor quantitative status (15%). There are no groundwater bodies in unknown status in Hungary.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

HU1000 || 185 || 158 || 85.4 || 27 || 14.6 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

According to the WISE report no improvements in the chemical status of surface and groundwater bodies are expected until 2015. There is no information about improvements in groundwater quantitative status. The PoM of RBMP provides information on measures and a schedule of actions as to when the good status will be achieved (2015, 2021, 2027 or after 2027).

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

HU1000 || 1082 || 9 || 0.8 || 9 || 0.8 || 0.0 || || 22 (RW) 72 (LW) || || || || 74 (RW) 91 (LW) || || || 88 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[5]

RW= River water bodies

LW = Lake water bodies

Water bodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Water bodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Water bodies with unknown/unclassified/not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

HU1000 || 442 || 49 || 11.1 || 54 || 12.2 || 1.1 || || || || || 85.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[6]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

HU1000 || 442 || 14 || 3.2 || 14 || 3.2 || 0.0 || || || || || 2.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[7]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

HU1000 || 185 || 147 || 79.5 || 147 || 79.5 || 0 || || || || || 21 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[8]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

HU1000 || 185 || 158 || 85.4 || 158 || 85.4 || 0 || || || || || 14 || 1 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[9]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

HU1000 || 640 || 56 || 8.8 || 62 || 9.7 || 0.9 || || || || || 45.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[10]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

HU1000 || 640 || 21 || 3.3 || 21 || 3.3 || 0 || || || || || 2.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[11]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

Hungary followed the methodological approach of ecological status assessment of the WFD for all water bodies in the country.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

The COM Implementation Report 2009 indicates that there were partly available biological assessment methods for classification of surface water ecological status.  Both for rivers and lakes phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobentos methods were available at that time (2007).

For the assessment of ecological status in rivers phytoplankton, phytobenthos, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish assessment systems were developed.

There are phytoplankton and macrophytes assessment methods for all types of lakes, and a phytobentos assessment method for some types. In bentic fauna and fish groups more data would be necessary for development of assessment methods.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

HU1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs and HU

The sensitivity of different BQEs was checked against all relevant pressures. Different BQEs were monitored to detect different major pressures. The one-out-all-out principle was used for a group of quality elements. Some relationships could be established between biological classification and pressures.

Physico-chemical quality elements taken into account in determining the ecological status of surface waters were organic matters, nutrients, salinity / alkalinity, temperature, pH and secchi depth for lakes. There is a statement in the RBMP that the applied QEs are WFD compliant. The assessment methods are described in detail. No relationship has been established between BQEs and physico-chemical QEs. The main reason was the lack of appropriate number of BQE data. All hydromorphological QEs of Annex V are covered. 

National legislation provides a legal framework for EQSs and for monitoring national river basins for chemical pollutants. River basin specific pollutants were identified in the frame of ICPDR and these pollutants were used in the classification of surface water ecological status in accordance with the procedure determined in the WFD. The RBMP lists the chemical pollutants. Hungary included dissolved zinc, copper, chromium and arsenic into the parameters to be investigated as these compounds are specific to the Danube River Basin.

The one-out-all-out principle has been applied in the overall classification.

For the assessment of the BQEs, the average of BQE sampling results has been used in cases where a water body had several monitoring locations. In the case of multiple sampling, water body classification was based on reliability-weighted average values of individual samples.

The development of indices was intended to be type-specific, but as the methods were not completed for all BQEs, the reference values and class boundaries were not completed for all types. There was however progress in developing methods for the different types. For the validation of physico-chemical QEs statistical evaluation was applied for all biological elements.

No significant relationships have been established between BQEs and physico-chemical QEs for benthic invertebrates, macrophytes and fish. The main reason was the lack of appropriate number of BQE data.

Hungary reported that the intercalibration exercise was not completed by the time of finalizing the first RBMP (intercalibration was completed in 2012). In the case of phytobentos, class boundaries were reported in a background document of the national RBMP which were consistent with the intercalibration boundaries for rivers and lakes in 5 classes. It was mentioned that in case of fish, intercalibration was carried out, but no boundary values were given. No information was provided for other BQEs. For benthic invertebrates there are no intercalibration class boundaries for Hungary in the Official IC Decision Document. The method Hungary used in the process was described as non-WFD compliant.

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

The RBMP reports that the most sensitive BQEs and other relevant QEs for the dominant pressures were used in the assessments of ecological status for water bodies in the surveillance monitoring programme.

7.3 River basin specific pollutants

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || % water bodies failing status

HU1000 || 7440-38-2 || Arsenic and its compounds || 13

HU1000 || 7440-50-8 || Copper and its compounds || 23

HU1000 || 7440-66-6 || Zinc and its compounds || 25

Table 7.3.1: River basin specific pollutants causing failure of status

Source: RBMPs

Due to significant lack of data only 13% of surface water bodies were classified for river basin specific pollutants. The RBMP lists those water bodies which failed to reach good status for one or more of the four specific pollutants.

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

In the provisional identification of HMWBs and AWBs in the Article 5 report, Hungary presented about 2% of the designated surface water bodies as heavily modified and about 20% as artificial WBs. In the RBMP from 1082 surface water bodies, 365 (34%) are HMWBs and 275 (25%) are AWBs. From 869 river WBs, 350 (40%) are HMWB and 146 (17%) are AWB, while from 213 lake WBs 15 (7%) are designated HMWBs and 129 (60%) are AWBs.

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial water bodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

The RBMP specifies the following water uses for which water bodies have been designated as HMWB: navigation including port facilities, recreation, storage for drinking water supply, storage for power generation, storage for irrigation, water regulation, flood protection and land drainage.

Types of physical modifications, which were considered in designation for HMWB were locks, weirs, dams, reservoirs, bed stabilisation, dredging, channel maintenance, riverbank consolidation, land drainage and water transfers.

The designation of heavily modified water bodies was carried out in several phases. During the work the following criteria were considered:

· Identification of interventions significantly modifying the hydromorphological conditions of water bodies.

· Elimination of identified interventions without compromising other purposes / needs included in the scope specified by the WFD (shipping, storage water for drinking water supply or irrigation, power generation, flood and inland water protection, recreation and others).

· Whether specific needs can be solved in another way, which would not affect the implementation, not involve any unreasonable costs, and is backed by the society.

The rate of uncertainties was not assessed but action to reduce gaps was introduced into PoM.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

Good ecological potential (GEP) has been defined in the RBMP. It describes how GEP was determined for HMWBs and AWBs in case of different BQEs (phytoplankton, phytobentos, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish).

The GEP definition is a combination of a reference based approach and mitigation measures approach.

GEP was determined in water bodies, where an appropriate amount of biological data were available. In cases where the data allowed, use-specific GEP values were also determined. This is why it could not be ascertained whether a water body type method or a use type method was used.

The following mitigation measures which do not have significant adverse effects on the use or the wider environment have been identified: fish ladders, habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas, sediment management, reconnection of meander bends or side arms, lowering of river banks, restoration of bank structures, channel narrowing, minimum ecological flow, inundation of floodplains and restoration of modified bed structures or basins.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

Only 6.3% of the heavily modified RWBs have good or better ecological potential, while for AWBs the figure is 15.8%. The ratios of HMWBs and AWBs with unknown ecological potential are 28.3% and 45.9%, respectively, mainly due to lack of biological data.

The RBMP mentions that improvements of the database will be needed to improve the designation process and to reduce uncertainty in HMWB designation.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

The RBMP reports the EQSs for all 33 priority substances. Hungary has applied the EQSs laid down in Part A of Annex I of the Directive 2008/105/EC.

In August 2010 a ministerial decree[12] was issued setting EQSs for biota for three compounds (mercury and its compounds, hexachlorobenzene, and hexachlorobutadiene).

In the RBMP, which had been finished earlier, no information was found on application of EQSs for biota. 

The background concentrations were not considered because of the lack of sufficient geological data.

The total (no species) dissolved metal concentration was measured during the monitoring programme. According to the Hungarian authorities as this type of metal is readily bioavailable there is no need to use bioavailability factors.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

Individual priority substances were reported in WISE. In the table below the number of water bodies where EQSs are exceeded and chemical status is less than good is reported by priority substances and certain other pollutants.

CAS Number || Name of substances || Number of surface water bodies failing good chemical status

7440-43-9 || Cadmium || 14 water bodies failed

7439-97-6 || Mercury || 3 water bodies failed

330-54-1 || Diuron || 2 water bodies failed

115-29- || Endosulfan || 2 water bodies failed

734123-59-6 || Isoproturon || 1 water body failed

608-73-1 || Hexachlorocyclohexane || 3 water bodies failed

1582-09-8 || Trifluralin || 1 water body failed

117-81-7 || Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) || 1 water body failed

140-66-9 || Octylphenol || 2 water bodies failed

127-18-4 || Tetrachloroethylene || 1 water body failed

|| Polyaromatic hydrocarbons || 5 water bodies failed

Table 9.2.1: Number of surface WBs failing good chemical status

Source: RBMP

Mixing zones were not used in the first RBMP cycle. According to the transposition of EQSD (2008/105/EC) to the national legislation it was indicated that mixing zones will be designated after 2010.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

Hungary designated 185 groundwater bodies. The total area of designated GWBs is 279 532 km2 and 83.4% of it is in good status.

There are 38 GWBs in poor chemical status, which represent 20.54% of the total number of GWBs.

Class || Good || Poor || Unknown

Total number of GWBs: 185 || 147 || 38 || 0

% of Total || 79.46 || 20.54 || 0

Table 10.1: Chemical status classification of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

Seven pollutants were identified, which caused GWBs to fail good chemical status.  Nitrates turned out to be the dominant pollutant which caused 20.54% of total GWBs to fail.

Pollutants causing failure || Number of groundwater bodies failing || Percentage of total groundwater bodies

Nitrates || 38 || 20.54

Pesticides || 6 || 3.24

Ammonium || 1 || 0.54

Sulphate || 3 || 1.62

Trichloroethylene || 2 || 1.08

Tetrachloroethylene || 1 || 0.54

Conductivity || 2 || 1.08

Table 10.2: Summary of pollutants causing GWB to fail good chemical status and the number of affected GWBs in Hungary

Source: WISE

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

It has been reported that the needs of the groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been assessed.

The report provides information that the abstraction of groundwater was also assessed.

The annual average rate of groundwater abstractions were compared against available groundwater resources (water balance test) for groups of GWBs and the results were applied to individual GWBs.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

It has been reported that the needs of the terrestrial ecosystems associated to groundwater bodies have been taken into account in the assessment of chemical status.

A criterion is reported as to when a groundwater body is considered of good chemical status (less than 20% of its area is affected by pollution and this pollution does endanger groundwater resources used for drinking water purposes).

The only pollutant that caused significant diminution to surface water chemistry is nitrate.

The rules taking into account when determining threshold values are:

· For synthetic substances: a national limit the same as the threshold value of the EU for the same environmental limits has been applied.

· For nitrate, the threshold is 50 mg/l for drinking water use. The ecologically based threshold in case of karst water bodies is 25 mg/l, which is equal to the nitrate level for karst streams (approx. 10 mg/l) increased with dilution. In the mountainous and porous shallow water bodies the denitrification capacity is taken into account and thus the ecological threshold is 50 mg/l.

· For the remaining pollutants the threshold limit is determined taking into account both the drinking water limits and natural background values:

§ If the background level is higher than the drinking water limit, then the threshold value is higher than the background level.

§ If the background level is lower than or equal to the drinking water limit, then the threshold is equal to drinking water standards taking into consideration the dilution and the degradation factor.

Out of 185 GWBs draft statistical assessments were carried out for 63 GWBs though detailed trend analyses were only carried out for 27 GWBs (because of the lack of time series and/or not enough monitoring points) and the trends were only determined for four pollutants, namely conductivity, chloride, NO3 and NH4. The reason why only the 4 mentioned pollutants were included into the trend analysis was the lack of time series for other relevant pollutants.

Trend reversals were not included in the first RBMP. It is stated that out of 27 water bodies, which were examined for trends, statistically significant increasing trend was identified at 17 water bodies. Increasing trend was considered as environmentally significant only at 5 GWBs, i.e. the annual average concentration in 2007 exceeded the 75% of the threshold value. Without reversing the trend i.e. the absence of adequate measures the status of water body in 2015 is expected to be in poor condition, thus these water bodies were considered as at risk.

10.3 Protected areas

There are 1754 drinking water protected areas, out of these 92 are of bank filtered zone type and 1662 are of groundwater type. There are 15 GWBs associated with drinking water protected areas, which are failing to achieve good status.  The reason of failing to achieve good status is mainly nitrate pollution, but in some cases failures are also due to triazine and chlorinated hydrocarbons.

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

HU1000 || 1739 || 15 ||

Table 10.3.1: Number and status of groundwater drinking water protected areas.

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

Most of the surface waters in Hungary are in unknown chemical status.

Water bodies || Class || Rivers || Lakes || Total

Artificial water bodies || good status (potential = good and above) || 2 || 0 || 2

failure to achieve good || 0 || 0 || 0

unknown / no information || 144 || 129 || 273

Heavily modified water bodies || good status (potential = good and above) || 18 || 1 || 19

failure to achieve good || 18 || 0 || 18

unknown / no information || 314 || 14 || 328

Natural water bodies || good status (potential = good and above) || 8 || 6 || 14

failure to achieve good || 10 || 0 || 10

unknown / no information || 355 || 63 || 418

Totals || Total WBs || 869 || 213 || 1082

Table 11.1: The numbers of natural, heavily modified and artificial river and lake water bodies at good chemical status, failing to achieve good chemical status and those with no information or unknown chemical status (2009)

Source: WISE

Exemptions of good chemical status of surface water bodies were applied in 28 cases for rivers, all under Article 4.4 WFD.

105 surface water bodies are in good or higher ecological status in Hungary. At the same time Hungary applied exemptions of good ecological status of surface water bodies in 953 cases (785 for river WBs, 168 for lake WBs), all under WFD Article 4.4.

For groundwater, Hungary applied for 25 exemptions under Article 4.4 and 2 exemptions under Article 4.5. Exemptions under Article 4.6 and 4.7 were not applied.

Category || Ecological status || Chemical status || Global status (Ecological and chemical) || Exemptions (ecological and/or chemical) || Ecological exemptions || Chemical exemptions

Ecological good or high || Chemical good || Ecological good or high AND chemical good || Subject to a 4.4 exemption (T, D and/or N) || Subject to a 4.5 exemption (T, D) || Subject to a 4.4 ecological exemption (T, D and/or N) || Subject to a 4.5 ecological exemption (T, D) || Subject to a 4.4 chemical exemption (T, D and/or N) || Subject to a 4.5 chemical exemption (T, D)

Independent of chemical status || Independent of ecological status || Not considering water bodies with ecological and/or chemical unknown || Ecological and/or chemical || Ecological and/or chemical || Considering ecological exemptions only || Considering ecological exemptions only || Considering chemical exemptions only || Considering chemical exemptions only

River || 68 || 28 || 5 || 785 || 0 || 785 || 0 || 28 || 0

Lake || 37 || 7 || 4 || 168 || 0 || 168 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 105 || 35 || 9 || 953 || 0 || 953 || 0 || 28 || 0

Table 11.2: Status and exemptions of surface water bodies in number

Source: WISE

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

The RBMP gives some information on additional objectives for protected areas. There are general statements that for each water body directly or indirectly related to protected areas, specific measures have to be accomplished. These are to ensure that the environmental objectives, which were determined at the time of declaration of the protected status of these areas, are achieved.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

A guideline was prepared to explain the justification of exemptions applied in the RBMP in connection with Article 4(4) and Article 4(5) of the WFD as well as a background document, which explains the evaluation of the indirect effects.

The background document lists examples of common direct impacts: flood risk level changes, excess water risk changes and drought sensitivity changes. The main drivers mentioned were: agriculture, households, industry and river regulations.

Table 11.2.1 shows the number of surface water bodies with exemptions for technical feasibility, dispropotionate costs or natural conditions.

RBD || Global[13]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

HU1000 || 4098 || 0 || 4639 || 0 || 214 || 0

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.1.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Disproportionate costs of measures were taken into account at water body level and the background document describes the disproportionate cost analysis method by impact categories linked to the following demands: water supply, hydropower, energy production, irrigation, navigation, ecological water demand, excess water management and flood protection.

The RBMP gives a comprehensive overview on objectives and measures at water body level. It provides information about the exemptions, including disproportionate cost. The RBMP refers only in general way to exemptions that could be technical, excessive costs related and natural.

In the referenced documents there is no firm statement on what cost-benefit ratio is considered as disproportionate, though the documents list what direct and indirect impacts have to be taken into account when calculating the cost and benefit of a given type of measure.

Basic measures were excluded from the assessment of cost and benefit. The cost of basic measures was presented separately with the relevant deadline set by several directives. The cost of basic measures and additional measures were included together only in the affordability analysis.

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

Hungary has not applied Article 4(6) exemption in the RBMP.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

Hungary did not report exemptions under Article 4(7).

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

The guideline for justification of exemptions gives the inventory of exemptions from measures including those to prevent or limit pollutants into groundwater. Another annex to the RBMP lists all designated groundwater bodies and information about the type of exemptions applied on them.

Reasons for exemptions || Groundwater bodies (%)

Currently the status of GWB is not known reliably, or the reason of unfavourable status not known || 25

Co-ordinated actions are needed together with the neighbouring  country to achieve good status || 3

The measures would not worth implementing because of the estimated pros and cons of direct and indirect effects, as well as benefits and losses and water body level disproportionate expenses. || 3

The measures would cause disproportional burden on the national economy, certain groups of society or some sectors of the economy, if they were implemented by 2015. || 48

Restoration of groundwater status needs more time. || 22

Table 11.5.1: Summary table on what type of exemptions are applied on the GWBs

Source: WISE

Measures are related to the implementation of WFD objectives linked to feasibility options. Two measures are linked there to the prevention of inputs of pollutants into groundwater.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of WFD Article 4. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[14] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

According to the RBMP, the program of measures is a result of an iterative social and professional consultation process. The list of measures is defined by water bodies, the measures were determined according to the WB characteristics (classification), status, pressures and impacts.

Information was provided on the effectiveness of measures and on the schedule of actions until 2015, 2021 and 2027. For many river and lake water bodies there is a lack of data on status therefore measures are only partly based on the status assessments and partly on expert judgement. Measures are assigned to each water body.

PoMs have been co-ordinated among the Danube countries in the frame of ICPDR. Under the ICPDR co-ordinated planning process countries in expert groups shared information and discussed specific issues, like river continuity and nutrient reduction measures.

The RBMP identified the estimated costs of measures in detail for different periods. The RBMP provides cost estimates for preparatory actions, basic and supplementary measures as well as for administrative, monitoring, IT costs etc.

Within the basic measures a cost estimate is given for national action programmes, such as Waste Water Treatment Programme, Drinking Water Improvement Programme, Water Resources Protection Programme etc. As these programmes could be related to more than one pressure, it is not possible to separate the costs by pressures or sectors.

Three types of costs for implementation of PoM were presented in the RBMP. The costs which have already allocated, the planned costs and the additional amount that would be necessary to reach the objectives but not yet allocated or planned. 

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Agricultural pressures have been identified as significant. From a quantitative point of view, water over-abstraction and agricultural use related to water transfers were considered as significant pressures. Nitrogen, phosphorous and pesticide pollution from point and diffuse sources were also identified as significant pressures. Certain hydromorphological modifications - especially at sub-unit level - are directly connected to farming activity as many of the dams, weirs, drainage systems are used for agricultural purposes.

Forums were organised nationwide for discussion of thematic issues of RBMPs, including agriculture. But it was not clear whether the farmers' organisations were associated with the different steps of the PoM preparation.

A comprehensive list of measures is given in the PoM addressing the pressures. A significant number of measures are related to agriculture, such as reduction of the application of fertilisers and pesticides, hydromorphological measures, measures against soil erosion, water saving technical measures, water retention measures, change in land use, economic instruments (water pricing, agreements, taxes etc.), advice and training, awareness raising, zoning and land use planning.

Information is given regarding the scope of application of the measures with a geographical approach or sectoral approach.

Concerning the costs of measures, the new Hungarian Rural Development programme provides funding for investment programmes, such as advanced irrigation techniques, water reuse etc. Details are provided in the PoM.

A deadline of implementation for each measure is given. The RBMP provides a thematic overview of the measures, the percentage of WBs affected and the deadline by which the given measures will be implemented until 2015 and after 2015.

There is no detailed information regarding the inspection of the WFD agricultural measures (beyond the cross compliance requirements) and regarding the follow up of the implementation.

Measures || HU1000

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ü

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü

Measures against soil erosion || ü

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) ||

Technical measures for water saving || ü

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || ü

Co-operative agreements || ü

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || ü

Nutrient trading || ü

Fertiliser taxation || ü

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü

Institutional changes || ü

Codes of agricultural practice ||

Farm advice and training || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making ||

Certification schemes ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || ü

Specific action plans/programmes ||

Land use planning || ü

Technical standards || ü

Specific projects related to agriculture ||

Environmental permitting and licensing ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

There is information on links between pressures and measures or between uses and measures. The RBMP lists measures to improve the hydromorphological status of rivers and lakes in three categories: measures related to beds of rivers and lakes in order to achieve an ecologically based flow regime, measures related to flood plains of rivers and riparian zones of lakes and measures related to water use taking into account hydromorphology.

The following specific hydromorphological measures are going to be taken into account in the RBMP: fish ladders, habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas, sediment / debris management, reconnection of meander bends or side arms, lowering of river banks, setting minimum ecological flow requirements, inundation of flood plains, construction of retention basins, reduction or modification of dredging, restoration of degraded bed structure, and re-meandering of formerly straightened water courses.

The number of river and lake water bodies subject to hydromorphological measures is reported in the RBMP. No detailed information was found though about the expected effects of hydromorphological measures on these river and lake water bodies.

Measures || HU1000

Fish ladders || ü

Bypass channels ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü

Sediment/debris management || ü

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement ||

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || ü

Lowering of river banks || ü

Restoration of bank structure ||

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ü

Operational modifications for hydropeaking ||

Inundation of flood plains || ü

Construction of retention basins || ü

Reduction or modification of dredging || ü

Restoration of degraded bed structure || ü

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || ü

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

Basic and supplementary measures are to be implemented in groundwater bodies. All the relevant Directives and the corresponding national programmes related to basic measures are mentioned in the RBMP.

The RBMP gives information on supplementary measures which are being implemented in groundwater bodies at risk or at poor status to achieve the objectives, like changes in farming methods, water retention in excess water sensitive areas, modernisation of livestock farms, better local wastewater management and better sludge management.

Supplementary measures tackling groundwater over-exploitation are the implementation of sustainable water uses and the termination or revision of illicit or non-compliant water uses.

The RBMP gives information for each GWB what type of measures have to be implemented by what year and in gives justification of the required measures if standards (quantitative, chemical) are not met.  Comments are also given whether further international co-ordination would be needed with relevant neighbouring countries (Member State or third countries). There is a general statement in WISE that at the time of RBMP preparation co-ordination actions were on-going with all neighbouring countries, but none of them had been finished.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

In the RBMP there is an inventory of sources of pollution and it covers the following categories of pollutants:

· Priority substances and certain other pollutants;

· Non priority specific pollutants or main pollutants identified at the river basin level;

· Deoxygenating substances; and

· Nutrients.

The RBMP provides information about the direct and indirect industrial pollution loads of different compounds (BOD, COD, suspended solids, nitrogen, Fe, sulphides, phosphorous, heavy metals). It describes the pressures and impacts from anthropogenic activities.

The RBMP lists the pollution sources of different pollutant groups (sediment, deoxygenating substances, microbiological pollutants, nutrients, heavy metals, oils and grease, other micropollutants, salts) in urban areas.

The RBMP gives a list of the industrial plants, where accidental pollution events happened and the type of pollution observed.

The RBMP gives the diffuse Nitrogen and Phosphorous load of each surface water body identifying the load from agricultural, urban and other areas to the water body.

The PoM lists the main measures related to chemical pollution reductions from industrial, waste deposits and urban sources. The description of chemical measures does not refer to specific chemicals. The relevant measures listed are related to industrial and illegal wastewater discharges, thermal waters and cooling water.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

In Hungary the Governmental Decree No. 221/2004. (VII. 21) defines water services as: "water services: all services which provide for households, public institutions or any economic activity the abstraction, the impoundment, the storage, the treatment and distribution of surface water or groundwater, the waste-water collection and treatment facilities which subsequently discharge into surface water.”  

Despite the above mentioned broad water services definition, which is in line with the WFD, water services taken into account in the economic analysis and cost recovery calculations are limited. The Hungarian position is that two types of water services can be distinguished in terms of the Water Framework Directive:

1. Non-economic, community services, for which customers cannot be determined specifically and there is no contractual relationship between the provider and the payee. These community services are flood control, water protection, drainage control, drainage management (general), river and lake regulation, recreation, water distribution and water governance. For these activities, according to the Hungarian position, there is no need to apply the direct financial cost-benefit principle, and full enforcement towards the stakeholders.

2. Water services where the consumers are in contractual relationship with the service providers, and the consumers pay a service fee. These community services are drinking and industrial water supply (public water supply), sewerage and waste water treatment, agricultural water services (irrigation, fish ponds) and water energy production. For these services, according to the Hungarian RBMP, the full enforcement of cost recovery is needed.

All types of financial costs are included in cost recovery calculations, as well as subsidies and cross-subsidies.

Environmental and resource costs have not been calculated but they are internalised via existing policy instruments (waste water charges, water abstraction charges).

A background document deals with the assessment of subsidies on national level (subsidies for public water utility investments, for agricultural water use and for low income households).

The contribution of different water uses disaggregated into households, agriculture and industry to cost recovery of water services (includes only defined water services) is presented and is close to 100% of full cost recovery.

The polluter pays principle is taken into account in charging for pollution loads. There is no distinction between sectors and groups of water users. It is also fully regulated by a Governmental Decree how the polluters are responsible for the pollution remediation.

Water metering is in place for practically all users. The existing public utility tariff system, which applies the principle of financial cost recovery, was introduced in the early 90's. As a result, the specific public water consumption has decreased.

The WISE report explains that flexibility provision of the Article 9 is taken into consideration in household water tariffs setting, for social effects (when the state subsidizes the too high tariffs) and in agricultural water use tariffs where regional Water Authorities apply region specific tariffs taking into account social, environmental and economic effects.

Household water supply and sanitation tariffs on those settlements where tariff values exceed a given threshold value (set by the government each year in yearly state budget) are subsidized from the state budget. However, it was pointed out that the budget used for subsidy has been decreased by 33% in the period from 2004 to 2009. The current system of subsidies does not take into consideration the needs. In areas where the cost of the services is high it ensures subsidy for all residents regardless of their social status.

The planned measures are the improvement of water utility/wastewater tariffs in order to ensure financial sustainability and implementation of necessary renewals, and reduction of unjustified discrimination between consumers (households, industry and public sector). Also mentioned are an improvement to agricultural water services pricing and the establishment of unified approaches and conditions for different sectors.

It is stated in the RBMP that there has not been international co-ordination of the economic analysis within the Danube River Basin District. In the RBMP no statement was found on co-operation among administrations within the country in applying Article 9 issues.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

The water bodies and protected areas that need additional measures are clearly identified. Information on the additional measure(s) is given in the PoM. Besides the basic measures the RBMP gives information about measures which are being implemented for SWBs and GWBs and the additional measures which are needed to reach the more stringent objectives relating to protected areas. The additional measures listed are survey of status of habitats, interventions in surface and groundwater uses, supplying water for oxbows, for tributaries and floodplain habitats, water level control, arrangements for waters containing fish, measures in relation to bathing waters and agricultural conservation measures.

There are 443 river water bodies requiring additional measures of which 164 have high priority. In case of lake water bodies, 127 need additional measures and 44 require high priority additional measures.

Safeguard zones to protect drinking water abstraction areas have been established. In addition to safeguard zones other (basic or supplementary) measures specific to safeguarding drinking water quality were also reported. Measures addressing the issues are changes in water treatment technology, keeping drinking water resources in safe conditions, transition to alternative drinking water resources in case of resources shortages, development of a drinking water safety plan and implementation of safety measures specified in the RBMP.

13. water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management AND Climate change adaptation 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Droughts and water scarcity affect part of the RBD. In the RBMP the discussion concentrates mainly on climatic effects concerning water scarcity and droughts. Limited information is given about other factors, which may cause current and upcoming water scarcity / drought situations.

A detailed map is given on annual climatic water deficit (Figure 13.1.1). The map shows that a large part of the country is affected by annual climatic water deficit, which will be deepened by the expected climate change.

Figure 13.1.1: Annual climatic water deficit in Hungary

The main reasons for both water scarcity and droughts are a decrease in the natural available water resources and irregular rainfall patterns. Water scarcity is also increased by past and current over-allocation of available water resources and the need to satisfy new agricultural water demands.

Long term annual precipitation datasets show decreasing trends.

Figure 13.1.2: Linear and 5 year moving average trends in yearly precipitation (1951-2008)

The main measures related to water scarcity and droughts are the reduction of losses in urban distribution networks, measures to increase treated water re-use, improvement of the efficiency of water agricultural uses, reduction / management of groundwater abstraction, measures to enhance the resilience of the ecosystems to water scarcity and droughts, promotion of rainwater harvesting and the development or upgrading of reservoirs.

Development of the Danube River Basin Management Plan was co-ordinated by the International Commission for the Protection of Danube River (ICPDR). The Integrated Tisza RBMP, which is one of the sub-basin plans, was also developed under ICPDR co-ordination and the plan deals with water scarcity and/or droughts.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Flood risk was mentioned as a major issue. It is considered as a significant water management pressure and reason for HMWB designation.

In the RBMP 38% of the planned future infrastructure projects are flood related, such as water retention measures, reservoirs to mitigate flood peak levels and new dams.

Co-ordinated action is going on to harmonise WFD and Flood Directive implementations among the Danube countries. The Flood Risk Action Programme was developed for the Danube RBD in the frame of ICPDR, and the Danube countries are also co-operating in preparation of similar sub-basin plans.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

The National Climate Change Strategy (NCCS) was developed and adopted in 2008. The NCCS developed recommendations on adaptation measures (keeping the rainwater in place, retaining river water, construction of small and medium reservoirs and building water transition structures). Water related recommendations and measures of the NCCS are included in the RBMP.

HU1000 RBMP describes specific climate change adaptation measures, such as water retention measures, reduction of run-off, an increase in the utilization of treated waste water, an increase in the ratio of wetland and forest areas in river basins and increases to the base flow of rivers.

Though climate change issues were taken up in the first RBMP, no information was given about how climate change challenges will be taken up in the second and third cycle.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD therefore, it is recommended that:

· Financing of some RBMP elements does not seem to be ensured in every case. The monitoring and the Programme of Measures should be sufficiently financed.

· The testing of typology of surface water bodies against biological data has not been completed in the first RBMP cycle because of the lack of sufficient data. This should be remedied.

· As the methods were not completed for all BQEs, the reference values and class boundaries were not completed for all types. Methodologies for all biological quality elements should be established with reference values and class boundaries completed for all types.

· Due to significant lack of data, only 13% of surface water bodies were classified for river basin specific pollutants. The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status.  It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.  

· Status assessments of surface water bodies are not sufficiently reliable, therefore an extremely high percentage of surface water bodies are indicated as being of unknown status in Hungary. Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle. For example, status assessments of surface water bodies should be made reliable and monitoring should be intensified in order to reduce the high number of water bodies in unknown status. Uncertainty in HMWB designation should be tackled. Improvements in data will be needed for a better designation process and to reduce the uncertainty.

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived. Trend monitoring in sediment or biota for several substances as specified in EQSD Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.

· A large number of exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans. The high number of exemptions applied in these first RBMPs is a cause of concern. Hungary should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainties.

· It is unclear whether there are new physical modifications planned in RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· Groundwater trend assessments should be carried out more extensively in the 2nd RBMP cycle. Trend reversals should be performed.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resources in Hungary. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately advised and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· Natural water retention measures should be used more extensively.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

[1]    Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[2] This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[3]     The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[4] Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[5]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[6]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[7]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[8]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[9]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[10]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[11]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[12]    Decree of the Ministry of Rural Development 10/2010 (VIII. 18) on EQSs of surface waters and rules of their applications

[13] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[14]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE

The Netherlands cover a total area of 41.526 km² and has 16, 4 million inhabitants.

It has four river basin districts. These are all parts of international river basin districts. The sharing countries are EU member states, as well as Switzerland, and Liechtenstein. The table below gives the specifications of the river basin districts.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || Percentage of NL territory || Percentage of international RBD || Countries sharing RBD

NLRN || Rhine || 28917 || 69 || 17.1 || AT, BE, CH, DE, FR, IT, LI, LU

NLSC || Scheldt || 3263 || 8 || 5.5 || BE, FR

NLMS || Meuse || 7474 || 18 || 21.8 || BE, DE, FR, LU

NLEM || Ems || 2478 || 6 || 13 || DE

Table 1.1: Overview of the Netherlands’ River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[1]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/nl/eu/wfdart13

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

1

km² || %

Rhine || Rhine || AT, BE, CH, DE, FR, IT, LI, LU || 33800 || 17.0

Scheldt || Scheldt || BE, FR || 2008 || 5.5

Meuse-Maas || Meuse || BE, DE, FR, LU || 7500 || 21.8

Ems || Ems || DE || 2312 || 13.0

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in the Netherlands[2]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

In the Netherlands, the WFD River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) were adopted by the government on the 27 November 2009 and can be found at    http://www.helpdeskwater.nl/onderwerpen/wetgeving-beleid/kaderrichtlijn-water/sgbp/@28241/item_28241/

It consists of RBMPs for 4 national parts of 4 international River Basin Districts (RBDs), i.e. the districts of Rhine, Meuse, Ems and Scheldt.

Here below, is a summary of the main strengths and weaknesses of the Dutch RBMPs:

2.1 Main Strengths:

· Water management is clearly tackled in depth in the Netherlands.  There was already a significant effort undertaken for implementation of WFD principles prior to the adoption of the RBMPs in 2009. The rationale of the WFD objectives is well underpinned in most of water management issues in the Netherlands.

· All Dutch RBMPs are similar, with a clear structure and are very illustrative (graphs, flow charts, etc. to support the information in the plans). This facilitates the reading and comprehension, as well as the finding of specific information. The plans are very well fitted for public consultation in this way, as they are accessible and easy for the general public to understand.

· Public participation has been carried out very extensively, and stakeholder involvement seems to be of great importance through the entire RBM development process.

· The surveillance monitoring networks cover all biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements relevant for the specific types, as well as all the priority substances. Therefore, it is assumed that all relevant pressures are being detected.

· The assessment methods for ecological status are, in general, well developed and consolidated. They are considered to detect all relevant pressures.

· The Netherlands applies a solid approach for the definition of good ecological potential, generally based on the mitigation measures approach for heavily modified water bodies, and on the reference based approach for artificial water bodies.

· The Programmes of Measures are well structured and easily understandable. There is a clear link between the significant pressures and the measures defined. Some of the measures have been coordinated with other Member States as part of the International RBMPs.

2.2 Main weaknesses:

· Although Dutch RBMPs are clear and easy to understand, the background documents are not always easy to find, the number of background documents is very high and the information may well be spread across a number of different plans (national and regional plans).

· There are a large number of plans and strategies at different levels (national, regional, local), which results in a complex matrix of plans and competences across the different authorities and the coordination of all these plans is not always clear.

· Although the detailed background documents (studies, guidelines) and different plans are one of the main strengths of the implementation of the WFD in the Netherlands (nearly all issues are discussed and documented), the different institutional levels of implementation may cause regional differentiation. This is the case in particular in relation to HMWB/AWB designation, water body delineation and characterization, etc. For some of these processes, only very general information is given in the RBMP, which has then been developed in the different plans of the Provinces, the Waterschappen and Rijkswateren.

· The RBMPs do not seem to contain all the relevant information, in particular as the programmes of measures are concerned, as this would be included in the sub-basin plans. Measures included in the Programmes of Measures of the RBMP are not presented in sufficient detail to understand if the necessary financial commitment is provided for. Furthermore, there is not much information included on measures in relation to climate change adaptation, although this is a very relevant topic in the Netherlands.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

For the four river basins of the Netherlands, the following documents were delivered to the CDR database in March 2010: the RBMP, maps, annexes, the international RBMP and a Dutch summary of the four RBMPs (for Meuse 16 March, for Rhine, Ems and Scheldt 19 March). On 1 June 2010 all of these documents were resubmitted for every river basin, and now also include an English version of the summary of the four RBMPs[3].

In the WISE summary reports of the four RBMPs the publication dates of following documents are given:

· Timetable, work programme and the statement on consultation measures: 7 July 2006.

· Draft RBMPs: 22 December 2008.

· RBMPs: 22 December 2009.

3.2 Administrative arrangements – river basin districts and competent authorities

The arrangement of the national authorities responsible for WFD implementation is provided in the graph below[4]:

Figure 3.1: Organogram of the national authorities responsible for the implementation of the WFD.

Source: 'Pressures and Measures study'[5]

At the state level the 'Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment' is the responsible authority for implementing the WFD. Other responsible authorities for WFD implementation include: Provinces (regional level), Water boards ('Waterschappen' sub-basin level) and Municipalities (local level). Only the state and the Water boards are indicated to have direct water management authorities. Provinces and municipalities have other authorities that are linked to water management and hence contribute in WFD implementation. The competences of different authorities are explained in the introduction of the RBMPs. These competences, together with the coordination between the different authorities, are laid down in the 'National Water Act'.

Following the publication of the RBMPs, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment was created on 14 October 2010, taking over all competences from two former Ministries, including the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. Since the RBMPs were published before this date, the plans name the former Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management as the main competent authority for WFD implementation.

3.3 RBMP – Structure, completeness, legal status

The RBMPs include a description of several water management plans at different levels: national, provincial, regional. The regional plans (waterschapsplannen) cover the sub-basins while the other plans (based on administrative boundaries) may overlap between the river basins. The issue of water management is clearly tackled in depth in the Netherlands. However, there existence of a number of plans and strategies at different levels results in a complex matrix of plans and competences across the different authorities.

The RBMPs are very clearly structured and the different topics of the WFD implementation can be easily found in the setup of the plans.

A national approach has been followed in the implementation of the WFD. All RBMPs have the same structure. The 'Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment' is the ultimate body responsible for the drafting of the RBMPs, and has a role of overall coordination.

The RBMPs are adopted by the National Parliament. As regards the legal status, the RBMPs are planning documents and form part of the National Water Plan. In the hierarchy of legal acts, on the one hand, it falls under laws and regulations (decrees). It cannot contradict laws and regulations, and has no binding legal nature as such. However, as a national planning document, it is self-binding to the national government, and where needed, local governments are expected to implement it and transpose its provisions in their local planning documents. In cases where the plan seeks to have a legally binding impact, it indicates which legal instruments should be used. However, there is no requirement to review existing individual decisions and planning documents in line with the RBMP.  The RBMPs have a legal effect on individual decisions through general policy. The relationship between the RBMP and individual decisions is not set in specific legal provisions. It rather stems from the general system of permitting and the links between different decisions and plans. The environmental objectives are incorporated in the Decree on the quality requirements and monitoring of water, which stipulates that, in adopting the water management plan and the provincial water or spatial plan, the water management authorities and the provinces, respectively, take the environmental quality requirements of the WFD into account. With regards to the environmental quality standards that need to be considered for the permit, the legislation refers to the National Waterplan (of which the RBMPs are a part).

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

The National Water Consultation (nationaal wateroverleg), falling under the State Secretary of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, plays an important role in implementing the WFD. Representatives of the other competent authorities (provinces, water boards, communities, other relevant ministries, etc.) take part in the consultation process. A national framework was set up for the consultation of the drafting of the four RBMPs and also for the establishment of the monitoring programmes.

Consultation with the public was done through various ways (through media, via the internet, printed material, sending information to all relevant stakeholder groups…). A description is included in annex to the RBMPs concerning the main changes that the consultation process has brought about (adjustments and clarifications).

3.5 International cooperation and coordination

In the RBMPs a short description is given of the International RBDs and on the cooperation with the neighbouring countries for drafting the International RBMPs. All four of the Dutch river basins are part of an International River Basin District.

As stated above, all Dutch RBDs are International RBDs. International coordination committees responsible for drafting the international RBMPs has been established for Rhine and Ems river basins, for Scheldt and Meuse the already existing International River Commission acted as coordinating bodies. Each of the IRBDs and an International RBMP has been adopted for each of these IRBDs. Information on how these International RBMPs have been translated into the national RBMPs may be found in all Dutch RBMPs. Furthermore, for some issues (e.g. in relation to standards and monitoring of priority substances and specific pollutants) there seems to have been an overall approach followed by each member state part of the International RBDs. Further on, coordination in relation to monitoring has been carried out at different levels within the International RBDs.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

Rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters are present in all RBDs in the Netherlands. Nearly all Dutch river water bodies have been delineated as heavily modified water bodies.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

The methodology for development of a typology for the Dutch surface waters is given in 'Definitiestudie KaderRichtlijn Water (KRW). Typologie Nederlandse Oppervlaktewateren. Alterra-rapport'[6] and the 'Referenties en maatlatten voor natuurlijke watertypen voor de kaderrichtlijn water '[7]

Based on a set of descriptors, for each of the categories (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters), a type can be assigned for a certain water body.

There is no information in the RBMP on the validation of the typology with biological data. However, the background documents contain information on this validation in two ways, first by comparison with existing, validated typologies, and second in the background documents mentioned before. As a result some types were grouped when the metrics were defined.

Type specific reference conditions have been established for each of the surface water types. In the background documents detailing the classification tools developed for each of the biological quality elements, it can be seen that type-specific reference conditions have been established. Methods for classification are fully developed for all Biological Quality Elements (BQEs) and a list of the BQEs that are not developed for certain categories or types are provided together with an explanation of the reasons for such shortcomings.

The number of surface water types that have been defined in the different water categories is summarised in the table below:

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

NLEM || 8 || 16 || 2 || 4

NLMS || 114 || 57 || 2 || 4

NLRN || 6 || 17 || 1 || 4

NLSC || 2 || 56 || 2 || 8

Table 4. 1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

The number of types of natural surface water bodies is limited by the types described in 'Referenties en maatlatten voor natuurlijke watertypen voor de kaderrichtlijn water'. Not all river basin districts have used all types, so numbers may be lower. For heavily modified water bodies (HMWBs) in most cases the most comparable type has been used, although good ecological potential values for one or more quality elements may be reduced. The high numbers in the table probably represent HMWBs bodies, although these are not considered as a separate type in the Netherlands. For artificial water bodies (AWBs), some additional types have been defined (about 5 depending on RBD).

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

The Netherlands does not have a specific methodology for small water body delineation and therefore the water bodies for which the drainage basin is less than 10 km2 long for rivers or 50 ha for lakes have not been included.

However, the Netherlands have recently confirmed that the water bodies included in the RBMPs represent all surface and groundwater bodies in the Netherlands. Artificial polders have sometimes not been delineated explicitly as neighbouring polders have the same characteristics. Enlarging the polders that are delineated as AWBs will have no effect on objectives, monitoring sites and measures. The same is true when river water bodies (now represented in kilometre length) are enlarged with tiny streams in the upper catchment.

The table below presents an overview of the number and average size of the water bodies in the whole of the Netherlands and per river basin.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

NLEM || 5 || 55 || 14 || 2 || 1 || 176 || 2 || 342 || 2 || 1157

NLMS || 103 || 21 || 49 || 2 || 1 || 46 || 2 || 248 || 5 || 2024

NLRN || 145 || 16 || 338 || 8 || 2 || 67 || 6 || 1447 || 11 || 2138

NLSC || 1 || 16 || 49 || 5 || 1 || 328 || 5 || 405 || 5 || 796

Total || 254 || 19 || 450 || 7 || 5 || 137 || 15 || 793 || 23 || 1736

Table 4.2: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

The RBMPs provide information on the different pressure types and the categories for reporting (WFD reporting sheets) were used. There are no numerical values provided in the WISE reporting per category, but only an overall percentage of water bodies subject to point sources pollution for all categories of water except for coastal water bodies.

The Article 5 reporting submitted at an earlier stage has been confirmed by the values in the RBMPs. The following main management issues, considered as pressures and impacts in the relevant chapter of the RBMP, have been highlighted:

1. the unnatural condition of most waters (most of these are part of a delta and partly to be restored);

2. the deteriorated ecological condition caused by pollution load (from traffic, infrastructure and agriculture)

3. the bad chemical condition because of the load of priority substances;

4. load from upstream areas (from third countries).

For all RBDs, diffuse sources have the largest impact on water bodies, including pollution from agriculture, atmospheric deposition, traffic and infrastructure, and run-off.

For point sources, effluents from urban waste water plants and sewage outlets are considered to have a significant impact on the surface water bodies.

For nearly all threshold exceeding substances, the load from third countries is deemed an important source.

For groundwater, the main pressures are due to nutrients, pesticides and heavy metals (related to the land use). Nitrates seem to be less an issue for the Rhine RBD, in contrast to the Meuse RBD where nitrates is a major issue. For phosphate, the Netherlands has confirmed that problems in the coastal regions are due to background values. For point source pollution to groundwater, this is mostly related to soil pollution in the proximity of abstractions.

The methodology of determining significant point and diffuse source pollution is based on data on emissions, and the significance level is determined based on the fact that a certain substance would be attributing more than 10% standard exceedance for a certain water body. The relative importance of a certain point source or diffuse source overall is based on the number of surface water bodies assessed as being significantly impacted.

The main hydromorphological pressures for all RBDs are similar and include: canalisation, loss of riparian zones and flooding areas, sluices/weirs, dredging, barriers for fish passages, lack of water retention, etc.

The decision on what the significant pressures  are in terms of 'water abstractions', 'water flow regulation' and 'morphological alterations' and 'other human activities' on water bodies are taken by the water managers. The methodology is based on considering that a pressure is significant if this pressure, alone or in combination with other pressures, will lead to failing to achieve good chemical status or a good ecological status or potential by 2015. The relative importance is based on the number of surface water bodies for which the pressure is determined as being significant.

For the Rhine Delta, the Ems and the Scheldt RBDs, the effluents of urban waste water treatment have an important impact (exceeding threshold of toxic substances), specifically for the larger rivers (e.g. large treatment plants mainly discharging in the Rhine itself) but also for the regional waters (as is the case for the Scheldt RBD). For the Meuse RBD, the sewage outlets cause a problem, because of their peak and sudden frequency. This may cause important negative consequences for the functioning of the ecosystem. In addition to this, the pesticides and other organic micro-pollutants have a significant impact in the receiving waters.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

NLEM || 0 || 0 || 9 || 40.91 || 22 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 18.18 || 14 || 63.64 || 1 || 4.55 || 14 || 63.64 || 5 || 22.73

NLMS || 2 || 1.29 || 59 || 38.06 || 142 || 91.61 || 25 || 16.13 || 91 || 58.71 || 109 || 70.32 || 4 || 2.58 || 115 || 74.19 || 136 || 87.74

NLRN || 6 || 1.22 || 137 || 27.9 || 441 || 89.82 || 92 || 18.74 || 272 || 55.4 || 364 || 74.13 || 13 || 2.64 || 322 || 65.58 || 424 || 86.35

NLSC || 0 || 0 || 15 || 26.79 || 50 || 89.29 || 3 || 5.36 || 51 || 91.07 || 42 || 75 || 5 || 8.93 || 50 || 89.29 || 18 || 32.14

Total || 8 || 1.1 || 220 || 30.39 || 655 || 90.47 || 120 || 16.57 || 418 || 57.73 || 529 || 73.07 || 23 || 3.18 || 501 || 69.2 || 583 || 80.52

Table 4.3: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4. 1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

4.5 Protected areas

A table presenting the number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater is given below:

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

NLEM || 2 || 48 || 3 || || || 6 || || || || 1 ||

NLMS || 9 || 136 || 17 || || || 43 || || || || 1 ||

NLRN || 18 || 392 || 59 || || || 95 || || || || 3 ||

NLSC || 2 || 68 || 11 || || || 15 || || || || 4 ||

Total || 31 || 644 || 90 || || || 159 || || || || 9 ||

Table 4.4: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[8]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Background documents relevant for Monitoring are the following: Guidelines on WFD monitoring of Surface Water and Assessment Protocol (Richtlijn KRW Monitoring Oppervlaktewater en Protocol Toetsen & Beoordelen) as laid down by the Directeuren Wateroverleg (DW) on 10 February 2011 and Instruction guidelines on monitoring surface water – European Water Framework Directive and Testing and Assessment Protocol (Instructie Richtlijn monitoring oppervlaktwater Europese Kaderrichtlijn[9]).

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

NLEM || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

NLMS || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

NLRN || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

NLSC || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

NLEM || 2 || 5 || 5 || 14 || 4 || 4 || 2 || 1 || 60 || 3 || 33

NLMS || 48 || 140 || 11 || 51 || 3 || 5 || 4 || 2 || 410 || 172 || 208

NLRN || 31 || 193 || 67 || 359 || 3 || 7 || 13 || 10 || 658 || 36 || 774

NLSC || 0 || 1 || 12 || 30 || 4 || 4 || 7 || 5 || 36 || 2 || 30

Total by type of site || 81 || 339 || 95 || 454 || 14 || 20 || 26 || 18 || 1.164 || 213 || 1.045

Total number of monitoring sites[10] || 342 || 462 || 23 || 27 || 2185

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE                

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

For surveillance monitoring, all biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements relevant for the type are monitored. Within the priority substances group, for surveillance monitoring all priority substances are measured, for other specific substances, a specific model is applied for the selection of substances that are relevant to monitor. This model is based on a 'black list' of substances to monitor, including the basin specific pollutants. Those substances that are not relevant and that are below the thresholds for at least three years, are withdrawn from the list.

The procedure to be followed for the selection of the biological quality elements (BQEs) for operational monitoring in a water body is described in the guidelines. The general rule is that the most sensitive quality elements are selected for the relevant pressure. It is recommended to select those quality elements that react fastest to the measures. Furthermore the sensitivity of the quality element needs to be detectable in the assessment. After some time, another quality element with a longer response time may be selected, which will provide a better certainty on the overall ecological quality of the water body. Finally, it is recommended (when there is equal suitability) to select the most cost-efficient method. In practice when screening the RBMPs, no direct link of the operational monitoring to the pressures seems to exist, but because of the very dense monitoring, it is assumed that all relevant pressures are detected.

The RBMPs explain that the selection of priority substances and specific pollutants is based on what substances are most probably the cause of poor chemical status, what substances are present (load), and for what substances measures may be applied.

The grouping of water bodies for the monitoring purposes is described in the Instruction Guidelines on Monitoring Surface water – European Water Framework Directive and Testing and Assessment Protocol ('Instructie Richtlijn monitoring oppervlaktewater Europese Kaderrichtlijn Water en Protocol Toetsen en Beoordelen') of January 2010 and a different approach is applied for surveillance and operational monitoring.

Coordination in terms of the development of overall monitoring programmes in the different RBDs has been carried out. In sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the RBMPs, the coordination arrangement for the monitoring of specific substances is explained. The monitoring coordination is done with Germany, Switzerland and France for the Rhine, and with Belgium and France for the Meuse and the Scheldt. These are the so-called catchment-relevant, and in the next RBMPs this will also involve joint monitoring programmes.

However, there is no clear information in the RBMPs on whether a specific trans-boundary monitoring network has been set up, in addition to the national monitoring programmes (which are also described in the International RBMPs).

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

A quantitative groundwater monitoring programme has been established for all RBDs.

On the selection of sites and the frequency of groundwater quality monitoring, it is decided that based on a risk assessment that follows from surveillance monitoring, sites at risk are included for operational monitoring for the substance for which the threshold has been exceeded.

A trend assessment has been done for groundwater used for abstraction of drinking water.

The RBMPs indicate that in the Dutch situation, groundwater pollution is addressed via the emergency system laid down in the Soil Protection Act (Wet Bodembescherming, 2005). Based on this Soil Protection Act, a risk-based approach is applied. In case there is a decision in favour of rehabilitation, the decision also has implications for the monitoring and is designed to follow the trend in pollutants, and focuses on the purpose of rehabilitation. This refers in particular to substances which are present in quantities exceeding the intervention value.

All RBDs are part of an international river basin and approaches on the coordination of monitoring programmes for groundwater are different for each of the RBD. For the Ems RBD, no trans-boundary 'tuning' is necessary as there is only very local groundwater movement on the Dutch-German border. In the International Meuse Commission an inventory and comparison of monitoring networks and standards has been done. This will also be the case in the future for the trans-boundary water body 'diepe zandlagen', for which there are significant abstractions from the Flanders site (discussions are going on during this first planning period).

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

A monitoring network is in place for drinking water protected areas in and around the protected area for the groundwater. This monitoring is done by the water companies.

For all other types of protected areas, the surveillance and operational monitoring networks are considered to cover the requirements for the purpose of assessing the status of protected water bodies, and therefore no additional monitoring has been implemented.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

NLEM || 0 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 0 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8

NLMS || 5 || 0 || 0 || 24 || 0 || 39 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 63

NLRN || 7 || 0 || 0 || 70 || 0 || 57 || 0 || 6 || 0 || 147

NLSC || 0 || 0 || 0 || 23 || 0 || 15 || 0 || 13 || 0 || 5

Total || 12 || 0 || 0 || 127 || 0 || 119 || 0 || 23 || 0 || 223

Table 5.3: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas[11].

Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

The following tables provide an overview of the status of groundwater and surface water bodies in the Dutch RBDs when the RMBPs were adopted (2009), and the status that is expected in 2015.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

NLEM || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0

NLMW || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 87.5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 12.5

NLRN || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 50.0 || 1 || 16.7 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 33.3

NLSC || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0

Total || 18 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 12 || 66.7 || 1 || 5.6 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 27.8

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

NLEM || 20 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 55.0 || 8 || 40.0 || 1 || 5.0 || 0 || 0

NLMW || 147 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 41 || 27.9 || 68 || 46.3 || 35 || 23.8 || 3 || 2.0

NLRN || 485 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0.6 || 174 || 35.9 || 205 || 42.3 || 103 || 21.2 || 0 || 0

NLSC || 54 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 20.4 || 33 || 61.1 || 10 || 18.5 || 0 || 0

Total || 706 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0.4 || 237 || 33.6 || 314 || 44.5 || 149 || 21.1 || 3 || 0.4

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

NLEM || 2 || 1 || 50.0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0

NLMS || 8 || 3 || 37.5 || 4 || 50.0 || 1 || 12.5

NLRN || 6 || 1 || 16.7 || 5 || 83.3 || 0 || 0

NLSC || 2 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0

Total || 18 || 5 || 27.8 || 12 || 66.7 || 1 || 5.6

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

NLEM || 20 || 13 || 65.0 || 7 || 35.0 || 0 || 0

NLMS || 147 || 39 || 26.5 || 75 || 51.0 || 33 || 22.4

NLRN || 485 || 403 || 83.1 || 80 || 16.5 || 2 || 0.4

NLSC || 54 || 46 || 85.2 || 5 || 9.3 || 3 || 506

Total || 706 || 501 || 71.0 || 165 || 23.4 || 38 || 5.4

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

NLEM || 2 || 1 || 50 || 1 || 50 || 0 || 0

NLMS || 5 || 2 || 40 || 3 || 60 || 0 || 0

NLRN || 11 || 8 || 72.7 || 3 || 27.3 || 0 || 0

NLSC || 5 || 3 || 60 || 2 || 40 || 0 || 0

Total || 23 || 14 || 60.9 || 9 || 39.1 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

NLEM || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLMS || 5 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLRN || 11 || 11 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLSC || 5 || 5 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 23 || 23 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

NLEM || 22 || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 4.5 || 4.5 || || || || || || || || || 91 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLMS || 155 || 0 || 0.0 || 5 || 3.2 || 3.2 || || || || || || || || || 96 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLRN || 491 || 3 || 0.6 || 60 || 12.2 || 11.6 || || || || || || || || || 87 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLSC || 56 || 0 || 0.0 || 3 || 5.4 || 5.4 || || || || || || || || || 95 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 724 || 3 || 0.4 || 69 || 9.5 || 9.1 || || || || || || || || || 90 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[12]

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

NLEM || 2 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0 || 50.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLMS || 8 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 37.5 || 37.5 || || || || || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLRN || 6 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 16.7 || 16.7 || || || || || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLSC || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 18 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 27.8 || 27.8 || || || || || 44.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[13]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

NLEM || 2 || 1 || 50.0 || 50.0 || 1 || 0 || || || || || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLMS || 8 || 3 || 37.5 || 37.5 || 3 || 0 || || || || || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLRN || 6 || 1 || 16.7 || 16.7 || 1 || 0 || || || || || 83.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLSC || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 18 || 5 || 27.8 || 27.8 || 5 || 0 || || || || || 66.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[14]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

NLEM || 2 || 1 || 50.0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || || || || || 50 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLMS || 5 || 2 || 40.0 || 3 || 60.0 || 20.0 || || || || || 40 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLRN || 11 || 8 || 72.7 || 8 || 72.7 || 0 || || || || || 27 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLSC || 5 || 3 || 60.0 || 3 || 60.0 || 0 || || || || || 40 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 23 || 14 || 60.9 || 15 || 65.2 || 4.3 || || || || || 35 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[15]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

NLEM || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLMS || 5 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLRN || 11 || 11 || 100 || 11 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLSC || 5 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 23 || 23 || 100 || 23 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[16]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

NLEM || 20 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 10.0 || 10.0 || || || || || 90.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLMS || 147 || 0 || 0 || 13 || 8.8 || 8.8 || || || || || 89.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLRN || 485 || 3 || 0.6 || 67 || 13.8 || 13.2 || || || || || 86.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLSC || 54 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 13.0 || 13.0 || || || || || 87.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 706 || 3 || 0.4 || 89 || 12.6 || 12.2 || || || || || 87.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[17]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

NLEM || 20 || 13 || 65.0 || 13 || 65.0 || 0 || || || || || 35.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLMS || 147 || 39 || 26.5 || 39 || 26.5 || 0 || || || || || 51.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLRN || 485 || 403 || 83.1 || 403 || 83.1 || 0 || || || || || 16.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

NLSC || 54 || 46 || 85.2 || 46 || 85.2 || 0 || || || || || 9.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 706 || 501 || 71.0 || 501 || 71.0 || 0 || || || || || 23.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[18]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

The authorities responsible for assessing the status, setting of objectives and determining measures are the following:

· The national water managers determine in the RBMP the main objectives, the methodologies (e.g. for setting the objectives for HMWB and AW waterbodies) and measures in broad terms.

· The water managers (regional (water boards, provinces and municipalities) and Rijkswaterstaat) implement the measures to reach these objectives. These measures are included in the regional water management plans (see section 12 on the Programmes of Measures).

· The provinces, and for the public water bodies, the Secretary of State, decide on the status and type of the water body, and the objectives themselves for those bodies. This is part of the provincial responsibility for Public water management plans.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

Methods for classification of ecological status are fully developed for all Biological Quality Elements (BQEs), except for some categories or types for which certain BQEs classification systems have not been developed. More in detail, this concerns classification tools for phytoplankton for small brackish to salt waters, although for natural brackish waters a classification system has been developed.

The BQEs together are considered to detect all relevant pressures, and the relationship between BQEs and pressures is provided and explained in detail in the background documents referred to in the RBMPs (available for each of the BQEs):

· Eutrophication: Phytoplankton, phytobenthos/macrophytes.

· Acidification: macrophytes, benthic invertebrates, fish.

· Morphology: macrophytes, benthic invertebrates.

· Hydrology: macrophytes, benthic invertebrates.

· Continuity: fish.

For natural waters, standards for the hydromorphological quality elements (QEs) have been derived for all water types to be reported, and, as explained in the background document, the class boundaries for hydromorphology are linked where possible to the biological elements. The objectives for the general physico-chemical parameters are determined based on the biological descriptions. Good ecological status and good ecological potential values for nutrients are mainly based on the observed relation between concentrations of Nitrogen/Phosphorus and the biological condition. For the other general physico-chemical parameters in natural waters, the good ecological status values have been determined by water type.

The one-out all-out principle has been applied for ecological status assessment.

An extensive methodology for confidence and precision assessment is given in the Guidelines on WFD Monitoring of Surface Water and Testing and Assessment Protocol (Richlijn KRW Monitoring Oppervlaktewater en Protocol Toetsen & Beoordelen) as laid down by the Directeuren Wateroverleg (DWO) on 10 February 2011.

All Good/Moderate boundaries seem to been brought into line with the 'Commission Decision on Intercalibration of 30 October 2008' as is reported by the Member State. When changes to good/moderate boundaries were needed as a consequence of intercalibration, comparable changes were made for all types. In only one case, type R8 (tidal fresh water rivers), this was not possible for all BQEs. In some other cases (e.g. macroinvertebrates and phytobenthos) a different assessment method has been applied. In both cases, the Netherlands is working on improving the assessment methods and linking the results with the large intercalibration group, if applicable.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

NLEM || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

NLMS || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

NLRN || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

NLSC || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 7.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs, amended with information received from the Netherlands

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

For each water body, all quality elements (QEs) are used to determine the ecological status, although grouping has been applied in some cases, and measures in a single water body are sometimes deemed representative of several bodies of water with similar characteristics.

The BQEs are considered to detect all relevant pressures, and the relationship between BQEs and pressures is explained in the background documents. However, the plans do not provide any information on how the selection of sensitive BQEs has been applied in practice and if the relationship between those BQEs and the pressure is used for defining the BQEs to be monitored and assessed for status assessment.

The methodology of uncertainty analysis is included in the Guidelines on WFD Monitoring of Surface Water and Testing and Assessment Protocol, but no further information is provided on how these uncertainty results have been taken into consideration for the status assessment.

7.3 River basin specific pollutants

For the river basin specific pollutants that have not been selected by the International River Basin Committee, the Netherlands has set a standard. The European methodology[19] has been used for setting the standards for priority substances. However, standards have not been defined for all relevant substances. For some substances, standards have been taken up from the 2004 Decision[20]. No distinction is made for the set objectives per water category. Standards for specific pollutants are given in annexes to the RBMPs.

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)

NLEM || || Cupper || 51-75

NLEM || || Zinc || 26-50

NLMS || || 4-tertiar-octylfenol || <1

NLMS || || Ammonium || 21-50

NLMS || || Benzo(a)antraceen || 11-25

NLMS || || Cobalt || 6-10

NLMS || || Cupper || 51-75

NLMS || || Dimethoaat || 11-25

NLMS || || Linuron || 2-5

NLMS || || Malathion || 6-10

NLMS || || Metolachloor || 6-10

NLMS || || Pirimicarb || 11-25

NLMS || || sum PCB's || 6-10

NLMS || || Tertabutyltin || <1

NLMS || || Thallium || 6-10

NLMS || || Triazofos || 2-5

NLMS || || Zink || 51-75

NLRN || || Ammonium || 25-50

NLRN || || Cobalt || 2-5

NLRN || || Cupper || 51-75

NLRN || || Dimethoaat || <1

NLRN || || Dimethoaat || <1

NLRN || || Ethylazinfos || <1

NLRN || || Imidacloprid || 1-2

NLRN || || Linuron || <1

NLRN || || Methylazinfos || 1-2

NLRN || || Metolachloor || 2-5

NLRN || || sum PCB's || 2-5

NLRN || || Tetrabutylin || 2-5

NLRN || || Thallium || 2-5

NLRN || || Vanadium || 1-2

NLRN || || Zink || 25-50

NLSC || || Ammonium || 2-5

NLSC || || Benzo(a)antraceen || 6-10

NLSC || || Boron || 2-5

NLSC || || Cobalt || 2-5

NLSC || || Cupper || 26-50

NLSC || || Molybdenum || 2-5

NLSC || || Sum PCB's || 2-5

NLSC || || Tetrabutyltin || 6-10

NLSC || || Thalium || 2-5

NLSC || || Uranium || 2-5

NLSC || || Vanadium || 2-5

NLSC || || Zinc || 26-50

Table 7.2: River basin specific pollutants causing failure of status

Source: RBMPs

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial water bodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

According to the data included in the Commission Staff Working Document of the first implementation report (2007) (see figure 8.1), the Netherlands has the highest percentage of HMWB and AWBs on a total of surface water bodies in the European Union.

For HMWBs, the Netherlands is the third country in percentage of the total surface water bodies, just above 40%, only after Slovakia and the Czech Republic. For artificial water bodies (AWBs), the figure is definitely much higher than any other EU country, above 50% of the total surface water bodies.

Figure 8.2: provisionally identified HMWBs (fist implementation report[21])

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

The HMWB and AWB designation process in the Netherlands lead to a large number of HMWBs and AWBs designated. This is not surprising as most of the Netherlands surface waters are regulated and impacted by human activities in some way (see chapter on RBD characterization/significant pressures).

% Total surface water bodies || NLEM || NLMS || NLRN || NLSC

Natural || 8% || 5% || 1% || 4%

HMWB+AWB || 92% || 95% || 99% || 96%

Table 8.1: Percentage of natural and HMWBs in the Dutch RBDs

Source: RBMPs

Significant negative effects are determined on the basis of the main uses. For example, in areas with high biodiversity most hydromorphological measures will not lead to a significant effect (e.g. halting drainage) while in contrast hydromorphological measures areas within intensive agriculture and urban areas will lead to significant effects (e.g. remeandering in an urban area). However, there are no criteria to determine significance defined per water use, but rather dependent on the area (urban/intensive agriculture versus nature). The Netherlands has however confirmed that criteria to determine whether there are significant adverse effects are site-specific and sometimes water-use specific, and are therefore listed in the plans of water managers.

Large physical modifications related to the uses as per Article 4(3) WFD have been considered. In the RBMPs, it is discussed what can be considered as a sustainable activity and also whether both repetitive and isolated events should be considered.

A stepwise approach for determining whether a waterbody should be designated as HMWB/AWB is applied. The CIS approach has been followed. The national Guidelines on maximum ecological potential (MEP) and good ecological potential (GEP) state the following: a modification is significant if the good ecological status can no longer be achieved. It is important here to delimit the concept modifications in the physical layout. This includes dykes and weirs, but not the diffuse pressures from nutrients and sewer overflows.

The uncertainty is mainly present in the definition of MEP and GEP as proposed in the procedure in the HMWB guidance. The designation step is less uncertain because it is based on the present situation and on estimations and/or decisions related to uses served, alternatives, and economic consequences. The uncertainty is further reduced by expressing GEP values at the most comparable 'natural' water body type. The translation of irreversible hydromorphological changes into ecological effects is the main step that introduces uncertainty.

The Netherlands has confirmed that the Netherlands will review the designation and the reasons for it in the next RBMP cycle, for each water body.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

Good Ecological Potential has been defined in the Dutch RBMPs. In the MEP/GEP guide, the standard methodology is explained (Guidelines on the General Approach in MEP/GEP and Standards and MEP for locks and canals).

The reference based approach has been generally applied for artificial water bodies (e.g. ditches, locks & canals), due to the availability of sufficient data on waters in optimum status. The mitigation measures approach is often applied for heavily modified water bodies. This is because the uncertainty in the description of the natural water type benchmark was considered to be significant. Sometimes a combination of the two methods has been used. Information on the applied approach is included in the different plans (regional, provincial, rijkswateren).

The approach that has been most commonly applied has been the 4 G approach: (1) G1: use GES-values of natural waters; (2) G2: use default values determined for ditches and canals (based on reference-based approach); (3) G3: use using expert knowledge from the water manager, either: GEP =MEP (GEP = MEP minus measures that do not have a significant impact on the objective to be reached or GEP = MEP minus fixed percentage of MEP or Because in the original condition, the water body is already in good condition, the objective has been set equal to the current state; (4) G4: quality element not relevant. All provincial plans include GEP values in the 'fact sheets' for all relevant parameters.

Improvements due to mitigation measures that are considered/selected are mainly (1) improvement of fish migration (e.g. construction of fish ladders); (2) improvement and larger habitat for macroinvertebrates, other flora and fish by creating more room and reconstruction of beds or natural shoreline development; (3) general measure, reducing nutrient concentrations gradually by both reducing pressure from agriculture and WWTPs. (4) other measures.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

Only 3 HMWBs/AWBs in the Netherlands are assessed as being at good potential. These water bodies are part of the Rhine RBD but represent only a very small fraction of the total number of water bodies.

% Surface water bodies || NLEM || NLMS || NLRN || NLSC

% of all surface water bodies at good ecological status/potential or better now || 0% || 0% || (3/491*100)% || 0%

% of HMWB/AWB surface water bodies at good ecological potential or better now || 0% || 0% || 0.6% (3 WBs) || 0%

Table 8.2: Percentage of water bodies at good or high status in the Dutch RBDs

Source: RBMPs

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

All priority substances (those included in Annex I of the EQS Directive[22]) are included in the assessment of the chemical status of the water bodies. For these first RBMPs, the assessment of the 33 + 8 substances was based on the standards included in the Annex I of the EQS Directive. No standards have been derived for biota and sediment.

In Annexes to the RBMPs (Bijlage E), it is stated that a monitoring programme may be applied after assessing the results, in order to correct the standards taking into account a) the natural background concentrations for metals and their derivatives when these prohibit reaching the environmental standard and b) the pH, hardness and other water quality parameters that determine the biological availability of metals. If it appears from the first line testing that the limit has been exceeded for a metal, the second line testing first corrects for the background concentration. The background concentration is first retrieved from the test value before being tested against the standard. For a number of metals, a formula has been derived with DOC to correct for bioavailability. This refers to copper, nickel and zinc. The pH and hardness may not be too high or too low. There is an 'Instruction Sheet' as a background document on the bioavailability of metals, and the following background documents are available: Knoben R.A.E. & Snijders, J.M. (2010). Instructie voor het omgaan om normoverschrijdingen van metalen en andere microverontreinigingen in oppervlaktewater, RWS Waterdienst report.

9.2 Other issues

In the Netherlands, a mixing zone approach has been used. A revision framework has been drawn up for national waters. The mixing zone approach is developed in the 'Immission Testing Manual' (Handboek Immissietoets, 28 October 2011), which was designated as BBT document under the Environmental Law Regulation (Regulering Omgevingsrecht) and it is based on the EU Guidance on Mixing Zones (2011). This testing method includes the assessment of effects of discharges on surface waters. When granting a permit for the discharge of wastewater, this document must be taken into account. To reduce the extent of mixing zones in the future, current efforts are focused on regular review of permits granted for the discharge of wastewater.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

Good chemical conditions and good quantitative status are the objectives for groundwater bodies. Next to the good chemical status requirements, it should be evident from the trend analysis that there is no significant increase. Further on, preventive measures should be taken to avoid intrusions of pollutants in relation to drinking water abstraction.

The groundwater status assessment is based on the Groundwater Directive[23]. Whenever the standards set are exceeded, this does not result in the classification of non-compliant, but leads to further analysis. There were thresholds defined for 6 substances for each groundwater body. However, this is not the case for all substances included in Annex II of the Groundwater Directive for several reasons. The choice of the substances considered has been justified in the RBMPs.

In total there are 9 different groundwater bodies which are at risk of failing to reach a good chemical status in 2015.

Groundwater body || Risk

NLGW0006 || Nitrates

NLGW0007 || Arsenic, Annex II pollutant

NLGW0008 || Arsenic, Annex II pollutant, Pesticides

NLGW0010 || Chloride

NLGW0013 || Annex II pollutant

NLGW0015 || Chloride

NLGW0019 || Nitrates

NLGWSC0002 || Pesticides

NLGWSC0005 || Arsenic

Table 10.1: Groundwater bodies at risk of failing to reach good chemical status in 2012.

Source: RBMPs

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

It is reported in WISE 3.2.1 that the Dutch assessment method for determining the quantitative quality has been developed in accordance with the EU Guidance Document nº18[24]. It includes the assessment of four elements: water balance, salt water and other intrusions, surface water (aquatic ecosystems), and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems.

The balance between recharge and abstraction of groundwater is assessed with a comparison of annual average groundwater abstractions against 'available groundwater resource' in the groundwater body. This has been reported to be calculated for a subset of all groundwater bodies. It is however not clear if this is done for all measuring sites.

The methodology reported (WISE 3.2.1) determines the changes in water levels for all 'chosen' measuring sites, with a reference level of the year 2000. The average water level in a groundwater body should not further diminish following anthropogenic influences. Then there is an assessment on whether the groundwater recharge is larger than the groundwater abstraction, the net drainage via the surface water and other possible losses. If this is the case, the water balance is considered to be appropriate (which means that the groundwater body is in good quantitative status).

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

In general, there is no reference in the plans to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems, but only to effects of groundwater bodies on 'surface water bodies'. However, nutrients are considered as an important pressure for groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems.

In general, it is considered in the assessment per substance that it is not at good quality when the number of measuring sites for which the standard is exceeded represents more than 20% of the number of measuring sites per groundwater body. This level of 20% has been taken from the EU guidance. During the implementation of this first cycle (up to 2015), an assessment is being carried out, together with discussions with other Member States, in order to evaluate whether this percentage needs to be amended.

A methodology to assess trends and trend reversal has been developed (reported in WISE 3.2.2.2). There is no significant increase allowed for trends. The starting point of trend reversal is at 75% of the threshold value. This means that if the concentration is expected to increase up to 75% of the threshold value, measures should be taken for trend reversal. For the assessment of trends a Dutch guidance document has been prepared (KRW en Grondwaterrichtlijn: Handreiking trend en trendomkering, 2008).

10.3 Protected areas

Water bodies with abstraction for human consumption are designated as drinking water protected areas in the Netherlands.

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

NLEM || 1 || ||

NLMS || 4 || ||

NLRN || 9 || ||

NLSC || 2 || ||

Total || 16 || 0 || 0

Table 10.2: Status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions 11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

For drinking water from surface water, standards have been defined in the RBMPs. For drinking water from groundwater, the RBMPs establish a target value in order to reduce the need for purification.

Additional objectives for shellfish waters have not been defined for this first cycle of RBMPs. This is partly due to an on-going research study to determine whether the level of protection of shellfish waters is guaranteed for bacteriological parameters (faecal coli-bacteria) that are included in the Shellfish Directive.

Additional objectives related to human health have been established according to the Bathing Water Directive. Algae blooms (phaeocystis) are included in the classification system for lakes and coastal water bodies.

In case of existence of a Natura2000 area the necessary assessment is carried out to verify whether the biological Natura2000 objectives would lead to more stringent environmental objectives for the whole water body. These objectives will be set when the management plans and the conservation goals will be defined, and will therefore be done for the next cycle of RBMPs.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

Around 86% of water bodies in the Netherlands are subject to an exemption under Article 4(4). The justification of this important delay in the achievement of the WFD objectives is provided in the Government position of December 2006 Policy Paper that states that 'The Government has decided to take more time to improve water quality than the final date originally aimed for in the WFD of 2015 and for phasing this until 2027'. This Policy Paper was in turn based on some background documents, such as the Audit WB21 (Water Management 21st Century) and the strategic social cost-benefit analysis for the WFD.

Natural circumstances can be included as a reason if the measures will only have an effect after a long period. Technical reasons can be the reason for asking for a delay in reaching the objectives as for these water systems, advice seeking and concept development is needed to determine the most cost-efficient measures for agriculture (planning time) or if additional research needs to be done to determine main pressures. Economic reasons can also be given in case by including all necessary measures this would lead to a drastic increase of taxes or if there is no room (area, spatial context) available (too expensive). From the surveillance assessment it is obvious that for most of the surface water bodies it will not be possible to reach good ecological status or potential by 2015.

The main pressures causing the need of exemptions under Article 4(5) include navigation or recreation, water balance, protection against flooding and drainage.

Fully achieving the WFD objectives by 2015 is deemed to not be possible in practice and would also not be pragmatic, feasible or affordable. The phasing of the objectives will allow spreading the costs over a larger number of years.

The national approach is mainly focused on hydromorphology and less on emission reduction. The plans suggest that focusing on hydromorphological aspects will allow for more benefits to be achieved with fewer resources than for reducing emissions. However, this may be a problematic approach, given that both hydromorphology and emissions reduction should be addressed in order to achieve the good status objective

There seems to be no specific method for the discussion on whether the costs are disproportionate but the costs and benefits have been weighed up for in the justification, and this has been described in the RBMPs.

According to the Government's analysis, the full achievement of all chemical and ecological objectives with the necessary measures would not be possible. Furthermore, the objectives would have to be lowered in some cases. Given the high level of uncertainty, it was decided to avoid the lowering of objectives in this first cycle, and to implement instead a step-wise approach up to 2027 and to decide in 2021 for which parameters a lowered objective needs to be made concrete.

Technical feasibility is the main reason for the justification of the application of the exemptions (in particular in the Rhine RBD), followed by the disproportionate costs that the necessary measures would entail. Natural conditions (historic pollution), and the long time needed for recovery are also given as reasons to justify the application of the exemption under Article 4(4) (see Table 11.1).

RBD || Global[25]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

NLEM || 18 || 0 || 12 || 0 || 11 || -

NLMS || 146 || 0 || 111 || 0 || 29 || -

NLRN || 340 || 0 || 234 || 0 || 158 || -

NLSC || 51 || 0 || 43 || 0 || 3 || -

Total || 555 || 0 || 400 || 0 || 201 || -

Table 11.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

No exemptions for Article 4(6) have been applied in the Dutch RBMPs. However, some indications are provided on what will be considered for the 2nd RBMPs. The categories of what may be included under Article 4(6) are listed, but no further details are provided.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

No exemptions for plans and programmes have been applied (Article 4(7) WFD).Only a few examples are given about what type of projects would fall under Article 4(7), such as flood protection, navigation, ports/marinas.

In the Meuse RBD, the following plans and programmes are mentioned: sluis Ternaaien (Bovenmaas), Integrale verkenning Maas (Benedenmaas); Zandwinning/zomerbedverdieping ten behoeve van uitvoering Overdiep (Bergsche Maas); Integrale verkenning Maas (opvangen toekomstige hogere afvoeren in de Maas: Bovenmaas, Grensmaas, Zandmaas, Bedijkte Maas). However, the exemption under Article 4(7) has not been applied for any of these plans in this first RBMP. Article 4(7) is discussed, and it will be applied in the future, but it has not yet been applied. The measures applied are deemed to be appropriate for the moment, i.e. strategic EIA, water tests. The projects have been screened, resulting in a lack of need of application of Article 4(7), with the exception of one project. In any case, the projects are considered to be at an early planning stage, and therefore it is not sure whether the application of Article 4(7) will be necessary.

In the Rhine RBD, eight projects have been mentioned in chapter 3.6.5 (including deepening of the river, constructing a bypass, licensing salt extraction, gas exploitation). For these plans, the possible application of Article 4(7) will be assessed at a later stage.

In the Scheldt RBD, Article 4(7) has not been applied

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

The RBMPs state that the inventory of exemptions from measures for the Groundwater Directive need to be submitted to the Commission. However, there is no requirement to include this in the RBMP.

The RBMPs provide the number of exemptions, as allowed by the Article 6 of the Groundwater Directive. For these exemptions, it is acknowledged that an inventory will need to be made and notified to the European Commission.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[26] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures (PoM) – general

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become fully operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as proposed by the Member States in their RBMPs, and the completeness and compliance of such programmes with the requirements of Article 11 of the WFD.

Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will carefully assess what Member States will report by then and will decide thereafter on the most appropriate follow-up of the implementation of the measures.

All the Dutch RBMPs follow the same structure for describing the PoM. The way the PoM is presented is comprehensible and easy to compare between different river basins. The PoMs describe both the basic measures (applied nationwide via national legislation) and the supplementary measures. No specific information is given on additional measures.

The RBMPs provide a table (table 6.1) with the link of the pressures with the measures, and describes the approach to define the necessary measures. The status of the water bodies has been taken into account for the definition of the additional measures, including hydromorphological measures.

There is a general description of the significant pressures that have led to the definition of specific measures. For the supplementary measures, a table in the RBMPs shows the specific analysis at water body level.

The PoMs have been coordinated with other Member States as part of International RBMPs. The details on this coordination are provided in several occasions in the RBMPs, concerning the harmonisation of objectives, and the necessary measures to be taken, international coordination of the measures, and international agreements.

The basic measures are applied at national level via national legislation. The supplementary measures are formulated on a regional level (sub basins). Detailed information on application is provided per sub basin and per water authority responsible for the implementation of the measures (annex P of the RBMPs), as for example, the number of fish passes that will be installed. But no information is provided up to the water body level. 

The total costs of the supplementary measures are identified in the RBMPs (in millions of euros for the period 2009-2015: Scheldt 73.3; Meuse 503; Ems 149.4, Rhine 1502) and also a breakdown of the costs per pressure is provided. An estimation of the cost for general environmental measures made by the most important sectors that are somewhat related to water quality are given for the whole of the Netherlands.

In the RBMPs, it is mentioned that the financing of costs for water management is based on the principles 'the user pays' and the polluter pays'. There is a general description of how the cost recovery is applied to the different water services, i.e. through levies, tariffs, etc.), but there is no further detail on how this has been applied (value of the tariffs and levies). The cost recovery percentage for most water services reaches 100% and the sectors that use these water services (and pay for them) are clearly mentioned in the plans. However, there is no clear information on the total budget or the share of the contributions from the different sectors.

No timeline is provided in the RBMPs on when the measures will become operational. The basic measures are already implemented via national legislation. For the supplementary measures, no timing for implementation is provided.

As already stated, the RMBPs mention several other water management plans available in the Netherlands (national, regional, etc.). These plans may well contain more detail on scope, costs, timeline, etc., in particular the plans for the sub-basins ('Waterschapsplannen').

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Agriculture has been defined as an important driver leading to significant pressure in all the Dutch RBDs. Several pollutants from diffuse agricultural sources form a significant pressure on water quality. Water abstractions for agriculture are not indicated as provoking significant pressure on water quantity.  Morphological alterations are indicated as important pressures in all RBDs, but there is a big diversity of reasons for such modifications (agriculture, housing, shipping, flood defence, etc.).

The RMBPs describe the overall approach of stakeholder involvement on national and regional level. Discussion groups with several stakeholders (including representatives of the agricultural sector) have been organised and information campaigns, for instance through websites, have been launched.

The following table provides an overview on the type of the measures that have been adopted in the RBMPs of the different river basins to address the pressures resulting from agriculture.

Measures || NLEM || NLMS || NLRN || NLSC

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü || ü || ü || ü

Change to low-input farming || ü || ü || ü ||

Hydromorphological measures || ü || ü || ü ||

Measures against soil erosion || || || ||

Multi-objective measures || ü || ü || ü || ü

Water saving measures || || || ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || || ||

Water pricing || ü || ü || ü || ü

Nutrient trading || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || || ||

Non-technical measures

Implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || || || ||

Controls || || || ||

Institutional changes || || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || || || ||

Advice and training || || || ||

Awareness raising || || ü || ü ||

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || ü || ü || ü ||

Certification schemes || || || ||

Zoning || || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || ü || ü || ü ||

Land use planning || || || ||

Technical standards || || || ||

Specific projects related to agriculture || || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || || || ||

Table 12.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

Some information is provided on the scope of application of the measures. The basic measures are applied at national level. The supplementary measures related to agriculture are expressed in units (number, ha, km, etc.).

No timeline is provided in the RBMPs on when the agricultural measures will be implemented. The basic measures are already implemented via national legislation. For the other measures no timing is given for implementation.

In the RBMP it is mentioned that the payment of costs for water management is based on the principles 'the user pays' and 'the polluter pays'. For the different water services the cost recovery applied is explained in the RBMPs (e.g. via levies, tariffs). However, there is no detailed explanation on how this is applied (e.g. how the value of levies is set). Moreover the PoM does not include any information regarding the support from the Rural Development Programme.

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

The additional measures related to hydromorphology that are described in the RBMPs are in general linked to a specific pressure. However, there is no clear link between the pressure and the use.

The hydromorphological measures are taken mainly for the following hydromorphological pressures: channelisation/normalisation of the watercourses, loss of riparian zones and floodable areas, bank reinforcement, culverts, breakwaters and covered water bodies and barriers (see table below).

Measures || NLEM || NLMS || NLRN || NLSC

Fish ladders || ü || ü || ü || ü

Bypass channels || || ü || ü ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || ü || ü || ü

Sediment/debris management || || || ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || || || ||

Lowering of river banks || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü || ü || ü || ü

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || || || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || || || ||

Construction of retention basins || || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || ü || ü || ü || ü

Table 12.2: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

A cost effectiveness analyses has been undertaken in the PoM, which concludes that the proposed measures on hydromorphology will contribute significantly to achieving the ecological targets. It is also stated that the present policy already contributes to the realisation of the goals. An estimation of the effects of the total programme of measures on the ecological status was made by the water managers. This is only represented for the main ecological groups and for parameters relevant for eutrophication (% achievement of goal vs. % of non-achievement of goal). No specific effects per measure have been described.

It is not clear whether hydromorphological measures have been envisaged in HMWBs in the different RBDs. The measures are described in general (e.g. 64 km of water bodies will be widened or remeandered). The exact locations of where these measures will be implemented have not been provided. Although it is unclear whether the hydromorphological measures will be implemented for HMWBs, it is likely that the sub-basin plans provide more details on this issue.

The 'ecologically based flow regime' is mentioned in the 'Referenties voor maatlatten' (Stowa 2007). It is stated that the parameters on water depth and velocity are a part of the hydrological parameters and that they play a (minimal) role in the ecological status assessment.

Furthermore, the possible negative effects of water abstraction are considered to be limited to periods of extreme drought. The possible effects on ecological functioning are therefore only temporary, and hence considered as non-significant. Only general measures on water abstraction are proposed (for example licence system) but no specific measures on 'ecologically based flow regime' have been included in the PoM.

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

Groundwater over-exploitation is not considered a problematic issue in the Netherlands. There had been some problems related to over-abstraction in the past, but basic measures have been already in place for a long time to diminish this pressure. Now groundwater abstractions are at a sustainable level and are not deemed to represent a significant pressure. Artificial recharge however is mentioned as an important pressure on groundwater bodies.

Both basic and supplementary measures have been established to tackle groundwater over‑exploitation. The basic measures include licensing of larger abstractions, taxes on ground water abstractions and licensing of direct infiltration. The supplementary measures are only applied in those Nature 2000 areas which encounter drought problems. These measures are described in the plans (Annex P of the RBMPs).

Several measures have been implemented to improve the chemical status of the groundwater bodies. Most of these measures are basic measures in compliance with the relevant community legislation for this topic (IPPC directive, Seveso directive, etc.). The following measures have been implemented via national legislation: obligation for permits for discharge of water in groundwater, sanitation of soil and groundwater pollution, obligation of a permit for infiltration in the soil, obligation of permits for mining. However it is unclear for most measures whether they only limit inputs or actually prevent inputs.

Tables are provided showing that quality standards are exceeded at several monitoring points in the four RBDs. However the measures described are not geographically indicated so it is not clear whether the measures are taken specifically in those parts of the groundwater bodies were quality standards have been exceeded.

For all of the RBDs, an International RBMP has been drafted in coordination with the neighbouring countries. For Scheldt, Rhine and Meuse the International RBMPs specifically mention some measures related to groundwater, but these are not described in detail.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

The RBMPs do not present an exhaustive inventory of the sources of chemical pollution, but rather include information on chemical pollution in several different tables. There is information on the amount of some pollutants entering the surface waters annually via the effluent from wastewater treatment installations, industry and diffuse sources. However, it is unclear whether this information is complete and it is quite difficult to get a clear overview.

Most of the measures described in the PoMs are basic measures that are applied at national level. Most of these measures are indeed implementing other relevant Community legislation (UWWT directive, IPPC directive, etc.), and national measures such as regulation on point discharges (prohibition, need of permissions, etc.). Supplementary measures have only been described for households (see table below).

Groundwater measures || NLEM || NLMS || NLRN || NLSC

Improving and adapting the purification of waste water treatment plants || x || x || x || x

Deal with sewerage overflows || x || x || x ||

Removal of non-purified discharges. || || x || x ||

Removal of non purified outlets of waste water || x || x || x || x

Modification of leak sewage pipes || x || x || x || x

Table 12.3: Overview of the measures on groundwater implemented in the Dutch river basins

Source: RBMPs

Only basic substance specific measures are described in the RBMPs. These measures are described very generally (e.g. stricter norms of use of nitrates). There is however no information on supplementary measures for specific chemical substances.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

The Dutch RBMPs have a chapter describing the economic analysis of water use. This contains a sub chapter on cost recovery of water services.

The Netherlands have distinguished five water services and cost recovery rates are calculated for all of them. These water services are production and supply of water including self-service (100% cost recovery), collecting and discharging of rain and wastewater (95% cost recovery), wastewater treatment (100% cost recovery), groundwater management (95% cost recovery), and regional water management (dike management, water quantity management, water quality management) (100% cost recovery). It can be assumed that these 5 water services cover the water services definition of WFD.

Water uses are not defined for the Article 9 purposes. In the definition of water services the water uses are suggested. These water uses include for example households, industry and agriculture. No information is given on contribution of water uses to cost recovery of water services.

In the cost recovery calculations the following costs have been included: financial costs, including investment, operating and maintenance costs, costs for research and implementation of groundwater measures (e.g. measures to counter dry-up).

Subsidies and cross-subsidies have been included into the cost recovery calculations. How they are handled is different per water service:

· For production and supply of water there are no significant cross-subsidies.

· For collecting and discharging of rain- and wastewater cross-subsidies are decreased since almost all communities have adopted a discharge levy. The reorganisation of the sewage system is often combined with the redevelopment of streets and urban renovation, most of the time this budget is not separated. Constructing new buildings implies construction costs of sewers that are paid by the home-owner.

· Wastewater Treatment has no significant cross-subsidies (less than 2%).

· For groundwater management part of the costs are appliance costs, funded with general assets, so this implies a limited subsidy.

· Regional water management has no significant cross-subsidies (district water boards receive less than 2% subsidies to do traditional tasks).

Environmental and resource costs have also been considered in calculating the cost recovery levels. The Netherlands have chosen a pragmatic approach, the costs of current mitigation measures are a measure of current environmental costs. It is assumed that these measures compensate the negative effects on the environment and help reach a good status.

The RMBPs do not describe precisely, by type of water use, the way water-pricing policy provides adequate incentives for users to make efficient use of water resources. However it is mentioned that financing of water management in the Netherlands is based on the "the polluter pays principle" and "the user pays principle", and price incentives are used to stimulate efficient water use. The following instruments through which costs are recovered are mentioned (in general): volumetric charging, polluting levy, discharging levy, groundwater levy, groundwater taxation and other. The above mentioned instruments prove that incentive pricing policy is addressed in the Netherlands.

There has been a national coordination in the application of Article 9 for all Dutch river basins (defining the five water services, cost recovery, adequate contributions, and adequate incentives for efficient water use).

The topic of the application of Article 9 has been discussed internationally for the different basins but it is unclear how this international cooperation was executed (which topics have been covered, etc.).

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

The Dutch RBMPs do not clearly identify the protected areas needing additional measures and no information is provided on the type and magnitude of the additional measures. The protected areas are indicated on maps. Only basic measures for protected areas according to community legislation and national legislation are described.

Only in the case of Natura 2000 areas, is there an indication of those areas that suffer droughts, and where additional measures will be taken in the RBMPs. The measures are detailed in the plans (Annex P of the RBMPs).

Groundwater protection zones have been established nationally in order to protect drinking water abstraction areas. In addition to these areas, other measures have been adopted specifically to safeguard the drinking water, such as diminishing nutrient emissions from agriculture. These measures are described very generally in the RBMPs and no details on their implementation have been provided.

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts and flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity and drought are not relevant in all of the four Dutch river basins. They are not mentioned as significant pressures. The RMBPs mention that in times of exceptional droughts a shortage of water may arise. Measures have been defined to handle that if it happens (list of priority sectors that can still use water in periods of droughts, others can use less or no water at all or a ban on use of groundwater in dry periods). No other reasons are mentioned. Over exploitation is not mentioned as a source of pressure (water abstractions are not judged as important pressures). In some groundwater bodies the desiccation caused by over abstraction in the past is tackled by artificial infiltration.

The RMBPs give an overview of the amount of water abstracted currently per groundwater body. The current abstractions are far less than the supply.

Information on water demand and water availability trend scenarios for the future is provided in the framework of the Delta Programme.

The following measures are defined in the PoMs that relate to water scarcity and droughts: reduction / management of groundwater abstraction (e.g. by controls, registers), adoption of binding performance criteria for new buildings and for public and private networks, measures to enhance water metering, modification of the water pricing system to foster a more efficient use of water, training, education and capacity-building in water saving, studies, research and pilot projects to solve water scarcity problems and improve the response to droughts, application of water saving measures in industry as a prerequisite to get a licence, and drawing up of a priority list for the division of water in times of drought.

In all the IRBMPs some international coordination is described on this topic (what to do in long periods of droughts, sustainable management, water abstraction and damming in general). But none of the IRBMPs describe specific measures to tackle problems of water scarcity and drought. This is understandable since the low relevance of these problems in this part of Europe.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods are an important issue in a low lying country like the Netherlands. Floods and flood risk management are not discussed in the RBMPs as a separate topic or in a separate chapter. It does however appear in several of the topics covered by the RBMP.

Flood protection is indicated as one of the uses for which water bodies are being designated as HMWBs. Protection measures against floods are mentioned to be a pressure on water quality (the level of significance depends on the basin, important to moderate).

Extreme floods are mentioned to be a cause of temporary deterioration of the status of water bodies (Article 4(6) justification). Flood protection measures are also indicated to be a reason for not reaching good ecological status or potential (Article 4(7) justification).

Some measures that are included in the PoM also have a positive effect on flood mitigation or reduce the flood risk but are not defined for this purpose (e.g. water retention measures on small water bodies, widening of water bodies, reconnection with the natural floodplains, etc.) No specific flood protection measures are mentioned.   

In the RBMPs it is mentioned that the next RBMPs (2015-2021) will have to be attuned to the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) that have to be drafted in the framework of the flood risk directive. In the FRMPs all aspects of flood risk management have to be considered, but taking into account the environmental objectives of the WFD. No information is provided on what form this future coordination will take.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

The RBMPs contain a separate chapter on climate change. In this chapter climate change scenarios focusing on change in temperature and precipitation are discussed, the impacts on water status due to climate change, and the impact on other pressures. It is emphasised that, although there are a lot of uncertainties, it is possible to take 'no regret measures' that will have a positive effect anyway. It is specifically mentioned that salinisation is expected to get worse due to climate change. The Netherlands, as a low delta-country is considered to be extra sensitive to this.

For the second RBMPs cycle, the effects of climate change will be further developed. This applies for instance to the focus of the monitoring program on climate change, updating the climate scenarios and the visualisation of knowledge gaps.

A climate check has been carried out for the Dutch PoMs. The methodology is not described in the RBMPs. A reference is made to a background document where this is described more in detail (Check op klimaatrobuustheid van de maatregelen van de Stroomgebiedbeheerplannen (2009-2015)). Only general conclusions from this climate check are mentioned. It is not mentioned if this has influenced other points in the assessment for drafting the PoMs.

The RMBPs do not mention specific climate change adaptation measures. It is only mentioned that most measures stay efficient when screened in the climate check and that some measures also create a win - win situation, meaning that not only they help reach the target for which they have been defined but that they also help reduce the negative effects of climate change.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions. Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

· To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, the following recommendations can be made:

· The division of competences between the different authorities results in a complex system with different levels involved in the implementation of the WFD. Furthermore, the background documents with many important details are not easily accessible, and the relevant information, including on pressures, methodologies and measures, may be spread in several plans (national, regional, local). Improved transparency and communication of the coordination mechanisms between competent authorities would be advisable. In addition, easy access to all relevant documents will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to ensure sustainable water management.

· The Netherlands has made significant effort in the development of assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements, as well as to develop methods for the establishment of good ecological potential in HMWBs. However, very little improvement of the water status is expected by 2015 and the objectives for subsequent plans are not clear. Objectives should be clearly indicated in order to be able to reach good status of waters in a reasonable timeframe.

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of 'significant adverse effects' on their use or the environment and the lack of 'significantly better environmental options' should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs.

· A large number of exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, specific criteria must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans, in particular for those based on technical infeasibility and disproportionate costs.

· The high number of exemptions applied in these first RBMPs is a cause for concern. The Netherlands should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainty.

· It is unclear whether there are other new physical modifications planned besides those reported in the RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment on whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.  

· The Netherlands should develop the necessary monitoring for priority substances in a non-water matrix (such as biota or sediments). In particular, mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived. It should be clear from the plans which priority substances are preventing the attainment of good chemical status. The requirement for trend monitoring of priority substances in sediment or biota as specified for several substances in EQSD Article 3(3) will need to be reflected in the next RBMPs.

· The PoM should contain all the relevant measures to be applied in the RBD. Many of these measures are only described in the sub-basin plans, which results in a quite general PoM in the RBMPs and in a lack of specificity concerning the measures to be implemented. The RBMPs will benefit from more detail on how the implementation of the PoM will lead to the achievement of objectives under Article 4. This will require more information on scope of measures, financing, timescales, etc.  In addition, budgetary cuts decided after the adoption of the plan have cast serious doubts on the implementation of the planned measures. Adequate financing for the PoM should be provided to make it possible to achieve the objectives of the adopted RBMPs.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resource in the Netherlands. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic and mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. The baseline for water protection in the agriculture sector needs to be very clear so that all farmers know the rules, and the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are 'self-services', for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs shall be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring the efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

· The issue of adaptation to climate change is very relevant in the Netherlands. It will be advisable that the next Dutch RBMPs integrate the dimension of climate change into the development and implementation of the measures, including in meter allocation systems.

[1]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[2]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[3]     Source: Central Data Repository (EEA)

[4]     EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1: Governance and legal aspects).

[5]     EC DG ENV study 'Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU'

[6]    Elbersen, J.W.H., P.F.M. Verdonschot, B. Roels & J.G. Hartholt (2003) ISSN 1566-7197

[7]     (Stowa, 2007)

[8]     This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[9]     All relevant documents have been made legally binding by referring them in the juridical decision number BJZ2010006069.

[10]    The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[11]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[12]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[13]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[14]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[15]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[16]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[17]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[18]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[19]    Annex V 1.2.6.

[20]    Council Decision concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants was adopted on 14 October 2004.

[21]    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2007_0362_en.pdf

[22]    Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 84–97.

[23]    Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration. OJ L 372, 27.12.2006, p. 19–31.

[24]    http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/guidance_n18pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[25] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[26]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin Districts

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The Total area of the country is 504782 km², with a population of 45.8 million people.

The country is divided into 17 autonomous communities (regions) which all have their own directly elected authorities. In Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia, the regional languages have official status alongside the national Spanish language, which is also called Castilian.

The 'Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2001', transposes the WFD (Directive 2000/60/EC), and defines River Basin District being updated in further legal documents.  The Real Decreto 125/2007 defines the territorial limitation of the RBD of Spain. The Real Decreto 266/2008, produces changes in the name of RBDs (from Miño-Limia and Norte to Miño-Sil and Cantabrico). Further, the Real Decreto 29/2011 subdivides Cantabrico into Cantábrico Occidental and Cantábrico Oriental.

The RBD defined in Spain:

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || International || Countries sharing RBD

ES010 || Minho-Sil || 17574 || ü || PT

ES014 || Galician Coast || 16372 || || -

ES017 || Cantábrico Oriental || 6412 || ü || FR

ES018 || Cantábrico Occidental || 19003 || ||

ES020 || Duero || 78859 || ü || PT

ES030 || Tagus || 55772 || ü || PT

ES040 || Guadiana || 55453 || ü || PT

ES050 || Guadalquivir || 57731 || || -

ES060 || Andalusia Mediterranean Basins || 20021 || || -

ES063 || Guadalete and Barbate || 6468 || || -

ES064 || Tinto, Odiel and Piedras || 4930 || || -

ES070 || Segura || 20122 || || -

ES080 || Jucar || 45118 || || -

ES091 || Ebro || 85914 || ü || AD, FR

ES100 || Internal Basins of Catalonia || 17980 || || FR

ES110 || Balearic Islands || 8741 || || -

ES120 || Gran Canaria || 2097 || || -

ES122 || Fuerteventura || 2871 || || -

ES123 || Lanzarote || 2106 || || -

ES124 || Tenerife || 2827 || || -

ES125 || La Palma || 973 || || -

ES126 || La Gomera || 525 || || -

ES127 || El Hierro || 520 || || -

ES150 || Cueta || 60 || || MA

ES160 || Melilla || 32 || || MA

Table 1.1: Overview of Spain’s River Basin Districts[1]

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[2]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/es/eu/wfdart13

Shared catchments with other MS/third countries:

· With Portugal – Minho, Douro, Tejo and Guadiana.

· With France – Cantabrico and Ebro.

· With Andorra - Ebro.

· With Morocco – Ceuta and Melilla.

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

2 || 4

km² || % || km² || %

Miño/Minho || ES010 || PT || 16226 || 95.0 || ||

Duero/Douro || ES020 || PT || 78859 || 80.7 || ||

Guadiana || ES040 || PT || 55454 || 82.7 || ||

Ebro || ES091 || AD, FR || || || 85534 || 99

Segre (Sub-Basin Ebro/Rhone) || ES091 || AD, FR || 18750 || 95.2 || ||

Catalan || ES100 || FR || || || ||

Lima/Limia || ES010 || PT || 1326 || 52.9 || ||

Tajo/Tejo || ES030 || PT || 55772 || 78.3 || ||

Garonne || ES017/ES091 || FR || 555 || 0.7 || ||

Nive (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD) || ES017 || FR || 121 || 19.0 || ||

Nivelle (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD) || ES017 || FR || 70 || 12.0 || ||

Bidasoa  (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD) || ES017 || FR || 689 || 97.0 || ||

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Spain[3]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

With the exception of the River Basin District of Distrito Fluvial de Catalonia (ES100) Spain has not reported RBMPs to the Commission. A Court ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against Spain on the failure to adopt and report River Basin Management Plans for all of their respective River Basin Districts is expected by the end of 2012[4].

The River Basin Management Plan of Distrito Fluvial de Catalonia was reported to the Commission on 14 October 2010. The intra-regional River Basin Management Plans of Tinto, Odiel y Piedras, Guadalete y Barbate, Cuencas Mediterraneas Andaluzas and Galicia-costa were approved on 14 September 2012 (Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE) 223 of 15 September 2012).

The status of progress of the other (draft) RBMPs is provided below.

RBD || Name of RBD || Status consultation || Consultation dates || Status adoption

ES010 || Miño-Sil || Completed || 15/12/2010-15/06/2011 || Pending

ES014 || Galicia Costa || Completed || 20/08/2010-20/02/2011 || Adopted 14/09/2011, published in BOE on the 15/09/2012

ES017 || Cantábrico Oriental (part responsibility of Basque Regional Authorities) (part responsibility of the State Authorities) || Completed || 21/12/2010-21/06/2011 and 04/05/2011-04/11/2011 || Pending

ES018 || Cantábrico Occidental || Completed || 04/05/2011-04/11/2011 || Pending

ES020 || Duero || Completed || 15/12/2010-15/06/2011 || Pending

ES030 || Tajo || Pending || || Pending

ES040 || Guadiana || Completed || 25/05/2011-25/11/2011 || Pending

ES050 || Guadalquivir || Completed || 15/12/2010-15/06/2011 || Pending

ES060 || Mediterranean basins of Andalucía || Completed || 21/5/2010-21/11/2010 || Adopted 14/09/2011, published in BOE on the 15/09/2012

ES063 || Guadalete-Barbate || Completed || 21/05/2010-21/11/2010 || Adopted 14/09/2011, published in BOE on the 15/09/2012

ES064 || Tinto-Odiel-Piedras || Completed || 21/5/2010-21/11/2010 || Adopted 14/09/2011, published in BOE on the 15/09/2012

ES070 || Segura || Pending || || Pending

ES080 || Júcar || Pending || || Pending

ES091 || Ebro || Pending || 12/05/2012-12/11/2012 || Pending

ES100 || Cuenca Fluvial de Catalonia || Completed || || Adopted 22/09/2011, published in BOE on the 22/09/2011 Reported to the Commission on 14/10/2010

ES110 || Baleares || Completed || 30/09/2008-30/03/2009 and 20/03/2010-20/09/2010 || Pending

ES120 || Gran Canaria || Pending || || Pending

ES122 || Fuerteventura || Pending || || Pending

ES123 || Lanzarote || Completed || 28/06/2011-28/12/2011 || Pending

ES124 || Tenerife || Completed || 04/05/2010-04/11/2010 || Pending

ES125 || La Palma || Pending || || Pending

ES126 || La Gomera || Pending || || Pending

ES127 || El Hierro || Pending || || Pending

ES150 || Ceuta || Pending || || Pending

ES160 || Melilla || Pending || || Pending

Table 2.1: Status of RBMPs in Spain.

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/map_mc/countries/spain_en.htm

A court ruling[5] has been issued against Spain by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) because Spain had failed to notify all competent authorities in accordance with Article 3. In this case the Court also emphasised the importance of designating the River Basin Districts in accordance with the hydrological boundaries rather than administrative boundaries. Spain has since complied and the case is closed.

This document provides a summary on the assessment of RBMP of River Basin Distrito Fluvial de Catalonia (ES100).

3. Governance 3.1 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

The RBMP for ES100 was adopted by the Government through a Royal Decree which is published in the Spanish Official Journal. Only the RBMP for the intra-community Catalonia RBD has been approved by Royal Decree 1219/2011, of 5 September. It is important to highlight that in practice the Royal Decrees are only an approval act and do not contain the whole text of the RBD. The Real Decreto 907/2007 approved the structure of the RBMPs and set out the content of the RBMP.

3.2 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

In Catalonia, the District water Council – the Council for the Sustainable Use of Water (Consejo para el Uso Sostenible del Agua-CUSA) – is the consulting body for water planning issues.[6]

It comprises municipalities, professional associations, ecologist groups, neighbours associations, user and consumer organizations, trade unions, universities, water supply companies, and recreational, industrial and agriculture users. The preparation and approval of the RBMP for the Catalonian Basin District included public consultation and the RBMP reflects the impact of this participation. The Reports shows I how comments from the public consultation have been integrated in RBMP.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Typology of surface waters

For ES100, water typology has been defined but it is not clear if this has been done with biological data.

Reference conditions have been established through a combination of spatially based and numerical methods. Expert judgement has also been used. Protocols for the establishment of reference conditions have been developed by the Catalan Water Authority.

Some of the types correspond to the types of the above order and others are specific: 

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

ES100 || 10 || 11 || 14 || 7

Table 4.1.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

4.2 Delineation of surface water bodies

There is no information on how small water bodies have been considered.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

ES100 || 261 || 15.1 || 27 || || 25 || || 37 || || 39 || 288

Table 4.2.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: RBMP and Article 5 report

4.3 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

The RBMP considers the following point sources as significant pressures: the Urban Waste Water Treatment Plants which jointly increase the concentration in a water body by 5 mgDQO/L or more and phosphorous by 1 mg/L or more, or in the particular case in which a discharge from a treatment plant induces an increase of concentration of 20 mg DQO/L or more in relation to the reference condition.  Also morphological changes, flow changes and use of the soil in the margins (> 20%) are considered to be significant pressures. For each of these pressures a threshold for “significant” was defined.

The RBMP has also considered as ‘significant’ pressures from diffuse sources as originated from  solid waste (dimension of landfill or dumpsite), sludge from WWTP, cattle manure and exceedance of nitrogen (irrigation, farming and livestock), contaminated soil and extractive industry.  For each of these pressures a threshold for “significant” was defined.

For water abstraction ‘significant’ is considered if for a given water body, the ecological flow drops below 50% of the natural regime that circulates in 50% of the days of the year. Agriculture, Public water supply and mini-hydro power plants are the pressures considered.

For water flow regulation and morphological alterations (flood defence dams, locks, weirs and others are considered together) a significant pressure occurs if the volume of the dam is larger than the accumulated natural flow for a given period.

ES100 followed the regional legislation of Catalonia.

According to ES100’s RBMP the main chemical pollution comes from industrial activity and urban wastewater: 138 water bodies affected by urban wastewater, 49 water bodies affected by industrial pollution and 18 water bodies affected by other causes.

4.4 Protected areas

RBD || Water category || Number of drinking water abstraction protected areas || Number of protected areas for several reasons[7]

ES100 || Rivers || 38 (+7 Protected areas in reservoirs HMWB) || 195

Lakes || 1[8] || 18

Transitional || || 24

Coastal || 2[9] || 37

Groundwater || 39[10] || 36

Table 4.4.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[11]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring 5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

For rivers all required BQEs are monitored though the RBMP indicates that an assessment method for macrophytes is yet to be developed. All required physicochemical QEs are monitored. Although the RBMP indicates that hydromorphological QEs are monitored it is not clear which individual elements are. Besides, the RBMP indicates that the evaluation (assessment) method (in terms of ecological status/potential) is yet to be determined.

In this RBD shallow lakes are classified as lakes, and coastal lagoons are classified as transitional waters. Together these water bodies constitute the sub-category wetlands, with specific indicators and a sampling protocol for evaluation of their status or ecological potential.

In lakes, all required BQEs are monitored. All physicochemical QEs are assessed (and presumably monitored). There is not enough information to determine whether morphological QEs are monitored.

Although the RBMP indicates that there are 22 natural transitional water bodies, only wetlands are referred in terms of monitoring and evaluation of status. Wetlands appear to be only monitored and evaluated in terms of benthic invertebrates, physicochemical (all expected) and hydromorphology (only aggregated level and also for chemical status. To determine which hydromorphological QEs are monitored the index ECELS is used.

For coastal waters the RBMP indicates that all required BQE and physicochemical QEs are monitored and evaluated. However, there is no indication that hydromorphological QEs are monitored.

No detailed information is provided in the RBMP regarding the type of operational monitoring carried out. The RBMP states that in terms of operational monitoring: “The parameters that must be monitored in these cases are only the relevant indicators sensitive to the pressures detected”.

Priority substances and certain other pollutants are also monitored. The RBMP requires   quite a significant number of substances but a complete list of specific individual substances to be monitored is provided in the 'Programa de Seguiment I Control' monitoring programme approved by the Catalan Government GOV/128/2008 on 3 June Therefore more specifications on how this is implemented will be required to ascertain how and which substances are monitored. 

Grouping is not mentioned in the RBMP. The RBMP provides the number of monitoring points in rivers, lakes, wetlands, dams and coastal waters, in accordance with the state of the water body (if at risk or not).

The monitoring programme has been approved by the Acuerdo Gov/128/2008 of 3 June, and the final monitoring programme has been defined at the time of elaboration of RBMP reportedly with some changes regarding the referred Acuerdo.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

There is monitoring established to measure water level and physical-chemical characteristics of the groundwater such as major cations and anions, temperature, pH, conductivity, and “components of the nitrogen cycle”.

A surveillance monitoring programme and an operational monitoring programme have been established for groundwater. Surveillance monitoring is linked to quantitative status, while the operational monitoring is performed in relation to chemical status.

The RBMP lists which elements are monitored in which water bodies but does not provide a clear explanation on which pressures the monitoring is based. 

The RBMP does not mention the detection of significant and sustained upward trends in pollutants but in case of evidence of pollution operational monitoring is extended to the pollutant causing the failure.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

The RBMP states that depending on the type of protection of each water body the parameters monitored might change. These parameters are defined by the objectives of the water body and not all protected water bodies have specific parameters. In some cases the monitoring parameters are the same as the non-protected water bodies.

Regarding water bodies protected for abstraction of water for human consumption there are monitoring programmes both at surface waters and groundwater. Reportedly, some of the surface water monitoring points are coincident with the monitoring points for the surveillance monitoring. There are also monitoring points in coastal water protected areas for human consumption (desalination). The RBMP states that protected groundwater for water abstraction exists in all water bodies, and that these areas are protected by safeguard zones and are monitored. Monitoring of chemical parameters is carried out at the abstraction points. The RBDMP states that the parameters monitored for the purpose of production of water for human consumption are the same used for monitoring of the chemical status of water bodies.

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

See Annexes XVIA and XVIIA of the RBMP of ES100.

Figure 6.1: (left) Status in 2008; (right) Expected fulfilment of objectives in 2015 (surface water)

Source:RBMP

Figure 6.2: (left) Quantitative status in 2008; (right) Chemical status in 2008

Source: RBMP           

Figure 6.3: Expected fulfilment of objectives in 2015 (groundwater)

Source:RBMP

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

A RBD specific approach to assessment of ecological status has been followed.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

Assessment methods are reported to be fully developed for all biological quality elements in lakes and transitional water, it is however not clear if this is the case. Assessment methods are partly developed for biological quality elements for all or some in rivers and coastal waters.

The ES100 RBMP does not indicate whether the biological classification system is relevant for all major pressures. Further information is required in order to analyse how the BQEs systems is sensitive to pressures and how this is considered in the Intercalibration exercise. The relationship is clearer between pressures and physical-chemical parameters (point and diffuse source pollution) and less clear with biological parameters.

The RBD authority has developed protocols related to physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements; however the protocols were not available. No link is made in the RBMP between those supporting quality elements and BQE. For low risk water bodies the supporting physico-chemical parameter used is the worse component of FAN. FAN is composed of salinity and conditions related to nutrients (nitrates, nitrites, ammonia, phosphates, silicates).

It is foreseen that during the implementation period of the current RBMP, a standardized protocol for the evaluation of hydromorphological quality in rivers can be achieved. For coastal waters the RBMP states that the Ecological Status is defined in terms of ecological and physico-chemical quality. Hence no HyMo conditions are considered.

No information on the setting of EQS is provided in the RBMP for rivers. There is no list of non-priority substances defined for rivers, only general organic charge, nutrient charge and salinity. For lakes and transition water it is unclear if EQS has been set for all relevant specific pollutants. One of the developed protocols, ECOZO, has an acidification status parameter, but it would be necessary to indicate which chemical elements or substances are used. For coastal waters, the RBMP includes a list of non-priority substances to which environmental quality norms are established. According to the RBMP these substances are those listed in Annex VIII of WFD (excluding priority substances), that are known to be discharged in significant amount into the water bodies of RDB, and which limit values are established by Law 42/2007 of 13 December. There are further environmental quality norms defined for chemical elements on groundwaters.

The one-out-all-out principle is used, since the quality level is equal to the worse result in the set of indicators used.

The ecological status could not be assessed for all water bodies. The RBMP provides no information on how to deal with uncertainty in classification results. The RBMP mentions the consequences of the lack of data (impossibility to determine status of some water bodies, impossibility to use a certain parameter etc.) and uncertainty.

Ecological status assessment methods have been partly developed for all or some water types in rivers and in coastal waters. For lakes and transition waters methods have been fully developed for all water types.

The RBMP states that the parameters used for rivers are usually intercalibrated, but it was not possible to reach a conclusion for one of the BQE used (IBICAT) as explained above. No information on intercalibration is provided for lakes. A study carried out by the Catalonian Water Authority in 2010 provides information for coastal waters. The RBMP does not specifically mention intercalibration, but EQR are provided.

The RBD has developed its own methodologies which present changes regarding the Guide of the working group ECOSTAT (Overall approach to the Classification of Ecological Status and Ecological Potential, 2003).

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

ES100 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

The analysed parameters are the following (the codes are those reported in WISE electronic reports for QE used in surface water monitoring and for parameters used in groundwater monitoring): In rivers: QE1-2-4, QE1-3, QE1-4, QE3-1-2 to QE3-1-6, QE3-2. The RBMP states that Hydrology and Hydromorphology indicators to be monitored are to be defined. In rivers priority substances are also monitored in sediments. In Lakes: QE1-1, QE1-2-4, QE1-3, QE3-1-1 to QE3-1-6, QE3-2. The hydromorphological parameter monitored is Lake depth variation. The RBMP states the monitoring performed in wetlands, some of which are transitional waters: QE1-3, QE3-1-2 to QE3-1-6 and index ECELS (related to coastal morphology, hydrology and uses). For coastal waters: QE1-1, QE1-2-1, QE1-3, QE1-5, QE3-1-1 to QE3-1-4, QE3-1-6, QE3-2, QE3-3 For protected waters for human consumption, bathing and natural reserves further parameters are monitored.

Specific pollutants are specified in the case of coastal waters only: Terbutilazina, toluene, xyloene, ethilbenzene, 1, 1, 1 – Trichloroethane, arsenic, copper, chrome VI, selenium, zinc.

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

The number of heavily modified water bodies designated is 69 in rivers, 1 in lakes, 3 in transitional waters, and 5 in coastal waters.

No artificial water bodies have been designated.

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

Water category || Number of HMWB || % of total WBD of category

Rivers || 69 || 26.4%

Lakes || 1 || 3.7%

Transitional || 3 || 12%

Coastal || 5 || 15.2%

Table 8.1.1: Heavily modified water bodies in ES100

Source: RBMP

The RBMP considers highly modified water masses, based on hydromorphologic assumptions. It considers:

· Hydrological modifications, mainly due to water abstraction and river deviation to hydroelectric use;

· Morphological changes due to river channelling, for use of the margins (agriculture, urban development);

· River continuity - presence of dams, or any other construction that affects the continuity of the river;

· Dams as special water types;

· Construction of ports and other port related infrastructures;

· Coastal infrastructures against erosion;

· Change of connection to other water bodies.

Some steps of the stepwise approach as described in HMWB Guidance Nº 4 have been followed. The RBMP uses the test methodology proposed by the EU. However, a check of the individual steps of the process shows that the step on "other means as better environmental options" was not followed.

The RBMP refers to the Instruction de Planificacion hidrologica del MARM (2008) only for the case of regulated water bodies. For all the other causes, the methodology has been developed by the Catalan Water Authority. 

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

GEP has been defined separately for dams, rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters.

The definitions followed a method of the Catalonian Water Authority (CWA). For impoundments the ECOEM protocol from the CWA was used. This protocol is based on a comparison of the biological and physico-chemical parameters with maximum ecologic potential and is combined in the Ecological potential index. For other HMWBs (rivers), an attempt to use the Guidance Document Nº 4 and Prague approach was done, but with no results and a specific method was devised. The determination is based on expert judgement on what would be the expected populations of fish, macro-invertebrates and diatomeas, taking into consideration the hydromorphological changes to which the water is subjected to. It is also based on the assumption that all necessary measures would be taken to achieve a physico-chemical quality and chemical status compatible with the definition of good status for natural water bodies. With this method only the GEP was defined, but not the MEP. (A more detailed explanation is provided in the RBMP). For lakes and transitional waters, the CWA has defined quality indicators QAELS (quality of crustaceans and invertebrates) and ECELS (quality of biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological elements). GEP is considered similar to the good ecological status of the respective water type. It should be noted that the reference values of QAELS depend on the type of wetland, while the reference value of ECELS corresponds to its maximum value: 100%. MEP is defined for transitional waters (Table II-7) but not for lakes. For Coastal Waters two groups are identified: water bodies closer to the coast and more offshore water bodies. For water bodies closer to the coast the reference conditions established for natural waters are used, and MEP corresponds to the reference conditions (average chlorophyll concentration and benthic invertebrate fauna) of the natural water bodies of the same type. For more offshore coastal waters a series of parameters were selected to assess the ecologic potential but the RBMP states that there was still no data to assess them and no MEP could be defined yet.

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

The RBMP does not discuss the issue of uncertainty in relation to the designation of HMWB, nor future actions planned to improve the designation process (e.g. methodological improvements) which would also contribute to reducing uncertainty.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

For surface water the RBMP states the chemical status is assessed by analysing the priority substances included in Annex X of WFD (Decision 2455/2001/EC), modified by Directive 2008/105/CE, and with the objectives set by Directive 76/464/CEE (codified version: Directive 2006/11/CE). When a water mass presents a non-conformity on any of the priority substances, the chemical status is considered lower than good. However, the RBMP does not specify the process undertaken in practice to assess the chemical status, but rather focuses on the assessment of the physico-chemical status. It is also stated that for some substances the detection limits of the measurement instruments are higher than the limits established in the directive. The chemical status is assessed using the remaining parameters.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

The indication of the substances causing the failure of good chemical status is only provided for rivers, including HMWBs. The RBMP provides the substances but not the number of water bodies each substance affects.

The substances are: (470-90-6) Chlorfenvinphos; (122-34-9) Simazine; (140-66-9) t- Octylphenol;  (608-73-1) Lindane (g-hexaclorociclohexano); (7440-02-0) Dissolved Nickel; (2921-88-2) Chlorpyrifos; (1582-09-8) Trifluralin;  (7439-92-1) Lead;  (7440-43-9) Dissolved Cadmium.

9.3 Other issues

Mixing zones are used. The RBMP states that mixing zones have been considered for rivers and coastal waters. In coastal waters the zones have a radius of 50 meters around the outflow of the submarine emissary. In rivers the mixing zones comprise a stretch of river from the wastewater discharge point to 50 m downstream.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

The quantitative status has been calculated on the basis of water balance and taking into consideration the saline intrusion. According to the document IMPRESS (report on Art 5 of WFD) of Catalonia, the areas ecologically dependent on GWB are mostly wetlands and were designated protected water bodies. This aspect is not considered in the determination of quantitative status.

The following impacts have been considered – i) exceedance by the long term annual average rate of abstraction of the available groundwater resource and ii) Saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes in flow direction.

A comparison of annual average groundwater abstraction against ‘available groundwater resource’ has been reported to be calculated for every groundwater body.

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

6 out of 39 groundwater bodies are in poor quantitative status in Catalonia. The problems are mostly linked to coastal water bodies.

The quantitative status has been calculated on the basis of water balance, and taking into consideration the saline intrusion. A comparison of annual average groundwater abstraction against ‘available groundwater resource’ has been reported to be calculated for every groundwater body.

According to the document IMPRESS (report on Art 5 of WFD) of Catalonia, the areas ecologically dependent on GWBs are mostly wetlands and were designated as protected water bodies. This aspect was not considered in the determination of quantitative status though.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

Nearly two third of the groundwater bodies in Catalonia are in poor chemical status (64%), mostly due to the presence of nitrates (38.5%) and chlorides (20.5%).

The groundwater threshold values are computed for each water body, based on the risks and uses identified, in accordance with Royal Decree 1514/2009. Natural background levels of substances were also considered in the TV establishment and there is an explanation, how. The RBMP states that when a parameter is non-compliant in more than 20% of the surface area of the water body, the chemical status is considered being in poor chemical status. The RBMP provides information that there were TV exceedances also in GWBs considered being in good chemical status, but no details about GWBs and pollutants were reported.

Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems and surface waters associated to groundwater were not considered in the groundwater chemical status assessment.

Trend assessments and reversals were not performed, methodologies for them were not established.

No transboundary groundwater bodies were identified.

10.3 Protected areas

According to the RBMP all the protected areas meet the specific objectives, both on drinking water and on other types of protection.

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

Surface waters || RW || LW || TW || CW || SW ||

Number of natural surface water bodies reported in RBMP || 192 || 26 || 22 || 28 || 268 ||

Number of heavily modified plus artificial surface water bodies reported in RBMP || 69 || 1 || 3 || 5 || 78 ||

Number of all surface water bodies at good ecological status/potential or better now (2009) || 44 || 5 || 6 || 17 || 72 ||

Number of all surface water bodies at good ecological status/potential or better in 2015 || 157 || 10 || 9 || 19 || 213 ||

Number of natural surface water bodies at good ecological status or better now || 33 || 5 || 6 || 17 || 61 ||

Number of HMWB/AWB surface water bodies at good ecological potential or better now || 11 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 ||

Number of surface water bodies at good chemical status now || 145 || NA || NA || 32 || 177

Number of surface water bodies to which exemptions under Article 4.4 apply || 104 || 18 || 16 || 14 || 152 ||

Number of surface water bodies to which exemptions under Article 4.5 apply || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 ||

Table 11.1: Surface water objectives

Source: RBMP

Groundwaters

Number of groundwater bodies reported in RBMP || 39

Number of groundwater bodies at good quantitative status now || 33

Number of groundwater bodies at good quantitative status in 2015 || 39

Number of groundwater bodies at good chemical status now || 16

Number of groundwater bodies at good chemical status in 2015 || 18

Number of groundwater bodies to which exemptions under Article 4.4 apply || 21

Table 11.2: Groundwater objectives

Source: RBMP

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

Areas are protected in recreational waters (objectives of Directive 2006/7/EC), in areas of fish life (objectives of Directive 2006/44/EC for waters with species of economic value), vulnerable (Directive 91/676/EEC) and sensitive (Directive 91/271/EEC) areas to nutrient inputs, protected areas for species or habitats (Directive 92/43/EEC, and Annex I of Directive 2009/147/EC, that derogates Directive 79/409/EEC), and river natural reserve (areas presenting minimum impacts of human intervention). The water bodies considered to be protected are included in Natura 2000 networks and need to be 80% within the a Nature 2000 site.

Specifically there are protected zones of water abstraction for human consumption. There are also designated protection areas for mineral and thermal water abstraction as well as special protection zones for groundwater (this for over-exploited aquifers of strategic importance - not only for human consumption, and the recharge areas are also protected). Protected zones for human consumption water abstraction have been defined in a total of 42 zones within 34 rivers stretches, 7 impoundments and 1 lake, as they provide more than 10 m3/day of water for human consumption or serve more than 50 persons, or are expected to do so in the future. Also 39 groundwater bodies and 3 coastal water bodies have been protected as water for human consumption. In the case of the coastal waters, they have been protected as it is projected they will contain abstraction points for desalinators.

The RBMP states that additional objectives are set for drinking water protected areas in non-coastal surface water bodies. However the RBMP does not specify which objectives are these. It only states the objectives aim at matching the physico-chemical quality of the water to the minimum requirements of water treatment. The RBMP states that specific objectives related to drinking water protected areas were not considered necessary for groundwater and coastal water.

Although there are several coastal areas of Catalonia where shellfish protection zones have been established, no additional objectives have been established.

The RBMP states that in bathing water protected areas the quality objectives are those established in the Directive 2006/7/EC, concerning the management of bathing water quality. The PoM establishes some measures for this goal, namely increase in control of wastewater discharge and increased treatment during bathing season.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

The River Basin District Management Plan does not establish lower objectives due mainly to lack of data. But it does not exclude that in the future they might be defined. The reasons for later deadline are (WFD Article 4(4)): lack of technical knowledge (one of the most common reasons in all water types, and 100% of requests for the coastal waters); wastewater due to limited capacity of dilution in the medium or due to such high urban concentrations that the treated effluent has a strong impact on the water type (about 50% of the requests for rivers, and 14.3% for groundwater), and the problem of wastewater discharge in rainy weather (responsible for 26.5% requests for rivers) and measures that are not foreseen for the 2010-2015 period due to priorities in other water masses (20% for rivers and 12.5% for transition waters). Diffuse sources of pollution from agriculture are responsible for 66.7% of the requests for groundwater, 100% for dams and 53% for lakes;. Industrial pollution is responsible for 28.6% of the requests for groundwater. Hydromorphology changes are responsible for 64.7% of the requests on lakes and 56.2% on transition waters. There are also other impacts and drivers as a large port or waste from salt mining, and for some water bodies the time required for the system to respond and achieve the good status is larger than 2015 (case of some groundwater bodies).

No indication of the cost analysis is undertaken in the context of Article 4.4 and 4.5 of the Directive.

 “No technical solution” is invoked for lack of dilution of the medium. Possible solutions are under study to become technical and economically feasible. “It takes longer to fix the problem than there is time available” is referred regarding the need to address all solvable wastewater treatment problems (much to do and needs to follow priority list). Also the time it takes for administrative measures in cases in which concessions or discharge license from some industry need to be changed. There are also cases in which “there is no information on the cause of the problem; hence a solution cannot be identified” namely WWTP Discharge in rainy weather and diffuse pollution from agriculture origin. There is also lack of technical knowledge to solve some problems.

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

ES100 contains a description of the circumstances in which 4(6) can apply during the implementation of the RBMP.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

The RBMP states that there is the possibility of applying exemptions for new modifications, and provides examples of conditions and examples of what modifications there can be. However, it is not referred either in the RBMP or in the PoM that the exemption will be applied.

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

The RBMP describes the reason why the exemption has been requested for 21 water bodies. Of these cases 3 are related to industrial wastewater discharge, and 2 cases are related with discharges into media with low dilution capacity and 14 with diffuse pollution of agrarian origin. 

No exceptions were requested for drinking water protected areas as all protected areas already meet the objectives.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[12] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

The measures are partly based on status assessments. This is because there is a lack of information on the status for about half of the water bodies. A significant portion of the measures aims at building knowledge on different issues, as impacts of pressures or ecosystem and hydromorphologic dynamics as well as climate variability and change. The PoM describes in general with different levels of detail the location where actions will be implemented.

The RBD lies in the territory of Catalonia region. ES100 lies completely within the territory of Catalonia and part of the Ebro River Basin includes territory of Catalonia. The PoM of ES100 provides indication of the measures that are applied to both RBD. Example of measure on the Regional Administrative Unit: Intervention programme in zones vulnerable to nitrates, of the total 118,8 million Euros, 55.2M€ are applied to the internal RBD and 63.6M€ in the intercommunitary RBD.

The PoM provides different degrees of details regarding the scope and location of the measures.

There are measures at the Autonomous Community level, measures at river basin level (e.g. measure in sub-basin: Implementation of minimum ecological flow in Baix Ter and in Daro) and measures at specific water bodies (e.g. Intervention in the water treatment plant of Ampolla).

There is information on the total cost. Costs for 2009-2015 (in millions of Euros) are estimated at 8728.5 million €. There is a breakdown of costs by groups of measures. There are 3 main groups and within them 5 to 7 sets of measures, totalling 18 sub-groups. Each of these groups addresses different sectors. Measures addressing water resource hydromorphologic and biological quality take up 6% of the total budget, measures adopted for the water resources management and water demand use 49% of the budget and measures for the improvement of water quality use 44.8% of the total budget. Within the later, the improvement of irrigation systems uses 16% of the total budget of the PoM.

The PoM shows that funds come mostly either from Catalonia Water Authority or Aigues of Ter -Lobregat (a public company dealing with water distribution) and some measures are co-financed by other public and private entities from national or local level. However, there is no indication to whether commitments have been done to mobilize funds.

The PoM is supposed to be implemented up to 2015. However, the PoM does not have a calendar and it is not clear what the volume of activities is in the different years to come. The RBMP and the PoM state that a part of the activities considered in the budget were already implemented from 2006 to 2010, and others are ongoing.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Agricultural use corresponds to about 32.4% of the water demand and livestock to about 1.7%. The pressures on water demand do not specifically mention agriculture, but agricultural use can be present in the pressures including water abstraction points, change of water flow in wetlands, and plantation of trees which roots reach the freatic level or flowers that use large amount of water. The RBMP states that there is a deficit of information on water abstracted for agriculture use. Moreover it is not possible to estimate the water abstracted for agriculture based on the demand, as there can be restrictions to water use in dry periods, or other conditions posed by coexistence of irrigation schemes and river delta ecosystems (e.g. there are examples of water return from irrigation being used to feed wetlands).

According to the RDBMP farming and livestock are the main source of diffuse pollution pressures. They are responsible for pressures in 31% of the rivers; 15% of dams; 37% of the lakes; 16% of transition waters and 15.2% of coastal waters. Besides, it is responsible for 76.9% of the pressures in groundwater. There is a specific programme addressing this pressure. The RBMP states that the major pollution pressures are nitrogen from agriculture and livestock, pesticides from agriculture and muds from WWTP.

Regarding morphological alterations, the issue is not specifically mentioned as a pressure. The use of soil in the river space affects 11% of the rivers but not all is due to farming.

A significant involvement of stakeholders was sought for the development of the RBMP and PoM. First, workshops were held on WFD’s Article 5 Report (Document IMPRESS). At a later stage workshops were organized to gather proposals on the subjects. About 148 entities of the sector of agriculture and livestock participated on the process. The RBMP contains an analysis of the measures proposed in discussion and public participation on pollution from agriculture and livestock. The reports on workshops on water saving, consumption and provision, and on hydromorphological and biological quality show participants from agriculture sector as well. Some of the measures of the PoM are supposed to be co-financed by farmers associations, and associations of water users.

Agriculture related measures are part of several sub-sets of measures within the PoM. There are also a few measures specifically related to agriculture as modernization of traditional irrigation and reducing pollution of agriculture origin. The following types of measures have been selected:

Part of the activities will be funded by other regional administration bodies and for agriculture measures; rural development funds will also be used. A list of all third party co-financers is not available - they can be private companies, associations, legal persons (farmers or others). It is also not clear if all the necessary investment will be available.

The PoM or its annexes only specify that the measures will be implemented up to 2015. Information on the timing of measures or a calendar for the implementation of measures is not provided.

The PoM provides for each measure the entity responsible for the implementation of the measure and entities responsible for the use of some of the measures (beneficiaries or users). However, the PoM or the RBMP do not refer specifically how a monitoring and evaluation system of the implementation of measures will be defined and implemented.

Measures || ES100

Technical measures ||

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü

Measures against soil erosion ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) ||

Technical measures for water saving || ü

Economic instruments ||

Compensation for land cover || ü

Co-operative agreements ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators ||

Nutrient trading ||

Fertiliser taxation || ü

Non-technical measures ||

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü

Institutional changes || ü

Codes of agricultural practice || ü

Farm advice and training || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || ü

Certification schemes ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || ü

Specific action plans/programmes || ü

Land use planning ||

Technical standards ||

Specific projects related to agriculture ||

Environmental permitting and licensing ||

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMP

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

Hydromorphological measures are related to uses and to pressures. An example is the measure for compensation of small hydropower producers and to farmers in case the implementation of minimum ecological flow impacts their production. Modifications on the substract of the river are interpreted as sediment management and maintenance of the rivers' morphodynamics. There is a specific measure for flood prevention. Hydromorphological measures are undertaken even for natural waters to prevent or reduce their modification level. Explain if there has been an assessment on the expected effects of the proposed measures.

There is no detailed information on the expected effects of the measures. In the case of the implementation of the ecologically based flow regime, the set of measures intends to comply with the Plan of Maintenance of flow of Internal Basins of Catalonia (2006). For the other measures (such as river connectivity and rehabilitation of rivers and tributaries) just an overall statement that priorities are set according to biological requirements of the species, to the environmental importance of the water body or portion of the water body and the effectiveness of the measure.

The general programme on rehabilitation of rivers and tributaries, budgeted at 241 million euros, mentions specific measures for HMWB. On the contrary the set of measures on rehabilitation of Lakes and wetlands, budgeted at 51 million euros, states that there are certain interests in some water bodies that justify the maintenance of the "modification" and lead to define them as HMWB.

There is a set of measures to implement ecologically based flow regime, budgeted in 112.7 million euros. The set of measures includes the following groups of activities (the percentage of budget of this set of measures to be invested in each group of activities is provided in brackets): Installation of systems of control of ecological flow and flow within the system (4%); Reserve for economic compensation associated to the reduction production of hydropower, namely micro-hydro (49%); Subsidies for hydroelectric concessionaires to adequate infrastructure (9% of the programme); Compensation for losses in farming harvests (10%); Improvement of local irrigation infrastructure (17%); Change in to less water demanding crops (4%); Support to the management of irrigation systems (6%); Monitoring and control of water abstraction (1%); Elaboration of zonal plans (< 1%).

Measures || ES100

Fish ladders || ü

Bypass channels || ü

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas ||

Sediment/debris management || ü

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms ||

Lowering of river banks || ü

Restoration of bank structure || ü

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ü

Operational modifications for hydropeaking ||

Inundation of flood plains ||

Construction of retention basins ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || ü

Restoration of degraded bed structure || ü

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMP

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

The PoM includes measures to improve knowledge both on characterization of water bodies and impacts of anthropogenic activities, as there is still significant lack of data in the RBD. There are basic and supplementary measures to address over-exploitation. Although the PoM states that groundwater provide base flows for perennial rivers (despite the lack of rain for extended periods), and contribute to the maintenance of wetlands and other surface water bodies, there is no indication on how measures address the issue of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems.

Basic measures include: register of registers update, aquifer recharge, and elaboration of management plans for water abstraction and use as well as promotion of cooperative management. Additional measures include: improving the knowledge through studies of the natural recharge of aquifers and impacts that may affect the status of groundwater ; running numerical models to assess the available resource in different scenarios (climate, water use etc), improving the monitoring through the register and control of piezometric levels; improving knowledge on the characteristics of water bodies at risk of not reaching WFD objectives; implement measures to prevent saline intrusion due to over-exploitation such as reduction of abstractions by connecting existing systems to other supply networks, the provision of new resources (desalination), redistribution of abstraction points, artificial recharge of aquifers and the development of hydraulic barriers to halt intrusion.

Measures are foreseen and reportedly some of the actions are already being implemented. The PoM presents a clear distinction on the actions to be implemented by the Catalonian Water Authority and other regional authorities, as well as where private entities are expected to collaborate. Measures include: Identification of solid waste dumpsites, their improvement to become compliant and its control; similar action at other potentially polluted soils; soil decontamination; implementation of the protocol of action on the decontamination of groundwater in fuel stations; closing of wells.

Supplementary measures consist of further characterization of the water bodies status, risks and pressures, that should include information on the impact of human activity and, if appropriate, information on aquifer characteristics such as characteristics of the recharge zone and the determination of quantitative and qualitative parameters that define the natural background levels.

The PoM reveals that further studies are required to determine the quality of aquifers and to assess causes of the negative impacts. With the results of these studies, aquifer preservation criteria will be established.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

There is an inventory of sources of pollution covering Priority substances and certain other pollutants, and nutrients. The analysis of pressures on the RBMP is based only on the impacts of Chemical Oxygen Demand (DQO in the original document), Nitrogen and Phosphorous. The document IMPRESS submitted by Catalonia (in compliance with Art 5 of WFD) contains in its chapter 4 the priority substances that are present and pose pressures in different river basins. Most common are 2921-88-2 Chlorpyrifos, 18-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene, 15972-60-8 Alachlor, 1912-24-9 Atrazine, 122-34-9 Simazine, 1582-09-8 Trifluralin

Measures include:

· Industrial emissions, namely subsidies to industry to improve wastewater treatment to more stringent levels than the imposed by the WFD; Decontamination of a river polluted by priority substances due to industry; Reduction of the pollution caused by salt mining in some river basins.

· Waste deposits on land/fields, namely in the Programme of rehabilitation of rivers which addresses the waste deposits with negative impacts in rivers.

· Households: Implementation of the Catalonian Urban Wastewater Treatment Programme (2005), including its 2010 update.

· Measures also include: Treatment and management of wastewater treatment muds; Studies for tracing of pollution sources of priority substances in order to elaborate a pollution reduction plan; Measures for the reduction of the impact of WWTP discharges in rainy weather; and Measures for the reduction of pollution from agriculture sources.

The PoM does not specify which substances are targeted by each measure. Measures address priority substances from industry (still on a research phase), pollution from farming (nitrates, phosphates, pesticides), salt mining impacts and wastewater impacts (including the problem of WWTP discharge in rainy weather).

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

The RBMP defines water services as all activities related to water management that enable water use, such as abstraction, desalination, storage, channelling, rehabilitation, treatment and distribution of surface and ground water, as well as the collection and treatment of wastewater that are later discharged into surface water. Water services also include activities related with flood protection of persons and goods. The definition is wide, but it seems that for the purpose of art 9 water services are related only to services provided by regional government, that's why self-abstraction and abstraction for irrigation seems not to be included.

Industry, households and agriculture have been identified as water uses. The water uses have been defined taking into account the need to plan the management of water resources, within a context in which the frequency and magnitude of drought events constrain the management of water resources. The RBMP states that the management of water resources aims at improving the guarantee of supply to all uses and enable the compliance with environmental requirements. There is a need to sustainably use the aquifers and preserve the ecological flow in the rivers.

In the model that has been developed for the purpose of determining the cost recovery in the region of Catalonia the services follow a different aggregation from the definition mentioned above. The model aggregates water services as follows: medium (environmental/water resources preservation, flood protection, rehabilitation of river ecosystems), water availability (impoundments, desalinates, reuse of resources, rehabilitation of aquifers both quality and recharge, storage, water network), transport and purification (high regime), distribution to the final consumer (low regime), sewerage of domestic/industry and rain water and wastewater treatment.

It is not clear if an adequate contribution of different water uses (disaggregated at least into industry, households and agriculture) to the cost recovery is ensured. The RBMP presents a cost-recovery dynamic model and states that it aims at estimating the current cost-recover level and establish a basis with which to initiate a debate and a review of the existing management models.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

There is indication of specific measures for protected areas namely on the set of measures to maintain an ecological flow, measures to control invasive species and measures on coastal zone. The measures are mostly undertaken in programmes of the Department of Environment and Housing of the Regional Government of Catalonia and are not described in the PoM with detail on type and magnitude.

The PoM includes a full set of measures on the control, prevention and eradication of invasive species. The PoM also refers the elaboration of plans for the protection and management of protected areas, detailing the foreseen measures in beaches, in coastal area, in marine reserves, and in coastal lagoons.

There is almost no specific information on measures on potable water. There are activities included in the measures on energy efficiency in the water cycle, activities on urban water consumption reduction, and nitrate elimination on potable water. In Annex II of PoM it is possible to find some isolated measures on potable water as improvement of water treatment stations, or desalination, but nothing on reducing water treatment per se.

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts and flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

The PoM states "The RBD of Catalonia suffers from a chronic deficit of water available for the uses, which can be aggravated as population and economic activity increases". Available water resources are estimated at 2610 hm3/year, while water uses reached 1138 hm3/year in 2007 and are foreseen to be 1228 hm3/year in 2027. The RBMP states that the percentages of water bodies affected by abstraction are - 22% for rivers,, 37% for lakes, 60% for transitional waters and 72% for groundwater. Throughout the sub-programmes of measures (there are 4) increasing water availability is a constant. One of the sub-programmes of measures addresses the management of water demand and water resources. Another large set of measures deals with maintenance of ecologic flow. In this way water scarcity is felt as relevant.

Data since 1940 indicate two dry periods i.e. 1944-1950 and 1999-2008. The periods 1999-2002 and 1985 to 1987 were especially dry. The documents mention recent droughts in 2003-2004 and in 2008. The Ter-Llobregat suffered five drought episodes in the last 15 years. Since 1940 overall rain follows a decreasing trend. Climate change models indicate decreases up to 20% on aquifer recharge in 2070-2100. One of the 6 specific plans and programmes referred in the RBMP is the Droughts management plan. So it is considered important.

Water demand trend scenarios are provided based on estimated figures of water use. Water uses considered are domestic use, industry use, agriculture and livestock, and recreational use. The uses are consumptive or non-consumptive. Consumptive uses are: household, industry, agriculture and recreational. Non-consumptive uses are: hydropower and industrial cooling. The methodology to derive the assumptions on future demand is also explained.

Measures identified include measures for maintenance of ecological flow, measures for the issuing of licenses and permits for water use on agriculture and hydroelectric production, hydromorphological measures (river connectivity), measures for the rehabilitation of rivers and of wetlands as well as measures for flood prevention. There are also measures to create new water resources and measures for the re-use of water, and improvement of irrigation schemes, namely reducing water loses and increase efficiency of water use. Also there are measures on the improvement of water quality and for the protection and management of aquifers.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

The PoM includes a sub-set of measures on flood prevention. These measures include territorial planning and soil use zoning, revision of technical criteria for flood prevention, urgent interventions for the maintenance of run-off capacity and for the protection against floods. It also include other longer term and non-expected interventions of this sort, generation of knowledge and elaboration of the floods management plan.

PoM states that the measures on flood prevention aim at achieving the objectives of the WFD, but also set the basis for the elaboration of the flood risk management plan foreseen in the Floods Directive.

Extreme Flood: The PoM contains a subset of measures to avoid floods.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

The RBMP includes climate characterization and climate change tendencies. Different climate scenarios are analysed. No national climate change strategyis cited by the plan.

There was no climate check of the PoM.

The PoM does not have specific measures addressing climate change. The RBMP states that for 2015 climate change scenarios are not considered due to the current high degree of uncertainty on water bodies characterization and the fact that historic variability already measured is much higher the potential impacts of climate change could be in 4 years. Only for 2027 climate change is considered as a reduction of flow of 5% at most, on average. In dry years and in the dry season the reduction could be even 20%, while in wet years there can be an increase of 5%. The set of measures addressing management of aquifers refers to running models to increase knowledge on the possible impacts of climate change.

Scenarios were created for 2015 (no change) and 2027. The RBMP states that further research is needed, both to establish baselines for water bodies and study possible impacts of climate change.

14. Recommendations

The most urgent recommendation is that all Spanish RBMPs should be adopted and reported. Given the lack of adoption of the plans in many Spanish regions, it is difficult to ensure that there is an effective coordination in the implementation of the WFD, including the setting of objectives and exemptions, and the definition of the necessary measures. The implementation of the WFD shall be coordinated across the RBDs, including with third countries in the international RBDs, to ensure the achievement of the environmental objectives established under Article 4, and in particular all programmes of measures need to be coordinated for the whole of the RBD, including within a Member State.

The following recommendations are only based on the RBMP of Distrito Fluvial de Catalonia. In summary, based on the RBMP reported by Distrito Fluvial de Catalonia, the following can be recommended:

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions. Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· The assessment of water bodies needs to be completed.

· Monitoring gaps should be filled (hydromorphological parameters; analytical methods for priority substances and other pollutants, including the use of biota monitoring where relevant to overcome problems with limits of detection; monitoring methodologies to identify groundwater pollution trends, etc).

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status.  It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combating chemical pollution and adequate measures are put in place.  

· Assessment methods for ecological status should be further developed that respond to the relevant pressures taking into account the work on Intercalibration and hydromorphological quality elements.

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· The biota standards for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene in the EQSD, or standards providing an equivalent level of protection, should be applied if not already used. The requirement for trend monitoring in sediment or biota specified for several substances in Article 3(3) of the EQSD will also need to be reflected in the next RBMPs.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and assessment of status, this needs to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans

· It is necessary to have more information on the Programmes of Measures, in particular calendar and concrete actions and how the implementation of measures will be monitored.

· Concerning agriculture, it is important to have more information on the link with relevant pressures (such as water abstraction) in order to address those pressures appropriately in the PoM.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

· Uncertainty should not prevent Catalonia from taking action to prevent the negative impacts of climate change on waters.

[1]     Spain redesignated the following RBDs in 2012 : ES015 Basque Country Internal Basins and ES016 Cantabrian no longer exist; ES017 Cantábrico Oriental and ES018 Cantábrico Occidental are ‘new’ RBDs.

[2]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[3]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[4]     The Case has been  referred to the Court of Justice since 29 March 2012 (case C-2012/151).

[5]     Commission vs. Spain (Case C-516/07, ruling of 7.5.2009)

[6] Article 11.8 of Legislative Decree 3/2003, of 4 November, approving the Consolidated Water Law of Catalonia.

[7]     Some of these water bodies are protected also, but not only, for human consumption water abstraction.

[8]     Banyoles lake.

[9]     Abstracting point for intake to desalinisation plants in La Tordera and El Prat.

[10]    All GWB are considered protected areas for drinking water. There are 137 catchment sites within the 39 GWB.

[11]    This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[12] These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management

Table of Contents

PART 1

1........... Introduction. 4

2........... Main elements of the Water Framework Directive. 5

3........... The Common Implementation Strategy. 6

4........... Approach to the assessment of the river basin management plans. 7

5........... Status of adoption and reporting of river basin management plans. 8

5.1........ Overall geographical scope of the River Basin Management Plans. 9

6........... Overview of legal action by the Commission. 11

6.1........ Introduction. 11

6.2........ Transposition of the Water Framework Directive into national law.. 12

6.3........ Bad application cases. 13

6.4........ Court rulings related to the WFD.. 16

6.5........ Key complaints and other cases. 17

6.6........ Legal implementation of related Directives adopted in accordance with Article 16 (Environmental Quality Standards) and 17 (Groundwater) of the WFD.. 17

7........... Overview of the status of EU waters and outlook. 20

8........... Results of the assessment at EU level and recommendations. 30

8.1........ Governance. 30

8.2........ Characterisation of the River Basin District 58

8.3........ Monitoring of surface waters and groundwater 88

PART 2

8.4........ Classification of ecological status. 121

8.5........ Classification of chemical status for surface waters. 129

8.6........ Designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB) 137

8.7........ Definition of Good Ecological Potential for HMWB and AWB.. 147

8.8........ Assessment of groundwater status. 163

8.9........ Environmental objectives and exemptions. 173

8.10...... Programme of measures – general 182

8.11...... Measures related to groundwater 194

8.12...... Measures related to agriculture. 200

8.13...... Measures related to chemical pollution. 208

8.14...... Measures related to hydromorphology. 214

8.15...... Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies) 224

8.16...... Additional measures in Protected Areas. 231

8.17...... Strategy to deal with water scarcity and droughts. 241

8.18...... Adaptation to climate change. 247

8.19...... Flood risk management 253

9........... List of Abbreviations. 257

 

 

1. Introduction

Water is a limited resource essential for life and for economic activity. EU water policy has delivered significant improvements to water quality over the past 30 years. Europeans can safely drink tap water and swim in thousands of coastal waters, rivers and lakes across the EU[1]. Pollution of urban, industrial and agricultural origin has significantly diminished.

The recent Fitness Check of EU freshwater policy has concluded that the overall regulatory framework is sound and sufficient. However, implementation remains a key challenge. Moreover, both the Fitness Check and the analysis underpinning the European Commission's Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Waters have identified a number of elements that require further reinforcement such as better approaches to the management of integrated water resources including definition of quantitative aspects, sound integrated governance, and the support of an adequate knowledge base.

This Commission Staff Working Document is part of the Commission’s third implementation report[2] as required by Article 18 of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and is based on the assessment of the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) reported by Member States. The report describes in detail the key aspects of the results of the assessment based on the information reported by Member States and other related official sources of information, and provides a view of the status of implementation of the WFD across the EU. This document is accompanied by associated country specific Commission Staff Working Documents describing the results of the assessment by the Commission of the RBMPs relating to each Member State, as well as for the EEA state Norway. All are an integral part of the Commission's Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Waters and are closely linked to a report on the State of Waters produced by the European Environment Agency.

The RBMPs of one European Economic Area country – Norway – were also analysed alongside those of the 27 EU Member States. This analysis was done in cooperation with the ESA (EFTA[3]  Surveillance Authority), responsible for compliance checking of WFD implementation in EEA countries applying the Directive. The deadlines in the Directive for implementing the various obligations were extended (when the WFD was incorporated into the EEA Agreement in 2007), to give the EEA countries the same amount of time to implement the obligations as the EU Member States. [4]

2. Main elements of the Water Framework Directive

Building on the achievements of existing EU water legislation, in 2000 the WFD introduced new and ambitious objectives to protect aquatic ecosystems in a more holistic way, while considering the use of water for life and human development. The WFD was hailed as a front runner in that it incorporates into a legally binding instrument the key principles of integrated river basin management: the participatory approach in planning and management at river basin scale; the consideration of the whole hydrological cycle and all pressures and impacts affecting it; and the integration of economic and ecological perspectives into water management. It provides a framework to balance high levels of environmental protection with sustainable economic development.

The WFD foresaw a long implementation process leading to the adoption of the first RBMPs in 2009 which describe the actions envisaged to implement the Directive. The plans are expected to deliver the objectives of the WFD including non-deterioration of water status and the achievement of good status by 2015. The preparatory process for the plans has already been subject to two Commission implementation reports, in 2007 and 2009.

The WFD introduced a number of key principles into the management and protection of aquatic resources:

(1)        The integrated planning process at the scale of river basins, from characterisation to the definition of measures to reach the environmental objectives.

(2)        A comprehensive assessment of pressures, impacts and status of the aquatic environment, including from the ecological perspective.

(3)        The economic analysis of the measures proposed/taken and the use of economic instruments.

(4)        The integrated water resources management principle encompassing targeting environmental objectives with water management and related policies objectives.

(5)        Public participation and active involvement in water management.

The key objective of the WFD is to achieve good status for all water bodies by 2015. This comprises the objectives of good ecological and good chemical status for surface waters and good quantitative and good chemical status for groundwater.

The key tool for the implementation of the WFD is the RBMP and the accompanying Programme of Measures (PoM). The planning process is a step-by-step procedure in which each step builds on the previous one (see Figure 1). Each step is important, starting from the transposition and the administrative arrangements, followed by the characterisation of the River Basin District (RBD), the monitoring and the assessment of status, the setting of objectives, the establishment of an appropriate programme of measures and its implementation including the monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures supporting the following RBMP cycle.

The PoM is the tool designed to enable the Member States to respond appropriately to the relevant pressures identified at RBD level during the pressures and impacts analysis, with the objective of enabling the river basin/water body to reach good status. For example, if a significant pressure is overlooked during the pressures and impacts analysis, the monitoring programme may not be designed to assess the pressure, and the programme of measures may not envisage action to address it.

Figure 2.1: Schematic representation of the WFD planning process

The RBMP is a comprehensive document describing the execution of water management and identifying all actions to be taken in the River Basin District.

3. The Common Implementation Strategy

Implementation of the WFD has been supported since 2001 by an unprecedented informal co-operation under the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS), led by Water Directors of Member States and the Commission with participation from all relevant stakeholders. The CIS has successfully delivered more than 30 guidance documents and policy papers and has been a valuable platform for exchange of experiences and best practices on implementation among Member States.

The CIS is currently the platform used by Member States and the Commission to facilitate implementation, providing a common interpretation of the WFD, exploring common issues of concern and joint responses. This informal mechanism of co-operation under the WFD has been used as a model in other environmental sectors, inspiring compliance promotion activities and supporting the implementation of the environmental acquis through a common platform for electronic reporting and information exchange.

4. Approach to the assessment of the river basin management plans

This is the European Commission's third implementation report under the WFD. It is based on the assessment of the RBMPs and is an integral part of the Commission's Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources. The publication of this implementation report is a requirement of Article 18 of the WFD. The assessment is based on the information reported by Member States, consisting of the published RBMPs and accompanying documentation[5], the electronic reporting through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE)[6] in predefined formats, and any additional background documents that the Member States considered relevant.

The Commission has co-operated closely with the European Environment Agency (EEA) on the preparation of this implementation report. The WISE reporting has been facilitated through the Water Data Centre hosted by the EEA. The EEA has published a report on the State of Water resources based primarily on the data reported under the WFD. The report has been preceded by a number of thematic assessments on different aspects of water status and pressures.

The RBMPs are comprehensive documents that cover many aspects of water management, consisting of hundreds to thousands of pages of information, published in national languages. The assessment of the RBMPs has been a very challenging and complex task that has involved dealing with extensive information in more than 20 languages.

The quality of the Commission assessments relies on the quality of the Member States' reports. Bad or incomplete reporting can lead to wrong and/or incomplete assessments. It is recognised that reporting is a big effort for Member States, in particular the electronic reporting to WISE. There are examples of very good, high quality reporting. However, there are also cases where reporting contains gaps or contradictions.

In the context of the preparation of this report, the Commission maintained regular informal contact with the Member States to validate its findings and to ensure that the assessment reflects reality.

This document presents the findings of the Commission’s assessment of the RBMPs, structured according to the WFD planning process presented above.

In the frame of the Common Implementation Strategy of the WFD Member States agreed that besides submitting their RBMPs to the Commission they would report pre-defined key information of their RBMPs electronically through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE; http://water.europa.eu). WISE is a web-portal entry to water related information ranging from inland waters to marine that helps streamlining reporting under different water related EU legislation and allows the different European bodies to more easily collect and share information as well as public access to water data and information reported by Member States. WISE is planned to be further developed in the upcoming years to become an even more user-friendly, shared environmental system fully based on the principles of the INSPIRE Directive.

Member States were required to report WISE data until March 2010. After this date updating of the reported data and submission of late reporting was still allowed to Member States in order to ensure the high quality of the dataset. The Commission, where it was available, used the most up-to-date information from WISE (2012) in its Communication and Commission Staff Working Document. Where data was not available in WISE, the RBMPs (2009) and / or other information were used with the indication of the source. The different sources explain the diverging values in some of the tables and figures that the reader may find in the abovementioned documents. 

5. Status of adoption and reporting of river basin management plans

Figure 5.1 presents the state of play regarding the adoption of the RBMPs[7]. 25 Member States plus Norway have adopted and reported 121 RBMPs for their national parts of the River Basin Districts (RBDs)[8] (out of a total of 174).

In Belgium, the Flemish Region, the Federal Government (responsible for coastal waters) and the Brussels Region have adopted plans; the plans for the Walloon Region are awaited. In Spain, only one plan out of the 25 expected, the plan for the Catalan River Basin District, has been adopted and reported. In Portugal and Greece, no plan has yet been adopted.

 

Figure 5.1: State of adoption of the RBMPs. GREEN - River Basin Management Plans adopted. RED - Consultation has not started or is on-going. YELLOW - Consultation closed, adoption pending. 

For Belgium, the Brussels Region adopted its RBMP for its part of the Scheldt RBD on 12.7.2012, but due to the late adoption it has not been possible for the Commission to analyse it for this implementation report. The RBMPs for part of the RBDs on the territory of the Walloon region (Seine, Scheldt, Meuse and Rhine) are due to go out to public consultation by the date this report is published, and adoption is foreseen in April 2013.

5.1. Overall geographical scope of the River Basin Management Plans

There are 128 RBDs designated in the EU, of which 49 are international. If each national part of an international RBD is counted separately, the total number of RBDs is 170[9]. The geographical scope of the RBMPs does not correspond exactly to the number of RBDs, and a number of different models can be identified:

- Most Member States have prepared one RBMP for each RBD exclusively within their territory, and 40 such plans were received.

- Most Member States who have part of an international RBD within their territory have produced one RBMP for the national part of the international RBD. 63 such plans were received. In some cases they have also reported international RBMPs produced for the whole international RBD. Where such international RBMPs are available, this can be seen as being a successful result of the implementation of the WFD.

- Some Member States have prepared one plan covering all of their territory (for instance in Slovakia or in Slovenia) but which includes sections on each of the relevant RBDs. In these cases, they have been counted as having prepared one RBMP per RBD.

- Some Member States have prepared several RBMPs for each RBD and for sub-basins. For instance, in Romania all of the territory falls within the Danube RBD and is covered by the Danube International RBMP (A-level), as well as by the national Romanian Danube RBMP (B-level). In addition, and fully in accordance with the Directive (Article 13.5 WFD), more detailed sub-RBMPs have been prepared for each of the 11 sub-basins. For the purpose of this assessment, the Romanian Danube RBMP has however been considered as one RBMP.

- In Denmark, 15 RBMPs were reported for the Jutland and Funen RBD, and 7 RBMPs were reported for the Sjaelland RBD, but no overall single RBMP for the whole respective RBD was submitted. For the purpose of this assessment these RBMPs have been assessed as two RBMPS, that is one per RBD. 

- In Germany, where most of the territory is covered by international RBDs for which international RBMPs exist (Danube, Elbe, Rhine, Ems, Odra), no RBMP for the national parts of these RBDs were adopted. Instead RBMPs were adopted at the Federal State level. For the purpose of this assessment, the German plans were assessed as one RBMP per RBD, although in reality 16 RBMPs were adopted.  A similar situation applies in Belgium, where the RBMPs are adopted by the respective regions, and where the three regions have different timetables relating to the implementation of the Directive due to serious delays in Wallonia and the Brussels Region.

As a result the number of RBMPs assessed for this report is 112, unless otherwise indicated. The subsequent assessment may refer to a different baseline, partly since in some cases, data were reported to WISE also by Member States who had not yet adopted their RBMPs. This may vary by topic.

It should be noted that 11 pilot RBMPs were also adopted by Norway relating to part of their RBDs in advance of the deadline for implementation of 2018 as agreed under the EEA agreement. These pilot RBMPs were assessed alongside EU RBMPs, and the results of the assessment can be found in the relevant annex to this report. However, the statistics in the main body of the report do not include results relating to Norway.

6. Overview of legal action by the Commission 6.1. Introduction

Where needed, after informal compliance promotion activities, the Commission has pursued targeted legal action to enforce the WFD since the transposition deadline of 2003. This compliance promotion has focussed on two main priorities - enforcement of deadlines and conformity of transposition:

· Enforcement of the deadlines: whenever a reporting deadline lapsed, the necessary legal steps were taken against those Member States which failed to respect those deadlines. For the WFD itself this concerned the following deadlines:

- 2003: transposition

- 2004: RBD delineation, competent authorities and administrative arrangements

- 2007: adoption of the monitoring programmes

- 2009: adoption  of River Basin management plans (reporting deadline 22.3.2010)

As a consequence of this action, by the time the Member States needed to adopt their RBMPs they had, in principle, undertaken the required preparatory steps (with the exception of Malta for the monitoring programmes, a case that was still before the Court in 2009). Shortcomings have however been identified in the first implementation stages identified in several Member States, as set out in this assessment. 

· The Commission also pursued actions to address issues of non-conformity of the national legislation transposing the provisions related to the RBMPs with a view to ensuring that the national legal framework correctly reflects the different EU requirements for the WFD.

The Commission first addressed the gaps identified in the two previous implementation reports through informal mechanisms and dialogue with Member States and, only if this did not prove satisfactory, took the required legal action, always with the objective of ensuring that the issues were addressed in time for the reporting of the RBMPs. In cases where such shortcomings in the national legal framework were not addressed by Member States, they are likely to be gaps or delays related to the RBMPs.

6.2. Transposition of the Water Framework Directive into national law

By the latest 22 December 2003, Member States had to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. Member States must also continuously communicate to the Commission the texts of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive.

After this deadline had passed, and after providing the Member States with a final opportunity to inform the Commission of the adoption of the national measures, the Commission opened so called 'non-communication infringement cases' against those Member States which had not notified transposing legislation to the Commission. Of the 11 non-communication cases mentioned in the first WFD implementation report issued in 2007, the last case was closed in 2009.

After the transposed legislation was notified, the Commission carried out conformity studies to assess the quality of the national transposition into national law. From this first assessment it was clear that a number of Member States would not face infringement proceedings as the transposition was found satisfactory at the time (Austria, Cyprus, Malta and Portugal). Since 2007, non‑conformity cases have been opened against 22 Member States. By October 2012, 12 of those cases have meanwhile been closed whilst 10 are still open (see table 6.1 below).

It is, however, inherent in conformity checking that it can never be excluded that new issues of non‑conformity reveal themselves even after the closure of the infringement procedure. This can be the result of either new legislation adopted by the Member States or because of a new appreciation of the national legal framework in the light of complaints or experience brought to the attention of the Commission. For this reason, the Commission will continue to stay alert for such issues as they affect the achievement of the objectives of the Directive. It is, therefore, also important that Member States systematically communicate to the Commission changes to their national laws in the field governed by this Directive (Article 24(2) WFD).

In 2006, the European Commission received a horizontal complaint covering 11 Member States on the interpretation of the term 'water services' (Article 2(38) WFD). The scope given to the notion of water services is relevant for the scope of the obligation to apply cost recovery for water services (Article 9 WFD). For pragmatic reasons it was decided to address the interpretation issue, where possible, in the context of the non-conformity cases opened since 2007. Meanwhile, these cases have reached different stages of the infringement procedure. The most advanced case concerns Germany as the Commission decided on 31 May 2012 to ask the European Court of Justice for its views on the interpretation of water services, and other cases may follow.

The outcome of these legal proceedings will play a crucial role in the further implementation of water pricing policies, as further reflected in chapter 8.15 of this report.

Table 6.1 includes an overview of transposition-related infringement cases.

6.3. Bad application cases

A rather extensive number of so called 'bad application' infringement cases have been opened since 2003 in relation to the implementation of the WFD. Bad application refers to the Commission's assessment that an infringement of EU law is not due to deficiencies in the legislative framework but due to non-respect by the authorities of that framework. Typically, the majority of the cases related to the WFD concern the failure of a Member State to submit a report by a given deadline. Once the report is received such cases are normally closed.

For the WFD, such cases have concerned the failure to report administrative arrangements (Article 3) or to submit the report on the characterisation of the RBDs (Article 5) as explained in the first implementation report[10]. It also concerns cases for failure to report monitoring networks (Article 8) as explained in the second implementation report[11]. Each of these implementation reports identified a number of shortcomings in the quality of the implementation. If, despite the Commission having communicated their findings to the respective Member States in these implementation reports, the situation has not been redressed and adequately reported in the RBMPs, the Commission intends to address these issues in bad application cases based on the assessments summarised in this third implementation report.

An update on the progress of these cases since the respective implementation reports is given in Table 6.2. This table also presents an overview of  the progress on the  latest horizontal set of cases related to the failure to comply with Articles 13 (to adopt RBMPs), 14 (to carry out consultation on draft RBMPs) and 15 (to report the RBMPs to the Commission by 22.3.2010). Since it is of utmost importance that the RBMPs are adopted in a timely manner and that they are subject to the required consultation procedures, the Commission decided to proceed swiftly with these infringement procedures.

Following the pre-infringement correspondence which started in April 2010, 11 Member States received a first warning in June 2010. In 2011 the Commission decided to bring 5 Member States to Court for failure to adopt all their RBMPs. One case (Denmark) was withdrawn by the Commission after the RBMPs were adopted and reported. In 2012 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled against Belgium[12], Greece[13], Portugal[14] and Spain[15].  Immediately after the rulings the Commission initiated the procedure for ensuring timely respect of these rulings.

The absence of a RBMP, including the Programme of Measures (PoM - considered a key component of the RBMPs, enabling Member States to achieve the objectives of the WFD by 2015), obviously remains of great concern to the Commission. The absence of a RBMP compromises the (timely) achievement of good status of surface and groundwater. The lack of synchronisation of the consultation and adoption processes in RBDs shared by different countries or regions leads to serious problems in co-ordination.

Moreover, the non-timely adoption of a RBMP may also compromise the effectiveness of the second updated RBMPs due for adoption in December 2015, if planning cycles are not synchronised between the Member States. The Commission's efforts will be aimed at preventing delays occurring in one Member State that may have a knock-on effect on the co-ordination and implementation of the second, updated, RBMPs. It is important to highlight that the  first step of consultation should start with a 6-month public consultation on the work programme and timetable for preparation of the RBMP according to Article 14(1)(a) and 14(3).

AT || 03/2010

BE || (1)

BG || 03/2010

CY || 06/2011

CZ || 12/2009

DE || 12/2009

DK || 12/2011

EE || 04/2010

EL || -

ES || (2)

FI || 12/2009

FR || 12/2009

HU || 05/2010

IE || 07/2010

IT || 03/2010

LT || 11/2010

LU || 12/2009

LV || 05/2010

MT || 03/2011

NL || 11/2009

PL || 02/2011

PT || -

RO || 01/2011

SE || 12/2009

SI || 07/2011

SK || 12/2009

UK || 12/2009

NO* || 06/2010

Figure 6.1: Overview map of timing of adoption of the River Basin Management Plans.   Plan adopted and reported by:  March 2010 (Green), October 2010 (Yellow), March 2011 (Orange), October 2011 (Purple), March 2012 (Blue);   Red: Still not fully compliant.

Notes :

(1) BE (Flemish region reported 08/2010, Brussels Region adopted 07/2012, Walloon region has not adopted its plans)

(2) ES (Only Catalonia RBD reported on 14/10/2010). 

* Norway is implementing the Water Framework Directive as part of the European Economic Area Agreement, with specific timetable agreed.

Apart from bad application cases based on the non-timely adoption of the RBMPs, the Commission envisages that action may need to be taken on the basis of the assessment it has carried out on the quality and completeness of the reported RBMPs, based on the analysis presented in this report.

6.4. Court rulings related to the WFD

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has issued several rulings on the basis of the WFD. However, these cases dealt with provisions of the WFD which may be seen as straightforward (such as non‑communication of the transposing measures, late reporting, late adoption of monitoring programmes and RBMPs), rather than with less straightforward cases concerning the interpretation of key notions such as water services or the application of exemptions under Article 4 WFD.

Relevant case law by the ECJ so far:

- Commission vs. Luxembourg (Case C‑32/05, ruling of 30.11.2006) – Non‑Communication Transposition – The Court ruled that Luxembourg had failed to transpose, or to notify transposition, of the Directive to the Commission.  Luxembourg argued that their existing legal framework was sufficient; the Court found that this was not the case. Luxembourg has since complied and the case is closed.

- Commission vs. Germany (Ref. Case C‑67/05, ruling of 15.12.2005) – Non‑Communication Transposition – The Court ruled that Germany had failed to transpose, or to notify such transposition of the Directive to the Commission within the deadline, since the law had not been transposed into the legislation of all Bundesländer. Germany has since complied and the case is closed.

- Commission vs. Italy (Case C85/07, ruling of 18.12.2007) and vs. Greece (Case C264/07, ruling of 31.1.2008) – Bad application - Non-reporting – For failing to submit the reports required under Article 5 of the Directive,  on Characterisation of the River Basin Districts, review of the environmental impacts of human activity and economic analysis of water use. Italy and Greece have since complied and the cases are closed.

- Commission vs. Spain (Case C-516/07, ruling of 7.5.2009) – Administrative arrangements – Spain had failed to notify all competent authorities in accordance with Article 3. In this case the Court also emphasised the importance of designating the River Basin Districts in accordance with the hydrological boundaries rather than administrative boundaries. Spain has since complied and the case is closed.

- Commission vs. Malta (Case C-351/09, ruling of 22.12.2010) – Bad application -Monitoring networks – For not having established a network for monitoring of inland waters, and for failure to submit a summary report to the Commission. In this ruling, the court found that even if the Maltese inland surface water bodies are small, there is a need to ensure monitoring.

- Commission vs. Greece (Case C‑297/11, ruling 19.4.2012.), vs. Belgium (Case C‑366/11, ruling 24.5.2012), vs. Portugal (Case C-223/11, ruling 21.6.2012), and vs. Spain (case C‑403/11, ruling 4.10.2012) - On the failure to adopt and report River Basin Management Plans for all of their respective River Basin Districts.

- A preliminary ruling in case C-41/10 on the Acheloos in Greece was issued on 11.09.2012 – On the interpretation of the WFD 2000/60/EC, of Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment and of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

6.5. Key complaints and other cases

The WFD is also the object of complaints received by the Commission. These complaints concern inter alia existing or future projects which may impact water (such as the construction of new hydropower facilities and works related to navigation which allegedly fail to give proper attention to the impact on the ecological and chemical status of the water) and existing or future activities which impact water (such as discharges of salt resulting from mining activities into sweet water negatively affecting water quality). These complaints are all assessed individually and, where needed, the Commission enquires with the Member State authorities as a preliminary step towards formal enforcement action.

Complaints sometimes invoke in particular deficiencies in the RBMPs, such as that the measures proposed are not sufficient or that certain exemptions under Article 4 of the WFD are unlawfully invoked by the authorities. Where possible, complaints related to the RBMPs as such are pursued under the on-going assessment of the RBMPs by the Commission.

6.6. Legal implementation of related Directives adopted in accordance with Article 16 (Environmental Quality Standards) and 17 (Groundwater) of the WFD

Two closely related Directives have been adopted since 2000, one further specifying the legal requirements in relation to groundwater status (Directive 2006/118/EC, also known as the Groundwater Directive, transposition deadline 18.1.2008) the second regarding the chemical status of surface waters (Directive 2008/105/EC, also known as the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) or Priority Substances Directive, transposition deadline 25.7.2010). Non‑communication procedures were opened against 22 Member States on Directive 2008/105/EC but they have all since been closed. Non‑communication procedures were opened against 20 Member States on Directive 2006/118/EC and these have also since been closed.

The Commission has, in the meantime, performed an assessment of conformity for both Directives. On the Groundwater Directive the first steps were taken (requests for clarification sent through the EU Pilot) in 2012 against 17 Member States, and two cases have been opened. In the second half of 2012 the Commission also raised conformity issues with the national legislation transposing the EQS Directive with six Member States.

MS || Non-communication of transposition  into national law || Non-conformity – state of play || Water service interpretation (bad application case)

AT || - || - || Case 2006/4634

BE || Case 2004/0005, closed 2006. || Case 2007/2233, closed 2011. || Case 2006/4635

BG || || Case 2009/2256, Letter of formal notice. ||

CY || || - ||

CZ || || Case 2007/2234, closed 2012.  ||

DE || Case 2004/0017, closed 2006. || Case 2007/2243, Case submitted to Court 2012. || Case 2006/4639 – saisine 258 under non-conformity case 2007/2243.

DK || || Case 2007/2235, closed 2011.  || Case 2006/4636

EE || ||  Case 2007/2236, closed 2010.  || Case 2007/4637- closed in 2012

EL || || - ||

ES || || Case 2009/2003. Case submitted to Court 2012. ||

FI || Case 2004/0108; closed 2005. || Case 2007/2237, Reasoned opinion || Case 2006/4638

FR || Case 2004/0048, closed 2005. || Case 2007/2242, closed 2010.  ||

HU || || Case 2007/2249, closed 2010 || Case 2006/4640

IE || || Case 2007/2238, Reasoned opinion || Case 2006/4641 - IE accepts the COM interpretation

IT || Case 2004/0059, closed 2008. || Case 2007/4680, Reasoned opinion. ||

LT || || Case 2007/2245, closed 2010.  ||

LU || Case 2004/0073, closed 2009. || Pilot ||

LV || || Case 2007/2244, closed 2009.  ||

MT || || - ||

NL || Case 2004/0086, closed 2005. || Case 2007/2248, closed 2010.  || Case 2006/4644

PL || Case 2004/2309, closed 2004. || Case 2007/2246, Additional reasoned opinion. || Case 2006/4642

PT || Case 2004/0120, closed 2006. || - ||

RO ||   || Case 2008/2274, closed 2011.  ||

SE || Case 2004/0142, closed 2004. || Case 2007/2239, Additional LFN. || Case 2006/4643

SI || || Case 2007/2240, closed 2009.  ||

SK || || Case 2007/2247, closed 2011.  ||

UK || Case 2004/0152, closed 2004. || Case 2007/2241, Additional LFN ||

Table 6.1 – Overview of open WFD infringement cases, non-communication of transposition, non-conformity and/or interpretation of Article 2(38) WFD

MS || Administrative arrangements Article 3 reporting || Characterization,   impact assessment (Article 5 WFD) || Monitoring networks (Article 8 WFD) || River Basin Management Plan consultation, adoption (Articles  13, 14 & 15 WFD)

|| Reference || Closed || Reference || Closed || Reference || Closed || Reference || Articles concerned || Closed/Status

AT || || || || || || || || ||

BE || A2004/2303 || 2004 || || || || || 2010/2070 || 13, 14, 15 || Court ruling 2012(Brussels and Wallonia Regions)

BG || || || || || || || || ||

CY || || || || || || || 2010/2071 || 13, 14,15 || Closed 2011

CZ || || || || || || || || ||

DE || || || || || || || || ||

DK || A2004/2304 || 2004 || || || || || 2010/2072 || 13, 14, 15 || Closed 2012 . Plans adopted December 2011.

EE || || || || || || || 2010/2073 || 13,   15 ||

EL || A2005/2033 || 2004 || A2005/2317 || 2008 || 2007/2490 || 2009 || 2010/2074 || 13, 14, 15 || Court ruling 2012

ES || A2004/2305 || Court ruling 2008 || A2005/2316 || 2006 || || || 2010/2083 || 13, 14, 15 || Court ruling 2012. Plans for one RBD adopted 2010.

FI || || || || || || || || ||

FR || A2004/2306 || 2004 || || || || || || ||

HU || || || || || || || 2010/2075 || 13,   15 ||

IE || || || || || || || 2010/2076 || 13,   15 ||

IT || A2004/2307 || 2004 || A2005/2315 || 2008 || || || ||   ||

LU || || || || || || || || ||

LT || || || || || || || 2010/2077 || 13,  14,  15 || Closed  2011

LV || || || || || || || || ||

MT || A2004/2308 || 2004 || || || 2007/2491 || Court ruling 258 of 22/12/2010, currently at art 260 stage || 2010/2078 || || Closed  2011

NL || || || || || || || || ||

PL || A2004/2309 || 2004 || || || || || 2010/2079 || 13,   15 || Closed 2011. Plans adopted 1st semester 2011.

PT || || || A2005/2318 || 2005 || || || 2010/2080 || 13,  14,  15 || Court ruling 2012

RO || || || || || || || 2010/2081 || 13,   15 ||

SE || A2004/2310 || 2004 || || || || || || ||

SI || || || || || || || 2010/2082 || 13, 15 || Closed  2011.  Plans adopted summer 2011.

SK || || || || ||   || || || ||

UK || || || || || || || || ||

Table 6.2 – Overview table on non- communication / bad application infringements

7. Overview of the status of EU waters and outlook

The sources of the figures and maps (except for tables 7.1 and 7.2) in this chapter are the EEA draft reports on 'Ecological and chemical status and pressures draft for consultation' and on 'Ecological status and pressures draft July 2012'[16].

Overview of ecological status and potential of surface water bodies

Figure 7.1 shows the distribution of ecological status or potential for the different types of water bodies (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal). Overall, more than half (55 %) of the total number of classified surface water bodies in Europe are reported to have less than good ecological status/potential. Only around 44% of rivers and 33% of transitional waters are reported to be in high or good status. 56% of the lakes are reported to be in good or high status, and 51% for coastal waters.

Figure 7.1: Distribution of ecological status or potential of classified rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters, calculated as percentage of the total number of classified water bodies.

Source:EEA.

Figure 7.2 shows the classification of ecological status across the EU. There are some River Basin Districts in Northern Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium where the reported status or potential of more than 90% of the water bodies is less than good. Many other RBDs in Northern France, Southern Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Southern England have reported between 70 and 90% of their river bodies in less than good status or potential. There are also significant variations in the status or potential of water bodies within Member States.

Figure 7.2: Proportion of classified surface water bodies in different River Basin Districts in less than good ecological status or potential for rivers and lakes (left panel) and for coastal and transitional waters (right panel) (percentage, based on number of classified water bodies).

Source:EEA

Overview of chemical status of surface and groundwater bodies

There is a high percentage of surface water bodies for which the reported chemical status is 'unknown'. This has consequences for the whole planning process, in particular for establishing the environmental objectives and defining appropriate measures.

In many cases, the main reason for this gap is that the status assessment methods have not been fully developed yet or there were not enough monitoring data in this first cycle. In that case, it is advisable to adopt and implement "no-regret" measures, at the same time as further developing the assessment methods and monitoring networks. However, in most RBMPs, there is no information on what actions will be taken to improve the monitoring and assessment methods for the next cycles.

Figure 7.3: Percentage of rivers, lakes, groundwater, transitional and coastal waters in good, poor and unknown chemical status.

Source: WISE

Note 1: Number of Member States contributing to the dataset: Groundwater (26); Rivers (25); Lakes (22); Transitional (15) and Coastal (20). Percentages shown for rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal are by water body count. Groundwater percentages, however, are expressed by area. The total number of water bodies is shown in parenthesis.

Note 2: Data from Sweden are excluded from surface water data illustrated in the figure. This is because Sweden contributed a disproportionately large amount of data and, classified all its surface waters as poor status since levels of mercury found within biota in both fresh and coastal waters exceed the quality standard.

Figure 7.4 shows the percentage of groundwater bodies in good and poor chemical status in the different Member States.

Figure 7.4: Percentage of groundwater bodies in poor and good chemical status, by area.

Source: Based on data available in WISE-WFD database 3rd May 2012

Note: Groundwater bodies in unknown chemical status are not accounted for in the red and blue bars that represent the percentage poor and good chemical status respectively. The reported total area covered by groundwater bodies / the area in poor chemical status/ the area in unknown chemical status (in 1000 km2) per Member State is shown in parenthesis. Denmark did not report the area of groundwater bodies, whilst 164 of 385 (43%) Danish groundwater bodies were reported in poor chemical status.

Even though a small percentage of groundwater bodies are reported to be in unknown chemical status and a relatively high number of groundwater bodies in good status, there are certain shortcomings in most of the Member States regarding groundwater monitoring and methodologies for groundwater status and trend assessment that make the results of the groundwater chemical status assessment questionable, as is shown in later chapters.   

Figure 7.5 shows the chemical status of groundwater reported by the different Member States.

Figure 7.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies per RBD – percentage of groundwater body area not achieving good chemical status

Note: Groundwater bodies in unknown status are not included in the calculation of the percentage of poor chemical status. Source: Based on data available in WISE-WFD database 3rd May 2012

Overview of quantitative status of groundwater bodies

From the total number of groundwater bodies assessed only 6% are classified as being in poor quantitative status in 2009. Only a few countries, namely Spain, United Kingdom, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Malta have groundwater quantitative problems which, however, are mainly found in specific RBDs and not in the whole country, with the exception of Cyprus where approximately 70% of its groundwater bodies are in poor status.

Figure 7.6: Percentage of groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status in 2009 per RBD

Source: WISE-WFD database

Figure 7.7: Percentage of groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status in 2009 per Member State

Note: Numbers in brackets indicate the number of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE-WFD database

Even though a small percentage of groundwater bodies are reported to be in unknown quantitative status and a high number of groundwater bodies in good status, there are certain shortcomings in most of the Member States regarding the methodologies for groundwater status assessment that make the results of the groundwater quantitative status assessment questionable, as is shown in later chapters.   

Overview of environmental objectives – status by 2015

Table 7.1 shows the expected ecological and chemical status for 2015 for surface waters (SW), in comparison with the current status reported by Member States. The percentage of water bodies with unknown status in 2009 is significant in a number of Member States, in particular as regards the chemical status (see also section 8.5).

|| SW – % in good or better ecological status 2009 || SW – % in good or better ecological  status 2015 || SW - % unknown ecological status 2009 || || || SW – % in good or better chemical status 2009 || SW – % in good or better chemical status 2015 || SW - % unknown chemical status 2009

AT || 42 || 46 || 0 || || AT || 99 || 100 || 0

BE* || 0 || 4 || 1 || || BE* || 24 || 72 || 48

BG || 43 || 71 || 0 || || BG || 79 || 97 || 18

CY || 40 || 83 || 21 || || CY || 74 || 100 || 21

CZ || 17 || 15 || 1 || || CZ || 70 || 71 || 1

DE || 10 || 21 || 3 || || DE || 88 || 94 || 4

DK || 42 || 75 || 14 || || DK || 0 || 100 || 99

EE || 71 || 79 || 0 || || EE || 99 || 99 || 0

EL || 38 || No plans || 30 || || EL || 0 || No plans || 100

ES-Cat || 46 || 85 || 21 || || ES-Cat || 58 || 97 || 37

FI || 30 || 87 || 52 || || FI || 64 || 100 || 36

FR || 41 || 64 || 2 || || FR || 43 || 80 || 34

HU || 10 || 12 || 39 || || HU || 3 || 97 || 94

IE || 54 || 71 || 3 || || IE || 28 || 100 || 71

IT || 25 || 79 || 56 || || IT || 18 || 89 || 78

LT || 48 || 57 || 0 || || LT || 99 || 99 || 0

LU || 7 || 30 || 0 || || LU || 70 || 75 || 0

LV || 49 || 87 || 0 || || LV || 6 || 100 || 94

MT || 56 || 6 || 0 || || MT || 0 || 100 || 100

NL || 0 || 14 || 1 || || NL || 70 || 75 || 5

PL || 3 || 61 || 79 || || PL || 3 || 100 || 92

PT || 54 || No plans || 7 || || PT || 43 || No plans || 56

RO || 59 || 64 || 0 || || RO || 93 || 94 || 0

SE || 56 || 62 || 1 || || SE || 0 || 0 || 0

SI || 52 || 88 || 10 || || SI || 95 || 100 || 1

SK || 64 || 64 || 0 || || SK || 95 || 100 || 0

UK || 37 || 43 || 0 || || UK || 36 || 99 || 63

Table 7.1: Percentage of surface water (SW) bodies in good or high ecological and chemical status in 2009 and 2015, and percentage of surface waters in unknown status in 2009

Source: WISE

Note: BE* data refers to the RBMPs for the Flemish Region and for the Federal Coastal Waters

Table 7.2 shows the expected chemical and quantitative status for groundwater (GW) for 2015, in comparison with the current status reported by Member States.

|| GW – % in good quantitative status 2009 || GW - % in good quantitative status 2015 || GW - % unknown quantitative status 2009 || || || GW - % in good chemical status 2009 || GW - % in good chemical status 2015 || GW - % unknown chemical status 2009

AT || 100 || 100 || 0 || || AT || 98 || 98 || 0

BE* || 80 || 81 || 0 || || BE* || 43 || 45 || 0

BG || 96 || 96 || 5 || || BG || 70 || 71 || 0

CY || 20 || 20 || 0 || || CY || 55 || 55 || 5

CZ || 65 || 66 || 0 || || CZ || 21 || 30 || 0

DE || 96 || 96 || 0 || || DE || 63 || 68 || 0

DK || 65 || 65 || 0 || || DK || 57 || 57 || 0

EE || 96 || 96 || 100 || || EE || 96 || 96 || 0

EL || 0 || No plans || 1 || || EL || 0 || No plans || 100

ES-Cat || 75 || 89 || 2 || || ES-Cat || 69 || 83 || 0

FI || 98 || 98 || 2 || || FI || 92 || 93 || 6

FR || 89 || 96 || 0 || || FR || 59 || 64 || 0

HU || 85 || 85 || 0 || || HU || 80 || 80 || 0

IE || 100 || 100 || 32 || || IE || 85 || 98 || 0

IT || 53 || 61 || 0 || || IT || 49 || 63 || 25

LT || 100 || 100 || 0 || || LT || 100 || 100 || 0

LU || 100 || 100 || 0 || || LU || 60 || 60 || 0

LV || 100 || 100 || 0 || || LV || 100 || 100 || 0

MT || 73 || 87 || 0 || || MT || 13 || 20 || 0

NL || 100 || 100 || 0 || || NL || 61 || 65 || 0

PL || 82 || 83 || 1 || || PL || 93 || 96 || 0

PT || 98 || No plans || 0 || || PT || 84 || No plans || 1

RO || 100 || 100 || 13 || || RO || 87 || 87 || 0

SE || 87 || 87 || 0 || || SE || 98 || 98 || 0

SI || 100 || 100 || 26 || || SI || 81 || 86 || 0

SK || 69 || 74 || 0 || || SK || 61 || 61 || 26

UK || 79 || 80 || 0 || || UK || 74 || 79 || 0

Table 7.2: Percentage of groundwater (GW) bodies in good quantitative and chemical status in 2009 and 2015, and percentage of groundwater bodies in unknown status in 2009.

Source:WISE

Note: BE* data refers to the RBMPs for the Flemish Region and for the Federal Coastal Waters

8. Results of the assessment at EU level and recommendations

This chapter of the Commission Staff Working Document includes the results of the assessment of the RBMPs adopted and reported by Member States.

8.1. Governance 8.1.1. Introduction

Directive 2000/60/EC sets out a framework for integrated management of all aspects of water policy. A robust legal framework and appropriate and effective multi-level governance structures are essential pre-requisites for successful integrated river basin management. Vertical co-ordination from the European level to the water-body level, as well as horizontal co-ordination of all relevant measures, stakeholders and policies are challenging tasks for administrations. As a geographical area of management the river basin or catchment level is essential.

Criteria for successful water governance structures include effectiveness, clear and effective alignment of objectives, adequate territorial approaches which take the whole catchment as the basis for management, meaningful sectoral and stakeholder involvement, transparency and accountability of the institutions and decisions taken, adequate human and financial resource allocation, and adaptability of structures and policies to changing circumstances. An OECD study (2012) found that key challenges are institutional and territorial fragmentation and badly managed multi-level governance, but also limited capacity at the local level, unclear allocation of roles and responsibilities and questionable resource allocation. This implementation report explores some of these aspects of water governance in the context of the implementation of the WFD.

The basis for the assessment is the analysis of the RBMPs as reported by Member States, alongside WISE electronic reporting, but also an additional study on water governance, carried out in 2012 in the framework of the contract 'Pressures and Measures study'[17]. This study goes beyond the assessment of the RBMPs, which was taken as a starting point. Additional information was collected on all Member States to better understand different aspects of water governance. Member States themselves contributed in an informal and co-operative manner to that study by validating information and providing additional information. The IMPEL network was also consulted on questions related to enforcement.

8.1.2. Administrative arrangements – river basin districts

The Directive defines the River Basin District (RBD) as ‘the area of land and sea, made up of one or more neighbouring river basins together with their associated groundwaters and coastal waters…’. A 'river basin means the area of land from which all surface run-off flows through a sequence of streams, rivers and, possibly, lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta.' One river basin, including all its tributaries, must not be divided between different RBDs. One RBD may however include several (sometimes smaller) river basins, and shall also include associated coastal areas and groundwaters (e.g. Bothnian Bay (SE), Central Apennines (IT), or Adour-Garonne (FR).

The RBD is the main unit for management of river basins as specified in Article 3(1) for which competent authorities (in both national and international RBDs) need to be identified that will apply the rules of the Directive (Article 3(2) and Article 3(3)). Through Article 3(4) and Article 3(5) there is a requirement to co-ordinate the actions (nationally and internationally) to achieve the environmental objectives established by the Directive (Art. 4) through the planned PoMs.

This designation of RBDs is therefore one of the core aspects of the integrated river basin management approach setting out the geographical extent for the co-ordination of water resources. The principle of holistic water management at the catchment level, from source to sea and based on surface waters and associated groundwater, rather than on administrative boundaries, is reflected in the requirement for RBD designation.

In most cases the RBDs have been established respecting the hydrological boundaries of the river basins, thereby keeping the catchment intact. There are however two kinds of cases where the hydrological boundaries seem not to have been respected:

· In some Member States the administrative boundaries, rather than the hydrological boundaries of the catchment, have dictated the designation of the RBD. This was raised in the Court case against Spain (Case C-516/07). Another example is the Sambre RBD in France where the French part of one sub-basin of the Meuse river basin has been separately designated to other parts of the same catchment even in France.

· The more common case relates to transboundary river basins, where the river basin is designated into different RBDs on each respective side of the border. For instance, this is the case for the river basin shared by Italy and Slovenia which is designated as the Eastern Alps RBD in Italy and as the Adriatic Sea RBD in Slovenia. This is also the case for some rivers forming the border between two countries such as the Torne River between Sweden and Finland, designated as The Finnish part of the Torne River RBD in Finland and as part of the Bothnian Bay RBD in Sweden.

Further examples are given in the country specific parts of this report. Transboundary co-operation is further described in section 8.1.7 below.

Following the initial designation of RBDs in 2004, and after a number of changes, there are now 128 or 170  River Basin Districts in the EU depending on how national parts of international RBDs are counted. As explained in section 5.1, there is no one-to-one relationship between the number of RBDs and the number of RBMPs reported.

  

Figure   8.1.1: Map of River Basin Districts in Europe (Better quality maps are available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/index_en.htm )

8.1.3. Administrative arrangements – competent authorities

The WFD requires the designation of competent authorities (Article 3, Annex I) within each RBD including for the portion of any international RBD lying within their territory. Member States notified the Commission of their competent authorities in 2004. In addition to name and geographical coverage, information was also provided on the legal and administrative responsibilities of each competent authority and of its role within each RBD. Where the competent authority acts as a co-ordinating body for other competent authorities, a list is required of these bodies together with a summary of the institutional relationships established to ensure co-ordination. The RBMPs should also include a list of competent authorities in accordance with Annex I (WFD Annex VII.10.).

As a follow-up to the assessment of administrative arrangements in the first WFD implementation report in 2007, the set-up and functioning of these administrative arrangements were analysed for the present assessment of the RBMPs.

All Member States reported information to WISE on which institutions are the main competent authority and which main authority is responsible for the WFD.

In 23 (of 112) RBMPs it is stated that one single authority is responsible for the implementation of all WFD activities[18].  Most often this main authority is the Ministry of Environment.  In some Member States, specific new River Basin District Authorities have been established for the purposes of the WFD, such as in Sweden and the Czech Republic.  In 84 RBMPs (of 112) or 20 Member States it is reported that competences are split between different authorities with responsibilities for different water management related issues. Examples of such divisions are between regional authorities (60 RBMPs) or sub-basin/sub-units authorities(26 RBMPs)[19]. In some cases different authorities are responsible for specific water categories, most commonly for coastal waters versus inland waters (12 of 112 RBMPS), but in some cases there are also different authorities for groundwater compared to surface waters. Most often it is the case that one competent authority (whether national, regional, or basin specific) is responsible for core water management issues (water supply, waste water treatment, permitting, reporting, spatial planning, nature conservation, agriculture, navigation, energy, fisheries, other).

Some Member States have adapted their water administrations to ensure better implementation of the WFD, for instance Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Luxembourg, Latvia and Sweden indicate that they have established new authorities as a result of the WFD.  However, in the vast majority of cases there has been no adaptation of existing structures to support the implementation of the Directive.

Of the 84 RBMPs that identified divisions of responsibilities between different authorities for the implementation of the Directive, 80% noted that there were co-ordination mechanisms in-place to ensure integration of the management of water between different regions, sub-basins, water categories and sectors. These institutional relationships and co-ordination mechanisms are sometimes very complex and not clearly described in the RBMPs. The degree of co-ordination among authorities at the RBD scale is also variable: from exchange of information, to development of non-legally or legally binding guidance documents for implementation, to a mechanism requiring the agreement of the authorities on a single RBMP.

The WFD requires vertical coordination, in the sense that waterbody level management is required and, at the same time, that Member States ensure that all requirements of the Directive are co-ordinated, including the PoMs, to ensure the achievement of the environmental objectives at the level of the RBD (Article 3.4 WFD). Given that the RBD is the geographical unit of management, incorporating inland waters, coastal waters and groundwater into the integrated framework, the relatively low number of RBMPs reporting a split of responsibilities between different water categories can be viewed as a positive sign of integration of the management of all categories.

Whilst the main, often central, co-ordinating competent authority is often also responsible for key tasks like developing RBMPs and establishing monitoring networks, there can also be a combination of authorities at different levels carrying out core tasks, notably the development of RBMPs and PoMs. Whilst in most Member States the main co-ordinating WFD authority is the central authority, there can also be a combination of different levels. In Austria, for instance, the main competent authority is the Federal State, although it delegates certain implementation powers to the states (regions) ,whilst in countries like Germany and Belgium the states (regions) maintain responsibility. Chapter 8.10 on Programmes of Measures and the subsequent chapters on measures further address the roles and responsibility for the implementation of the specific measures.

Geographical level of the  Competent authority (CA) || Lead Competent authority (CA) || Supporting Competent authority (CA)

National, including for federal or quasi federal states || 26  || 1

Regional units of national administration ||   || 11

Autonomous Regions || 7 || 6

RBD / catchment authorities || 3 || 6

Local authorities || 3 || 8

Table 8.1.1:  Main and supporting authorities by geographical level. The "national" authority is in most cases the Ministry of environment   

Source: Pressures & Measures study, task 1 - Governance.

The degree to which the main WFD competent authority is also responsible for other key pieces of water related legislation, including basic measures (Article 11.3.a) and other sectors, may also have an impact on the effectiveness of the implementation of water policies. In some countries, a very complex matrix of responsible authorities has been set up, while in others there are a high number of actors involved in the implementation of the measures. These types of set-up will likely require a very strong co-ordination and a high level of exchange of information which will in turn be very costly. Furthermore, unless co-ordination mechanisms are very clearly explained it may be difficult for interested parties to see how a common goal can be reached.

|| Water directives || Other Environmental Policies and  Directives

UWWT || Nitrates || Bathing Waters || Drinking Water || Floods || Marine || Habitats || Climate

Main CA lead || 22 || 8 || 10 || 7 || 20 || 21 || 16 || 14

Shared involvement || 2 || 9 || 5 || 6 || 0 || 3 || 4 || 8

Total CA involvement || 24 || 17 || 15 || 13 || 20 || 21 || 20 || 22

Table 8.1.2.a) Main WFD competent authorities' responsibilities for other water and environmental directives and policies (number of Member States)

|| Key economic sectors

Agriculture || Energy || Transport || Industry (IPPC) || Industry (non-IPPC) || Mining

Main CA lead || 6 || 2 || 2 || 7 || 4 || 3

Shared involvement || 2 || 3 || 2 || 6 || 4 || 4

Total CA involvement || 8 || 5 || 4 || 13 || 8 || 7

Table 8.1.2.b) Involvement of the WFD competent authorities in key economic sectors (number of Member States)

Table 8.1.2a and b: Overview on when the main WFD authority is responsible also for other EU directives and for other key sectors, or not.  If the responsibility is shared between the main WFD authority and other authority this is indicated. A table including the name of the respective authorities is included in the 'Pressures and Measures study'.

Source : Pressures & Measures study, task 1 - Governance.

This division of responsibility between different authorities is not necessarily a problem, provided that the co-ordination mechanisms are clear and adequate to ensure integrated water management, nor is it in contradiction to the Directive requirements. It is however to be noted that coherent management of all water resources demands more of the administrative structures. As mentioned above, 80% of RBMPs where several authorities were indicated included information on co-ordination mechanisms.

Examples of such co-ordination mechanisms between sectors show a variety of high-level co-ordination mechanisms at ministerial level to a strong role of the WFD competent authority, as well as via more technical working groups and liaison panels. Important co-ordination takes place via the permitting procedures. A further important mechanism for co-ordination is when authorities responsible for other sectors are involved or consulted in the preparation phase of the RBMPs.

Coordination approach || Member State

Coordination organised by one central authority. || AT, DK, FI, IE, LT, LV, NL, PT

Coordination organised by more than one central authority. || HU

RBD authorities coordinate. || BG, SE

Table 8.1.3: Table giving illustrative examples of different mechanisms for coordination between WFD competent authorities and other authorities with responsibilities for other key related sectors. This table is not necessarily inclusive of all models of all MS.

Source: Pressures & Measures study, task 1 - Governance.

Article 11.3 (WFD) sets out a number of basic WFD water related measures to control abstractions, impoundments, artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies, point source discharges,  diffuse sources pollution and other measures including measures to ensure hydromorphological conditions are consistent with ecological status. This should be controlled by prior authorisations, prior regulation and/or registration or prohibitions depending on the nature of the water management issue. These control mechanisms must be reviewed periodically and if necessary updated, and relevant permits and authorisations must be examined and reviewed so that the environmental objectives can be reached (Article 11.5). The governance mechanisms for different types of water related permits were therefore investigated[20], and it was found that there are different mechanisms in the different Member States.

Figure 8.1.2 : Division of responsibility for monitoring as well as water related permits at different geographic levels, by numbers of Member States 

Source: Pressures & Measures study, task 1 - Governance.

Where more than one authority is responsible for issuing such permits, there are usually co-ordination mechanisms in place and some illustrative examples are given:

· As the main supervising authority for all types of permits, the regional authorities have a key role. All companies which require a permit (water abstraction, impoundment, hydromorphological alteration) provide an annual environmental report to the County Administrative Board. (Sweden).

· Decentralised regional authorities (Regional State Administrative Agencies) work closely with local authorities and collect statements from other authorities (ELY-centres) regarding possible impacts of plans on RBMP objectives. (Finland).

· If several authorities are relevant for a certain permit requests, one takes charge based on a set of rules. Also, permit requests can be submitted at the municipality level and will then be automatically transferred to the competent authority. (The Netherlands).

· Inter-state authority co-ordination via information exchange and mutual agreement. (Germany).

· Local authorities generally responsible; follow central authority's guidelines where appropriate. (Ireland).

· The higher (central) authority (Lebensministerium) has overall control. (Austria).

Member States are also required to determine penalties  applicable to breaches of the WFD as written into national laws, that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive (WFD Article 23). There are different strengths and weaknesses in the enforcement mechanisms, which will have an impact on how effectively the RBMPs can be implemented.  Member States have a variety of approaches in organising enforcement activities across their territories. Only a few countries have organised enforcement activities along river basin scales. The few examples are Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Spain, where administrative bodies at RBD or sub-basin level have enforcement powers[21]. While comparable information is not available across all Member States, in most cases the same administrative authorities are responsible for enforcement of permits across different sectors though some differences are seen for IPPC permits.  In other cases there are differences depending on the type of activity or the scale of the activity. Transparency also differs, and some Member States or regional authorities publish annual reports on enforcement activities.

Co-ordination is a key factor where enforcement activities are carried out by several authorities and at different administrative levels. It is noticeable that the local and regional authorities play a large role in the enforcement of water permits. In several Member States the enforcement authority is also the permitting authority. A number of Member States have specific environmental inspectorates, and the police forces are an additional enforcement institution.

MS || Federal State || National environ. authority || Environ. Inspectorates || Regional authorities || RBD authorities || Local authorities || Police forces

AT || F || üa || || ü || || ü || ü

BE || F || || || ü || || ü || ü

BG || || || ü || || ü || ||

CY || || ü || || || || ||

CZ || || || ü || ü || || ü ||

DE || F || || || ü || || ü ||

DK || || ü || || || || ü || üb

EE || || || ü || || || ||

EL || || ü || || ü || || || üb

ES || Q || ü || || ü || ühhh || || üf

FI || || || || (ü)c || || ü ||

FR || || (ü)d || (ü)d || (ü)d || || ü || ü

HU || || || üe || || || ü ||

IE || || ü || || || || ü || ü

IT || Q || || || ü || || || üf

LT || || ü || || || || ||

LU || || ü || || || || ||

LV || || ü || || || || ||

MT || || ü || || || || ||

NL || || ü || || ü || || ü ||

PL || || || ü || || || ||

PT || || || ü || üg || || || ü

RO || || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü

SE || || || || (ü)i || || ü ||

SI || || || ü || || || ||

SK || || ü || ü || || || ü ||

UK || Q || || || ü || || ü ||

Table 8.1.4: Overview of enforcement authorities for water permits across Member States   

Notes: a. For large IPPC installations, b. Police may be called in to assist environmental inspectors: not a main authority, c. Regional Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, d. Enforcement in France involves regional and departmental offices responsible for environment and national agencies and their regional and/or department offices, e. Regional officials of the environmental inspectorates are f. In particular, police at national level, g. Only the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira, h. RBDs that cross Spanish regions (i.e. Autonomous Communities) are of national responsibility; RBDs within a single region are of regional responsibility,  i. County administrations F : Federal system  Q: Quasi-federal system

Source: Pressures & Measures study, task 1 - Governance.

Although there seems to be considerable fragmentation of the responsibilities for water related management issues, there are co-ordination mechanisms in place in most countries. No ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution can be found, and flexibility and subsidiarity in how to determine the optimal institutional set-up is important. It is not possible at this stage to assess the effectiveness of these mechanisms based on the RBMPs, and the big ‘effectiveness test’ for each Member States lies in the degree of achievement of the WFD objectives. The strength of the integration of water related aspects into other policy fields is also not only related to the institutional set-up of authorities, but also depends much on the legal status of the RBMPs.

8.1.4. River Basin Management plans – structure, compliance and legal weight

The RBMP is the main tool for water management of all water bodies within a specified RBD and the contents of the plan are outlined in Annex VII. With respect to water governance, the RBMP shall contain: a general description of the RBD; a summary of the significant pressures and impacts on water bodies; a summary of the measures intended to mitigate the impacts identified; a register of any more detailed plans proposed for sub-basins, sectors, management issues or water categories; a summary of public consultation; and, a list of the competent authorities including the relationship with other authorities co-ordinated within a Member State and a summary of institutional relationships established to ensure co-ordination in international RBDs.

Most Member States have provided one RBMP per national part of the RBD. Sometimes the Programme of Measures is a separate document. In some cases the environmental objectives are established in separate documents and thereby in some cases give the environmental objectives a different status. Specific documents may also be submitted for Strategic Environmental Assessments or to public consultation. A large number of annexes and background documents were reported.

In terms of transparency, it was found that the RBMPs from 11 Member States were considered clear and well structured, whilst in some plans it was difficult to find the relevant information. Many RBMPs made reference to national databases with water specific information per water body (Sweden, Denmark), or waterbody specific fact sheets (UK, Belgium-Flanders), or one central national database where all information is gathered (Germany, Wasserblick). When a background document is referred to in the RBMP but where it is neither reported, nor available on the respective webpages, the Commission has raised this with the Member States. It is crucial for transparency of the RBMPs that this information is available also to the public. In a few cases, information was not provided in a way that ensured that the RBMP was easy to digest. The key concern with regard to transparency is, however, not necessarily related to the clarity of the drafting or structure of the plan; it is related to the absence of relevant information at a water body level. This is addressed further below in the sections on monitoring, environmental objectives and PoMs.

Of the 71 RBMPs that indicated that there were more detailed sub-plans (in accordance with Article 13.5), 62% had a focus on sub-basins/sub-units (such as Italy, the Czech Republic, Finland, Romania, Sweden (1 RBD), Slovakia, UK). 45% of RBMPs reported that sub-plans had been developed for different administrative regions (Italy, Poland, Germany, UK). In some cases there were separate plans for specific water categories, most commonly for coastal waters (38 %).

The shortcomings identified in this report in relation to the different obligations are part of the overall completeness assessment. The legal framework sets out a stepwise approach and if one requirement is not complete or correctly carried out, it may pose obstacles for subsequent steps in the implementation process. In many cases the lack of, for instance, monitoring data or waterbody-specific information on classification, is a result of a lack of implementation in previous steps.

Clear and complete RBMPs are also important for accountability as it is also the main tool for communicating to interested parties, including the public, how integrated water management is, or will be, carried out. Incomplete draft RBMPs, or where draft background documents referred to are not made available upon request in a timely manner in the public consultation process, mean that interested parties are not given sufficient information to enable them to express their views in a meaningful way.

The legal status of the RBMPs, PoMs and the environmental objectives differs among Member States. The Directive requires Member States to make the environmental objectives, and the measures to reach those objectives, operational through the RBMP. The legal weight of the document is therefore crucial in terms of the impact the WFD objectives can have on everyday water management decisions as well as decisions taken in other policy fields. The country specific parts of this document include further information on[22]:

· The legal status of the RBMPs, dependent on the rank of the RBMP within the national hierarchical order of policy and legal acts, considering its denomination, the adopting authority and the procedure for its adoption.

· The legal ‘effect’ of the RBMP in relation to other acts such as individual decisions on permit or spatial planning instruments. Here, the question relates more to the operational effect of the RBMP and would typically be regulated in the framework legislation on water or other relevant legal acts, such as on territorial planning. The key issue is whether or not the plan has a legal effect on these other decisions and instruments. The legal ‘effect’ should be considered not only in terms of legal relations but also considering how operational is the plan, and how detailed and prescriptive are the measures provided for within the plan. It also implies looking at the alignment of the different decision-making processes over time.

Weak legal power of the RBMPs, and therefore also the legal weight of the environmental objectives, can be particularly problematic in relation to the implementation of the PoMs, such as the basic measures (set out in Article 11.3.b-l ) and their periodic reviews linked to whether the environmental 'objectives are unlikely to be achieved'. It appears that in many cases the rights to abstract water are based on old land ownership rights, or the right to impound water for power production are based on legal acts pre-dating the adoption of the WFD. Despite the requirements of the WFD, it now appears that the national legal and administrative tools have not always been adopted to provide the legal base for this revision.

The RBMP’s legal status is primarily determined through the type of act which ultimately approves the plan, in particular the level of that act.

Level of approvals of the RBMP || Member States

Parliament || NL

Government or Council of ministers || BE FL (regional government) CY, CZ, EE, ES, FI  HU, IT, LT, LU, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, UK (devolved government/Assembly in Wales)

The RBMP is adopted by the Ministry of Environment || AT (Federal Ministry), BG, DE (Länder Ministry), DK, LV, MT

The RBMP is adopted by decentralised administration || EL, FR, SE

Table 8.1.5 Indicative overview of the level of approval of the RBMPs. Full categorisation of which model applies to which MS is included in the 'Pressures and Measures Study' - Governance report and country specific parts of the Commission Staff Working Document.

Source: Pressures & Measures study, task 1 - Governance.

                                                                                                          

There is some form of gradation as to the extent the RBMP is ‘binding’, as reflected in the different way the legal requirement is formulated: take into account, have regard to, be compatible, be in conformity, etc. Without defining a precise typology, the legal effect of the RBMP can be distinguished according to the following broad categories (and in relation to individual administrative decisions only):

                                                                                                          

Type fo act and mechanism || Comment || Member States

Administrative decisions related to water should take into account the RBMP || This obligation is rather vague. It has been interpreted in some countries as the obligation not to contradict the RBMP without clear justification. || BE FL, CZ, DE, FI, HU, IE,  SE, SI, SK, UK

Administrative decisions related to water should conform to or be compatible with the RBMP || The obligation implies that the administrative decisions cannot contradict the RBMP. || AT, BG,  DK, EL, ES, FR, PL, PT, RO, SE

No specific legal provisions on status. The RBMP is rather considered as a general planning document with limited legal effect. || In such cases, it is mainly left to the approach that will be adopted in practice by the Competent Authorities || CY, EE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL

Table 8.1.6  Indicative overview of different characteristics of RBMP indicating various grades of legal effect Full categorisation of which model applies to which MS is included in the 'Pressures and Measures Study' - Governance report and country specific parts of the Commission Staff Working Document.

Source:  Pressures & Measures study, task 1 - Governance.

The analysis of the legal status and effect of RBMPs and PoMs in the Member States show a variety of situations which make it difficult to draw clear-cut conclusions, and the notion itself of ‘binding’ varies from one Member State to another. Although the notion of what constitutes a legally ‘binding’ document is not always clear, there seems to be some form of gradation as to the extent that the RBMP is ‘binding’, as reflected in the different way the legal requirement is formulated: ‘take into account’, ‘have regard to’, ‘be compatible with’, ‘be in conformity with’, etc. A RBMP or PoM may not be binding as a whole but some parts or some measures may be.

Closely linked to the legal weight of the RBMPs (including objectives and measures) is the role of the plans in relation to other sectors and to different responsible authorities. The country specific parts of the Commission Staff Working Document. include information on the approving authority, the type of act adopting the RBMPs or PoMs, the place in the hierarchy of norms and legal status as well as the relationship of the RBMPs with individual decisions for each Member State.

The relationship between RBMPs including the environmental objectives and other individual permitting decisions should also be considered in relation to specific types of permitting decisions[23]. Whilst in most Member States there is a direct legal effect of the RBMPs and the WFD objectives for different sectors, often through the legal weight of the RBMPs linked to their rank amongst legal and administrative acts. However, few Member States have explicit provisions of reviews of such permits and even fewer have aligned the timetables with the reviews of the WFD (every 6 years). The existence of specific circumstances triggering these reviews, notably non- achievements of WFD objectives, is crucial. This last instance is generally reflected in the legislation as part of the transposition of the WFD, but only in general terms.

  || Effect || Explicit provision on review || Alignment of timeline

|| Hydropower || Agriculture || Industry || Hydropower || Agriculture || Industry || Hydropower || Agriculture || Industry

AT || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X

BE (FL) || √ || X || √ || X || X || X || X || X || X

BG || X || √ || √ ||  X || √ || X || X || √ || X

CY || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X || X || X || X

CZ || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X || X || X || X

DE* || √ || √ || √ || - || - || - || - || - || -

DK || √ || √ || √ || √ || X || X || √ || X || X

EE || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X || X || X || X

EL || √ || √ || √ || X || √ || √ || X || X || X

ES || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X

FR || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || X || √ || X

FI || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X || X || X || X

HU || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X || X || X || X

IE || X || X || √ || X || X || √ || X || X || √

IT || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X || X || X || X

LT || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X

LU || √ || X || √ || √ || X || √ || X || X || X

LV || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X || X || X || X

MT || X || X || X || X || X || X || X || X || X

NL || √ || √ || √ || √ || X || √ || X || X || X

PL || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X || X || X || X

PT || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X

RO || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || √

SE** || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X

SI || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X

SK || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X || X || X || X

UK || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ || X || X || X

%  √ || 85% || 85% || 96% || 44% || 41% || 48% || 7% || 11% || 7%

Table 8.1.7:  Relationship of WFD RBMPs, including objectives with specific permits/concessions for key sectors, and % of Member States. (√ =Yes, x=no)

Notes : * In Germany, the situation varies from one Federal state to another.  While there is an obligation to conform to the environmental objectives as set in the RBMP when granting permits, there is no explicit provision on revision and alignment of timeline. ** This relates only to PoMs and EQS

Source:  Pressures & Measures study, Task 1, Governance.

Figure 8.1.3 : Relationship of WFD RBMPs, including objectives with specific permits/concessions for key sectors, by number of Member State. See previosu table  for comments.

Source:  Pressures & Measures study, Task 1, Governance.

The degree to which the relationships between the RBMPs and sectoral policy plans are regulated is equally important, not least for those dealing with land use and spatial planning, given the important links between water scarcity management and land use. In this case it appears that, in principle, there should be such positive links with land use plans (74% Member States), flood risk plans (89% Member States) and spatial planning (78% Member States).[24]

The different models of legal authority of the RBMPs do not all necessarily seem to effectively provide the means for Member States to ensure that environmental objectives are met. Where there seems to be a significant shortcoming that can be traced back to the transposition of the Directive, and where the weakness of the transposition was not identified before the full nature and content of the RBMP were presented, the Commission does not exclude the need for Member States to review the relevant national legislation.

Whilst the RBMP had to be adopted at the latest 22.12.2009, Article 11.7 requires all ‘measures shall be made operational at the latest’ 22.12.2012. Article 15.3 also requires an interim report to be submitted at that date to include a description of 'progress in implementation of the planned programmes of measures'. This assessment therefore recognises that the RBMPs as assessed may not include all information in relation to the progress of specific measures. However the Commission expected that the RBMPs should provide a summary of the programmes of measures that also sets out 'the ways in which the objectives established under article 4 are thereby to be achieved'.

Many RBMPs are vague in this regard and water body specific information on which measures are planned to be take is rare, leading to weakening of the role of the RBMPs themselves and leading to uncertainly for interested parties (such as the public, economic actors or local authorities). Furthermore, it is very important that the level of detail is such that it is possible to discern which measures are planned for the particular water bodies. This should also be taken into account in the draft RBMPs that are submitted for consultation to the public and interested parties. Unless this level of detail is provided, meaningful consultation of interested parties is not possible since they will be prevented from understanding the extent of the action that is going to be taken. The process of ’making the measures operational by 2012’ is not necessarily subject to public scrutiny, which again reinforces the importance of ensuring that draft RBMPs are sufficiently detailed. Some Member States are carrying out further consultations on sub-plans, for instance the local authority level water plans in Denmark. It is, however, also important to underline the importance of the RBMP consultations as these provide the catchment overview of measures which enables strategic decisions to be taken at that level. When the above mentioned lack of information or lack of access to background information relating to measures is particularly problematic. The Commission will also assess the interim reports on the progress of measures.

Closely linked to this is the availability of financial resources for the implementation of water management measures, including for tasks such as ensuring appropriate monitoring. With the financial crisis in Europe, governmental expenditure is subject to severe restrictions in many countries and it appears this is also being reflected in the rate of implementation of the programmes of measures. Not all RBMPs include information about the overall costs of implementation of the plans, and even in cases where that information is provided, there are no binding financial commitments linked to the plans.

8.1.5. Integration and co-ordination at the river basin district level: territorial and sectorial integration

The Directive requires that ’Member States shall ensure that the requirements of this Directive for the achievement of the environmental objectives established under Article 4, and in particular all programs of measures are coordinated for the whole of the river basin district’(Article 3.4). To assess the effectiveness of the governance structures to achieve this requirement, different aspects of integration need to be further explored in addition to the institutions and nature of the RBMPs as analysed above, notably territorial co-ordination, sectoral integration and the involvement of interested parties or stakeholders. International co-ordination is also further explored in section 8.1.7.

Most Member States have prepared RBMPs for each RBD within their territory, and in many cases the RBDs coincide with the river basins. In some cases there are several river basins in each RBD, and in these instances the catchment level co-ordination is sometimes less clear. There are good examples of ‘river basin sub-plans’ (SE2), or specific sections in the overall RBMPs on sub-basins or individual river basins. Sometimes the evidence of coherent catchment level co-ordination is not apparent, although there are some encouraging examples.

Whilst assessing the RBMPs it became clear that there were national approaches to water management in most cases (69%), with 9% of plans reporting RBD specific approaches. In some Member States the approach differs in different regions.[25] Where there are such distinctive differences, the assessment of the RBMPs has distinguished between such regions of RBDs (or groups of RBDs).

Whilst different regional approaches, per se, is not necessarily a problem, distinctively different approaches within the same catchment can pose problems relating to co-ordination and equal treatment of economic actors. Some illustrative examples of where this seems to be a problem are listed here, but there may be equally important problems in other countries. Further information is available in the country specific parts of the Commission Staff Working Document.

· Germany: Germany is a Federal State with 16 Federal States which hold the majority of the competence in water management. Although there are co-ordination mechanisms in place between the Federal States, many aspects of implementation of the RBMPs are different from one Federal State to another, even within the same RBD. The Commission understands that the co-ordination body in Germany – LAWA[26] – is in the process of improving this co-ordination and coherence in water management between the Federal States for the second RBMP cycle.

· Belgium: Belgium is a federation of three regions (the Flemish, Brussels and Wallonia Regions). Belgium has only international River Basin Districts (Meuse, Scheldt, and small part of the Rhine and Seine RBDs). Whilst co-ordination is taking place at the international 'roof-level’ (A-level) and whilst there are national co-ordination mechanisms in place, there are severe delays in the adoption of the RBMPs in the upstream regions of Wallonia and Brussels compared to the downstream Flanders Region. This may mean that coherent co-ordination of the programmes of measures, and preparation of the plans including public consultation, becomes very difficult.

· Italy: In recent years the Italian state has transferred significant powers to the regional level. The regions in Italy are responsible for a range of activities for water management, including: monitoring; permitting and enforcement (an activity partially shared with the national level); and planning (shared with RBD level). The RBMPs are based on monitoring and analysis undertaken at regional level. Whilst rules and guidance for these activities are set at national level, the regions have implemented national provisions at different paces. As a result, the information provided on water bodies – including assessments of good status as well as the determination of objectives and exemptions – varies considerably across regions, also those within common RBDs. There has been some co-ordination at RBD level among regions but it appears that co-ordination has been only partial in the first round of RBMPs.

Member States with distinctively different approaches to WFD implementation within their catchments are recommended to further enhance co-ordination within their territory to ensure environmental objectives can be reached. This will encourage common approaches for characterisation, monitoring and assessment, co-ordinated measures, and delivery of consistent data among other things.

The WFD includes key requirements on how the RBMPs shall be the framework for integrating different policies and sectors. In addition to the analysis of administrative arrangements above, the consideration of all types of significant anthropogenic pressures is at the core of the WFD with one of the main building blocks being 'the review of impacts of human activity on the status of water' required the first time in 2005 by Article 5. Based on this analysis, monitoring programmes shall be developed to identify the extent of the problem related to a specific pressure to be addressed in the programmes of measures following a consultation process on significant water management issues and draft RBMPs. All potential policy sectors shall therefore be addressed by the RBMPs, including those not part of traditional water management, for instance the agriculture sector, energy production. Article 10 on the 'combined approach' further reinforces policy integration in that if it is not sufficient to implement point source control measures such as the IPPC/IED Directive, UWWT Directive, or diffuse pollution Directives like the Nitrates Directive, in order to reach good status then more stringent measures have to be put in place for sources controlled by those Directives and any other relevant legislation. The issue of groundwater measures, for instance, shows that there are many Member States who have adopted supplementary measures in addition to the basic measures listed in Article 10 in order to reach groundwater chemical status requirements.

To ensure co-ordination and policy coherence, the degree to which the main competent authority is responsible for the different water management issues can be indicative of the degree of co-ordination at the RBD level or between sectors. Another indication on the degree to which the RBMPs are tools for policy integration is the degree to which they integrate references to the different relevant policy fields. Chapter 8.10 to 8.19 provide further information on the degree to which, for instance, agriculture, energy, transport or industrial pollution measures are included in the RBMPs.

The Directive leaves the decision on the use of sub-plans to Member States (Article 13.5 WFD – ‘more detailed programmes and management plans’). Sub-plans may offer Member States the opportunity to provide more details on the issues and actions impacting at different levels within the RBD. Of the 71 RBMPs referring to sub-plans, these sub-plans cover, for instance, agriculture (59%), chemical industry (33%), hydropower (13%), transport (22%), other sectors including energy (general), spatial planning, mining, tourism. The same analysis can be made for other related water management issues and key policy areas (such as climate change, agriculture nutrient pollution or flood protection) where the RBMPs have integrated these issues via such sub-plans.

Figure 8.1.4: Number of RBMPs reporting more detailed sub-plans addressing different water management issues. Others include for instance aqueducts, biodiversity, nature protection and Natura 2000, environmental health.

Source: WISE and RBMPs

Making references to other sectors in the RBMPs may not, however, guarantee the full policy coherence and policy integration between the WFD and other policies. The effectiveness of the RBMPs to play this role is closely linked to the legal weight of the RBMPs in relation to other policy sectors, as discussed in section 8.1.4 above.

8.1.6. Integration and coordination at the river basin district level: stakeholder involvement

Another key mechanism for sectoral and territorial integration is the stakeholder involvement in the development of RBMPs by the requirement to 'encourage the active involvement of interested parties in the implementation' of the RBMPs, in particular in the development of plans (Article 14) which sets out a three stage process of stakeholder and public consultation requiring at least six months. The purpose is to involve all stakeholders, including the public, with a view to ensuring that the best and most cost-effective measures are identified and selected, and that acceptance of the measures is built into the process.

Whilst the consultation on the work programme is an obligation to ensure all interested parties are informed of the consultation timetables and mechanism for preparing the RBMPs (3 years before adoption), the two latter steps on significant water management issues (2 years before adoption) and draft RBMPs (1 year after adoption) offer the possibility to hold substantial discussions on the identification of pressures and measures. Background documents must be made available and the public consultation must be open for at least six months.

The requirement to conduct a consultation on draft RBMPs lasting six months was largely complied with, whilst this is not clear for 4 RBMPs (Catalonia (ES), Eastern Alps and Po (IT), Reunion Island (FR)). Several Member States built up serious delays in starting the last round of consultations (see table 6.2) and some consultations have either only just started (as of July 2012- Belgium- Wallonia) or have not even started yet (part of Spain and Greece and the plan of Madeira)[27].

During the first decade of implementation of the WFD, public participation and stakeholder involvement have also become a natural element of river basin management planning. Member States have undertaken considerable efforts in consulting stakeholders and the public and have used a variety of different outreach methods. Nonetheless, the impact of the consultation on the RBMPs is not always clear.

A background document issued for the second European Water Conference, organised by the European Commission halfway through the consultation period for the draft RBMPs (2-3 April 2009) includes an analysis of the timelines, methods and results of the consultation practices until that date, alongside an analysis of the significant water management issues[28].

 The RBMPs indicated that a wide range of outreach methods and consultation mechanisms were used for reaching out to and consulting with stakeholders (including the public).

Figure  8.1.5: Means of informing stakeholders and the public, as well as consulting.

Source: WISE and RBMPs.

The most predominant outreach methods were to use the internet for announcing the consultation and for carrying out the consultation by inviting comments via the web. Media was used to a large extent for announcing the consultations, and local authorities played a big role in reaching out. In many cases the interested parties known to the authorities were directly invited to respond. Innovative and interactive outreach methods like travelling exhibitions and means the creation of game shows, board games and web-based material for schools also aim at increasing the awareness of water management issues. In some countries telephone and households surveys were used.

Draft RBMPs were also subject to written consultation and were discussed at a variety of meetings, workshops, and different targeted sector-specific activities. Dedicated telephone lines to engage stakeholders on the draft plans were maintained.  Direct mailing to all households was not carried out in many countries but where that was done, notably in some French RBDs, the response rates were relatively high.

In addition to carrying out consultations on the draft RBMPs with all interested parties, some Member States also involved them in the drafting of the draft RBMPs which seem to have led to easier adoption procedures.[29]  On the other hand, some Member States seems to have only consulted local authorities at the same time as other stakeholders, rather than develop the draft RBMPs with them. Some Member States carried out their consultation in multiple stages (SI, DK) on different drafts of RBMPs.

It is also important to assess which kind of stakeholders were involved and whether these coincide with the sectors of relevant pressures in the respective Member States. As stated above many Member States have  consulted local authorities as stakeholders, rather than being involved in the drafting of the plans. The other most important stakeholder groups are NGOs/nature protection groups, the agriculture sector, the water and sanitation sector and the industry and water industry sectors.

Figure 8.1.6:  Stakeholders actively involved in consultation process Other stakeholder groups included sport/recreation, academic institutes, national parks, forestry, tourism,  spatial planning, other ministries.

Source: WISE and RBMPs

The WFD requires Member states to include 'a summary of the public information and consultation measures taken, their results and the changes to the plan made as a consequence' in the RBMPs (annex VII.A.9). While there have been many responses by stakeholders to the consultation it has been difficult to assess the real impact of consultations on the RBMPs, including on programmes of measures or other aspects of the WFD implementation. However, the analysis of the 112 RBMPs has shown the following impacts as a result of consultation.

Figure 8.1.7: Type of impacts of public consultation reported in the RBMPs. Other changes include modification of strategic environmental assessment, commitment to future reporting, environmental objectives for mining adjusted, status assessments of HMWBs/AWBs to be undertaken in next cycle, revision of funding for PoMs, adjustment of EQSs, revisions to take account of climate change predictions (UK), improved local focus/ developing community partnerships (UK).

Source: RBMPs

It appears that in some cases the consultation led to less stringent measures or objectives being defined but in some cases an increased level of ambition was reported (France, UK). Over 30% of RBMPs made commitments to undertake further research and/or to action in the next RBMP cycle. For some Member States, no information was provided on the impact of the consultations on the final RBMPs: Austria, Czech Republic, Germany (2 of the RBMPs), Italy (2 of the RBMPs), Luxembourg.

The Directive also requires on-going involvement of interested parties in the implementation of the Directive (Article 14.1 WFD). 20 Member States have formal processes in place to involve stakeholders but for other countries it is either not the case (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece), it is unclear (Hungary, Italy, Portugal) or no information could be found (Poland). Advisory bodies have been set up in 16 Member States to monitor implementation of the WFD although this is not the case in Austria, Bulgaria or Romania, and the information is unclear or not found in Belgium, Finland, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden. [30]

It is clear that the extensive consultations and the mechanisms for on-going involvement have been one of the achievements of the WFD so far but an analysis of how effective they have been is difficult to carry out on the basis of the information reported in the RBMPs. A Flash Eurobarometer carried out in January-February 2009 showed there was some general awareness (14%) of these consultations among the general public, but it also showed a high interest in getting involved (44%) although the respondents to the survey were not aware of the scheme at the time of the survey.[31]

The Commission has also been informed, via complaints received, of cases where the consultations have not, in the view of the complainants, been undertaken in a way that meaningful comments can be provided by the consulted parties. This may be, for instance, due to the lack of information provided in the plans or the non-availability of background documents. The Commission is further investigating such complaints.

8.1.7. International co-ordination and co-operation

One of the main new elements introduced by the WFD was the legal requirement for transboundary co-operation. 60% of the EU territory is covered by international river basins, and 55 of the 110 RBDs are considered international. Member States 'shall ensure co-ordination with a view of producing a single RBMP'  when the RBDs are international. Where a third country shares a river basin with an EU Member State, the Member State 'shall endeavour to produce' such a plan for the same purpose (WFD Article 13). ‘For international river basin districts the Member States concerned shall together ensure this co-ordination’ (WFD Article 3.4).

International co-operation has been significantly enhanced since the adoption of the WFD, in particular in some of the larger international basins. International RBMPs have been adopted in catchments like the larger Danube, Rhine, Elbe, Scheldt, Odra, Meuse, Ems basins but also in the smaller basins shared by the UK and Ireland. Some form of co-operation and co-ordination is on-going in most river basins shared between EU Member States, or with third countries. Co-operation is, however, generally less developed in smaller transboundary catchments where there is no co-ordinating body or agreement in place, and sometimes international co-ordination is not even mentioned in the RBMPs. The highest degree of co-ordination is achieved where international RBMPs are developed.

In some international river basins there has been extensive co-operation for many years, such as in the Rhine where there has been important progress on pollution reduction, and the establishment of hydromorphological measures that has, for instance, led to salmon once again being reintroduced. Most international river conventions have since been amended to fulfil the role of co-ordination of the implementation of the WFD, for instance in the Danube.

Of the 112 RBMPs assessed, 66 RBMPs were reported as ‘international’ with river basins shared between Member States or Member States and third countries. 29 of those national RBMPs indicated that they were linked to the 10 international RBMPs. This assessment shows that co-ordination has taken place on a number of specific requirements of the Directive as further explained later in this report. For instance measures related to key transboundary water management issues like river continuity, nutrient reduction and chemical pollution are indicated as being coordinated (altogether in around 40% of the RBMPs). 40% of the international RBMPs also indicate that there are transboundary monitoring programmes for shared rivers and just over 20% for shared groundwater. The relatively high percentage of RBMPs reporting co-operation on public participation and co-ordination is due to the outreach and consultation activities undertaken by the International River Commissions such as the International Commission on the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR).

Figure  8.1.8 : Issues  coordinated internationally as reported in the reported in the RBMPs (% of national parts of  international RBMPs) * mostly via international river commissions.**  please note is some international river basisn, cooperation on groundwater may notbe  relevant, due to the lack of  transboundary GW bodies   Source: WISE and RBMPs

To further analyse international co-ordination, it is important to base the assessment on the number of transboundary river basins, rather than individual RBMPs as reported to the Commission which most often present the national parts of international RBDs. A detailed inventory of co-operation in the specific international river basins and international RBMPs where they exist has been carried out, and the following conclusions are primarily based on that study unless indicated otherwise[32].

There are altogether approximately 75 transboundary river basins in Europe. 22 of those river basin are shared between EU Member States only (30% of the catchment areas), the rest are shared with third countries. In some cases there are specific international agreements in sub-river basins, in which case they have also been studied separately. 30 such sub-basins have been considered in this assessment. There are many more transboundary sub-basins. A small number of international RBDs have a very small proportion of their territory in the adjoining country. These have not been further assessed here, for instance the Seine with less than 1% in Belgium.

Category || Coordination & Cooperation Degree || Number international river basins, including some selected sub-basins

I || International river basins/sub-basins with formal international agreement & international co-ordinating body& international WFD RBMP || 12

II || International river basin/sub-basins with formal international agreement & international co-ordinating body BUT no international WFD RBMP || 71

III || International river basin/sub-basins with formal international agreement BUT no international co-ordinating body & no international WFD RBMP || 19

IV || International river basin/sub-basins with no formal international agreement & no international co-ordinating body & no international WFD RBMP || 3

Table 8.1.8: Four categories of international river basins or sub-basins used for the analysis of transboundary cooperation.

Source: Pressures & Measures study, Task 1, Governance.

Figure 8.1.9: Map of EUs RBDs indicating to which category they exist. Four categories of international river basins or sub-basins used for the analysis of transboundary cooperation.

Source: Pressures & Measures study, Task 1, Governance.  WISE. Note: Better quality maps are available on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/index_en.htm

From this analysis we see that although there are only 10 international RBMPs in place (Category 1) for the 75 different transboundary catchments (13% of all basins), we see that these RBMPs cover 46% of the catchment areas of all transboundary catchments in the EU. Basins with co-operation agreements and co-operation bodies but no international RBMPs cover 39% (Category 2) and the area where no international co-ordination takes place is 2%.

Figure 8.1.10: Size and percentage of river basins in the 4 international cooperation categories.

Source: Pressures & Measures study, Task 1, Governance.

Figure 8.1.11: Key joint activities coordinated, partially coordinated or un-coordinated in 75 European international river basins.

Source: Pressures & Measures study, Task 1, Governance.

The in-depth analysis[33] of international co-operation based on the survey of Member States’ factsheets for specific catchments (Danube, Rhine, etc) or groups of catchments (for instance all catchments shared between Spain and Portugal are included in one factsheet) showed that there are different degrees of co-operation on a variety of aspects such as data-sharing and identification of significant water management issues and sharing of visions of objectives. The survey also found that there are plans for preparing more international RBMPs in the next cycle and the main achievements and obstacles have also been identified.  

As we can see above, in a number of international river basins there was little or no evidence in the first RBMPs of co-ordination on joint transboundary activities between some Member States or indeed with third countries, for example: Vistula (shared by Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, as well as Ukraine and Belarus); Mestos/Nestos (shared by Bulgaria and Greece); and Isonzo/Soca (shared by Italy and Slovenia). This is also the case for the 33 river basins shared between Sweden and Norway but this is stated to be due to the later timetable for implementation of the WFD in Norway and work is on-going for the second cycle. In some basins like the Rhône[34] (mainly in FR) or the Po (mainly in IT) there is transboundary co-ordination and agreements in place for part of the basins, or specific sub-basins which are transboundary, but the whole catchment is not considered transboundary. The co-ordination between Member States needs to improve in the second cycle to improve the harmonisation of both assessments and measures to address the pressures in the RBD.

The following reasons for not developing international RBMPs seem to be most prevalent:

· In a number of Member States, co-ordinated plans have not been developed due to the small size in one country as in Latvia (Daugava 2%) or Poland (Nemunas 2%).

· Co-ordination mechanisms with non-EU countries have not yet been developed in all cases or been approved by all parties. There has, however, recently been progress in signing such agreements for international catchments shared with the Russian Federation.

· Existing international legal frameworks not yet adapted to the WFD.

· Some Member States claim there are no significant water management issues and water bodies are ‘largely’ in a good status, and therefore plans are not needed.

· Different timetables for the preparation of the national plans were also cited in a number of cases.

The 'Pressures and Measures Study' provides further information in the 32 factsheets developed, analysing the legal framework, the joint activities, whether methodologies have been shared as well as obstacles for co-operation and plans for future co-operation.

8.1.8. Conclusions

Not all Member States have respected the hydrological boundaries when designating RBDs, including when designating international RBDs.

There is considerable fragmentation of the institutional set-up of authorities responsible for different WFD related activities. Although some form of co-ordination mechanism is in place in most Member States, this is not always clear or well explained in the RBMPs. There is not necessarily one model that can be deemed most effective, instead the effectiveness of the governance structures can only be assessed in view of the degree to which the WFD objectives are met in a timely manner.

The different models of legal authority of the RBMPs do not all necessarily seem to effectively provide the means to the Member States to ensure environmental objectives are met. Where there seem to be considerable shortcomings, these can sometimes be traced back to the transposition of the Directive into national law.

There has been extensive consultation of the public and interested parties in the first cycle and in many cases this has resulted in changes to the RBMPs. The type of stakeholders involved largely reflects the key pressures in the Member States.  On-going involvement of stakeholders is in place in many countries. In some cases it was however not clear which the impact was of the consultations on the RBMPs.

International co-operation has been much developed with the implementation of the WFD but international RBMPs are only in place in some, usually the larger RBDs, where there are existing river basin commissions and agreements. Further work is needed to improve co-ordination in the second cycle to ensure the achievements of environmental objectives are co-ordinated across the whole RBD.

8.1.9. Recommendations

· Where there has been serious delays in adoption of the first RBMP, Member States are   expected to propose how further delay can be avoided and synchronisation of planning process will be ensured for the second cycle in their work programmes for the preparation of the second plans (due end 2012). 

· Although many RBMPs are clearly structured and transparent, not all information required is included. One common shortcoming is the lack of water body specific information, and Member States are recommended to provide information at a water level, to ensure transparency (monitoring, status, measures, exemptions, impact of consultations, etc.)

· Some Member States may need to review the legal status of the RBMPs (including objectives and programmes of measures) if it is found that the current legal effect is not sufficient to enshrine compliance with the requirements of the Directive. . This would entail an evaluation of the need for provisions regulating specifically the review of existing water-related individual decisions and planning documents.

· To improve integration both of actors and of sectoral policies, more use should be made of catchment based policies.

· The Commission recommends that Member States further enhance co-ordination within their territory to ensure environmental objectives can be reached, that there are common approaches for characterisation, monitoring and assessment, co-ordination of measures, delivery of consistent data.    

· On-going attention is needed to monitor enforcement activities and ensure their effectiveness, in the context of the Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States.

· In international river basins where international cooperation has not yet been fully established, Member States concerned need to take the necessary steps to improve this coordination in accordance with the Directive.

· Ensure there are clear and effective co-ordination mechanisms in place when different authorities are responsible for core water management related policies and implementation tasks.

· Clear financial commitments are also necessary to ensure measures become operational.

8.2. Characterisation of the River Basin District 8.2.1. Introduction

Article 5 of the WFD requires Member States to undertake an analysis of the characteristics of each RBD or portion of an international RBD falling within their territory. The first characterisation of water bodies had to be finalised by the end of 2004 and reported in March 2005[35]. Member States had to provide a general description of the characteristics of their RBDs (Annex VII, A.1) within the RBMPs.

Characterisation is a key step in the implementation of the WFD and it needs to be undertaken thoroughly and correctly in order to enable the objectives of the Directive to be efficiently and correctly achieved. Characterisation should identify all relevant categories and types of water bodies within the RBD for which specific typologies and reference conditions have to be established. This step is crucial in obtaining robust ecological status assessment and classification systems and in particular correctly identifying water bodies at risk of failing objectives which will be subsequently the focus for implementation of necessary measures for the achievement of objectives.

Water bodies should be delineated at a size that allows the identification and quantification of significant pressures[36]. If water bodies are identified that do not permit an accurate description of the status of the aquatic ecosystems, the impacts of pressures may be masked and not detected. Too small and there may be far too many water bodies for a Member State to deal with in a cost-effective way. The optimum size of a water body is the size that allows the objectivities of the Directive to be most efficiently achieved.

Characterisation also requires the assessment of the risk that a water body may fail (in 2015) the objectives of the Directive unless appropriate measures are taken. The results of the risk assessment inform the monitoring of water bodies and the subsequent classification of status. It is crucial that methodologies used in risk assessment are fit for purpose in the sense of being able to identify and quantify all pressures within the RBD and their potential impact on status of water bodies[37]. If not, (expensive) measures may be incorrectly targeted and objectives may (unexpectedly) not be met.

As part of the characterisation, Member States have defined surface water body types (typology) for each surface water category (i.e. rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters) in each RBD, and have delineated surface and groundwater bodies in accordance with the methodology specified in Annex II of the WFD. This also includes the identification of heavily modified surface water bodies (HMWB)[38] and artificial water bodies (AWB). For each surface water body type, type-specific reference conditions have been established representing the values for that surface water body type at high ecological status.

Each water category (R = Rivers; L = Lakes; T = Transitional Waters; C = Coastal Waters) has to be divided into types based on abiotic descriptors such as altitude, geology, size, etc. using System A or B (Annex II of WFD). The ecological relevance of the different theoretical types has to be demonstrated by cross-checking against biological data such as macroinvertebrates groups and/or species composition. Not all water categories occur in every RBD and/or sub-unit.

Member States are required to identify the ecological status of water bodies by comparing current status with near natural or reference conditions. Reference conditions have to be established for each of the surface water types. They represent the values for that surface water body type at high ecological status.

According to WFD Annex II reference conditions can be established using different methods (without specific ranking):

· Spatially based reference conditions using data from monitoring sites if sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed sites are available.

· When adequate numbers of representative reference sites are not available in a region/type, predictive modelling, using the data available within a region/type or borrowing data from other similar regions/types, can be used in model construction and calibration.

· A combination of the above approaches.

· Where it is not possible to use these methods, reference conditions can be established using expert judgement.

Establishing reference conditions for many quality elements may involve using more than one of the methods described.

The WFD protects all waters independently of their size, but for operational purposes it defines a water body as a ‘discrete and significant’ element of water. The water body is the scale at which status is assessed. The thresholds given in Annex II for System A typology have been used as a possibility for differentiating water bodies but this approach should not exclude smaller water bodies from the protection of the Directive. Member States have flexibility to decide not to designate very small water bodies where, due to the large number of water bodies in a RBD, this would result in a high administrative burden. Instead, Member States can aggregate these small water bodies into groups or include them as part of a larger contiguous water body of the same surface water category and of the same type.

Identifying water bodies will provide for an accurate description of the status of surface water and groundwater requiring information from the characteristics of the river basin and impacts and pressures, further reviews and monitoring programmes.

8.2.2. Water categories in the RBD

The following table presents an overview of the water categories available in each Member State:

Member State || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Comment

AT || Yes || Yes || Not relevant || Not relevant || Landlocked country

BE || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

BG || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

CY || Yes || Yes || No || Yes ||

CZ || Yes || Yes || Not relevant || Not relevant || Landlocked country

DE || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

DK || Yes || Yes || No || Yes ||

EE || Yes || Yes || No || Yes ||

EL || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

ES || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

FI || Yes || Yes || No || Yes ||

FR || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

HU || Yes || Yes || Not relevant || Not relevant || Landlocked country

IE || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

IT || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

LT || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

LU || Yes || No || Not relevant || Not relevant || Landlocked country

LV || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

MT || No || No || No || Yes ||

NL || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

PL || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

PT || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

RO || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

SE || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

SI || Yes || Yes || No || Yes ||

SK || Yes || No || Not relevant || Not relevant || Landlocked country

UK || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes ||

Table 8.2.1: Overview of water categories by Member State

Source: WISE

There are 5 land locked Member States (Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg and Slovakia) for which transitional and coastal waters are not relevant. Six other Member States (Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Malta and Slovenia) with a coast line have not designated any transitional waters though coastal water bodies have been identified. In addition, LU and SK have not designated any lakes.

Malta has not included any rivers and lakes in its RBMP but had identified some small water bodies in the 2004 characterisation. Following the judgement by the Court of Justice on the lack of monitoring for inland surface waters[39], the Maltese authorities are currently developing a monitoring programme for the small rivers and lakes that exist in the island.

8.2.3. Typology of surface waters

Member States have largely used System B from WFD Annex II for the development of the typology.

The following table presents an overview of the number of types reported per water category and Member State:

Member State || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional waters || Coastal waters

AT || 169 || 46 || ||

BE || 11 || 13 || 4 || 2

BG || 58 || 18 || 5 || 6

CY || 3 || 4 || || 3

CZ || 89 || 33 || ||

DE || 38 || 16 || 2 || 10

DK || 6 || 17 || || 17

EE || 7 || 8 || || 6

EL || 17 || 36 || 2 || 5

ES || 46 || 38 || 11 || 18

FI || 17 || 14 || || 14

FR || 146 || 35 || 16 || 41

HU || 25 || 16 || ||

IE || 13 || 14 || 6 || 12

IT || 373 || 24 || 27 || 22

LT || 5 || 3 || 3 || 2

LU || 6 || || ||

LV || 5 || 9 || 1 || 4

MT || || || || 4

NL || 121 || 131 || 4 || 13

PL || 25 || 13 || 4 || 3

PT || 17 || 5 || 5 || 8

RO || 80 || 23 || 2 || 4

SE || 53 || 76 || 2 || 25

SI || 73 || 2 || || 2

SK || 36 || || ||

UK || 45 || 43 || 11 || 19

Table 8.2.2: Overview of the number of types reported per water category and Member State

Source: WISE

Only 50% of the RBMPs assessed indicate that the typology for rivers has been validated against biological data (in the rest there is largely no information about this point). The percentages of RBMPs for lakes, transitional and coastal waters are 44%, 10% and 17% respectively.

The WFD establishes that type-specific reference conditions have to be defined considering Hydromorphological and physico-chemical representing the values of the hydro-morphological and physico-chemical quality elements specified. Furthermore type-specific biological reference conditions shall be established representing the values of the biological quality element for a given water body type at high ecological status. A limited number of Member States have reported to have delineated typology against biological data.

Member State || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional waters || Coastal waters

AT || Yes || Yes || Not relevant || Not relevant

BE* || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || No

BG || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Yes

CY || No || No || Not relevant || No

CZ || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Not relevant || Not relevant

DE || Yes || Partly (some types) || Yes || Partly (some types)

DK || No || No || Not relevant || No

EE || Yes || Yes || Not relevant || Yes

EL || Not assessed

ES** || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info

FI || Yes || Yes || Not relevant || Yes

FR || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types)

HU || No || No || Not relevant || Not relevant

IE || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes

IT || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info

LT || Yes || Yes || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info

LU || Unclear or no info || Not relevant || Not relevant || Not relevant

LV || No || No || No || No

MT || Not relevant || Not relevant || Not relevant || Unclear or no info

NL || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info

PL || Yes || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info

PT || Not assessed

RO || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes

SE || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info

SI || Yes || No || Not relevant || No

SK || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Not relevant || Not relevant

UK || Yes || Yes || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info

Table 8.2.3: Typology tested against biological data

Source: WISE

* Belgium: Flanders and Coastal Waters, ** Spain: Catalonia

Figure 8.2.1: Testing of typology against biological data

Source:WISE

8.2.4. Reference conditions

The establishment of reference conditions and the establishment of ecological class boundaries (i.e. boundary between high and good) are closely interconnected. Considerations assumed and methodologies for the establishment of reference conditions are crucial for the judgement of the risk that individual water bodies will fail to reach the overall objective of good water status.

43% of the RBMPs assessed provide evidence that reference conditions have been set in rivers (for the rest there is largely no information about this point). The percentages of RBMPs for lakes, transitional and coastal waters are 35%, 32% and 40% respectively. In an additional one third of RBMPs evidence is given that reference conditions have been set for at least some types in each water category.

At the Member State level, most had set reference conditions for at least some types in rivers (22 out of the 26 relevant ones), lakes (20 out of the 25 relevant ones), transitional waters (13 out of the 16 relevant ones) and coastal waters (17 out of the 22 relevant ones). Only very few Member States had not set reference conditions.

|| Rivers || Lakes || Transitional waters || Coastal waters

AT || Yes || Yes || Not relevant || Not relevant

BE* || Yes || Yes || Yes || Partly (some types)

BG || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types)

CY || No || No || Not relevant || No

CZ || Partly (some types) || No || Not relevant || Not relevant

DE || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Yes || Partly (some types)

DK || Yes || Partly (some types) || Not relevant || Partly (some types)

EE || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Not relevant || Partly (some types)

EL || Not assessed

ES** || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes

FI || Yes || Yes || Not relevant || Yes

FR || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types)

HU || Yes || Yes || Not relevant || Not relevant

IE || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes

IT || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info || Unclear or no info

LT || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes

LU || Partly (some types) || Not relevant || Not relevant || Not relevant

LV || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes

MT || Not relevant || Not relevant || Not relevant || Partly (some types)

NL || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes

PL || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types)

PT || Not assessed

RO || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes

SE || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Yes || Yes

SI || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Not relevant || No

SK || Yes || Yes || Not relevant || Not relevant

UK || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types) || Partly (some types)

Table 8.2.4: Type-specific reference conditions for each surface water type

Source: WISE

* Belgium: Flanders and Coastal Waters, ** Spain: Catalonia

Figure 8.2.2: Type specific reference conditions established for each surface water type

Source:WISE

According to the Directive, reference conditions need to be established for water body types and quality elements which in turn are represented by parameters indicative of the status of the quality elements. Furthermore, reference conditions should be established for the same quality element indicator that will be used for the classification of ecological status. The main options for establishing reference conditions are:

- Spatially based reference conditions using data from monitoring sites.

- Reference conditions based on predictive modelling.

- Temporally based reference conditions using either historical data or palaeo-reconstructions or a combination of both.

- A combination of the above approaches.

According to Annex II, 1.3.iii of the WFD, where it is not possible to use the methods here above, Member States may use expert judgement to establish the reference conditions.

The following table presents the percentage of RBMPs that have indicated the use of (a combination of) the following methods to set reference conditions: 

Percentage of Member States || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional waters || Coastal waters

Spatial || 44% || 48% || 15% || 30%

Modelling || 15% || 15% || 4% || 11%

Combination of spatial and modelling || 26% || 19% || 15% || 22%

Expert judgement || 56% || 48% || 30% || 41%

Method unclear or no information || 22% || 22% || 19% || 19%

Not relevant or not designated || 3.7% || 7.4% || 41% || 19%

No report || 7.4% || 7.4% || 7.4% || 7.4%

Table 8.2.5: Types of method used to establish reference conditions in surface water categories

Source:WISE

Note that the percentages do not add up to 100% as Member States may use more than one method depending on factors such as the quality element of concern.

Figure 8.2.3: Types of method used to establish reference conditions in surface water categories

Source: WISE

The use of expert judgment to define reference conditions for some quality elements is particularly important in rivers and lakes. Expert judgment may be used where spatial or modelling approaches are not available or not developed and in some cases may be considered less robust than more quantitative approaches. There was no information or it was unclear what methods had been used in a significant proportion of Member States (~20%) for all water categories. Of the methods for establishing reference conditions the use of historical datasets was reported by Germany, Denmark, Romania and the UK. Historical data sets dated back to 1900 for seagrasses in Danish coastal waters and around 1800 for fish fauna in transitional waters in the UK. Palaeo-limnological methods were also used in the UK for diatoms in lakes, and Latvia indicated that scientific research data were used. BE-Flanders reported that values were adapted from those used in neighbouring countries.

8.2.5. Delineation of surface water bodies

The table in the following page presents the number of surface and groundwater bodies in each Member State for each water category, and the average size.

Throughout the EU, more than 127,000 surface water bodies had been defined (compared to around 70,000 reported for the initial characterisation completed in 2004). Approximately 82% are rivers, 15% lakes, and the remaining 3% coastal and transitional waters. The average size of water bodies in Member States is variable with average river water body lengths varying from 1 km in Denmark to close to the EU average (11 km) in Greece, Slovakia and the UK, and 37 km in Bulgaria. Sweden and Finland have the most lake water bodies, 7232 and 4275, respectively. The average area of water bodies increases (as might be expected) from lakes (5 km2), transitional waters (19 km2) to coastal waters (644 km2). Spain has on average delineated the largest coastal water bodies (8,700 km2).

In terms of groundwater, approximately 13,300 have been delineated in the EU with the most being reported for Finalnd (3804) and the fewest in Luxembourg (5). The average size of groundwater bodies in the EU is around 300 km2 with the smallest by far on average being in Sweden (1 km2) and Finland (3 km2) (i.e. there are many small groundwater bodies in Finland and Sweden), and the largest in Lithuania (4,621 km2) and LV (5,827 km2).

|| Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Member State || Nb || Total L (km) || Avg L (km) || Nb || Total A (km2) || Avg A (km2) || Nb || Total A (km2) || Avg A (km2) || Nb || Total A (km2) || Avg A (km2) || Nb || Total A (km2) || Avg A (km2)

AT || 7339 || 31392 || 4 || 62 || 934 || 15 || || || NR || || || NR || 136 || 95930 || 724

BE* || 177 || 2472 || 14 || 18 || 40 || 2 || 6 || 42 || 7 || 2 || 1429 || 715 || 42 || 47038 || 1360

BG || 688 || 25568 || 37 || 43 || 75 || 2 || 15 || 109 || 7 || 13 || 1428 || 110 || 177 || 156026 || 882

CY || 216 || 2579 || 12 || 18 || 28 || 2 || || || NR || 27 || 865 || 33 || 20 || 6261 || 313

CZ || 1069 || 18596 || 17 || 71 || 249 || 4 || || || NR || || || NR || 173 || 88127 || 436

DE || 9072 || 126158 || 14 || 712 || 2399 || 3 || 5 || 814 || 163 || 74 || 22843 || 309 || 989 || 367743 || 445

DK || 16881 || 12047 || 1 || 940 || 462 || 0.5 || || || NR || 162 || 40875 || 252 || 385 || ||

EE || 645 || 12106 || 19 || 89 || 1966 || 22 || || || NR || 16 || 14501 || 906 || 26 || 120915 || 890

EL || 1033 || 11480 || 11 || 29 || 889 || 31 || 29 || 1129 || 39 || 233 || 38390 || 165 || 236 || 54785 || 106

ES || 4298 || 74834 || 17 || 327 || 5281 || 16 || 201 || 2848 || 14 || 186 || 1612156 || 8668 || 626 || 16301 || 0

FI || 1602 || 28875 || 18 || 4275 || 28172 || 7 || || || NR || 276 || 32570 || 118 || 3804 || 9862 || 3

FR || 10824 || 241684 || 22 || 439 || 1964 || 4 || 96 || 2840 || 30 || 164 || 26652 || 163 || 574 || 1092891 || 1307

HU || 869 || 18802 || 22 || 213 || 1267 || 6 || || || NR || || || NR || 185 || 279532 || 1511

IE || 4565 || 21037 || 5 || 807 || 2628 || 3 || 190 || 1068 || 6 || 111 || 13183 || 119 || 756 || 71081 || 105

IT || 7644 || 78813 || 10 || 300 || 2158 || 7 || 181 || 1235 || 7 || 489 || 18930 || 39 || 733 || 201492 || 311

LT || 832 || 14251 || 17 || 345 || 809 || 2 || 4 || 515 || 129 || 2 || 115 || 57 || 20 || 72546 || 4621

LU || 102 || || || || || NR || || || NR || || || NR || 5 || 2676 || 535

LV || 204 || 7751 || 38 || 259 || 825 || 3 || 1 || 934 || 934 || 6 || 1283 || 214 || 22 || 117404 || 5827

MT || || || NR || || || NR || || || NR || 9 || 398 || 44 || 15 || 355 || 24

NL || 254 || 4756 || 19 || 450 || 3046 || 7 || 5 || 684 || 137 || 15 || 11889 || 793 || 23 || 39929 || 1156

PL || 4586 || 111483 || 24 || 1038 || 2293 || 2 || 9 || 1936 || 215 || 10 || 666 || 67 || 161 || 312172 || 192

PT || 1611 || 55725 || 35 || 122 || 742 || 6 || 53 || 813 || 15 || 57 || 15690 || 275 || 145 || 44498 || 307

RO || 3262 || 74473 || 23 || 131 || 993 || 8 || 2 || 781 || 391 || 4 || 572 || 143 || 142 || 263754 || 1857

SE || 15563 || 79466 || 5 || 7232 || 29192 || 4 || 21 || 180 || 9 || 602 || 34623 || 58 || 3021 || 39880 || 1

SI || 135 || 2620 || 19 || 14 || 38 || 3 || || || NR || 6 || 404 || 67 || 21 || ||

SK || 1760 || 18944 || 11 || || || NR || || || NR || || || NR || 101 || 77326 || 598

UK || 9080 || 99749 || 11 || 1119 || 1933 || 2 || 192 || 3716 || 19 || 570 || 63399 || 111 || 723 || 210094 || 950

EU || 104311 || 1175661 || 11 || 19053 || 88383 || 5 || 1010 || 19643 || 19 || 3033 || 1952862 || 644 || 13261 || 3788618 || 286

Table 8.2.6: Number and average size of surface and groundwater bodies in each Member State.(Updated 26 June)

NR means "not relevant" or "not reported"

Nb = number of water bodies

L = length of water body

A = area of water body

Source: WISE

* Belgium: Flanders and Coastal Waters

The average size of water bodies per country hide important differences between RBDs or regions within some of the countries (see country specific parts of the Commission Staff Working Document).

Generally Member States have included information on size thresholds that they have used to delineate river and lake water bodies. A large majority have used the size thresholds in typology System A of WFD Annex II (catchments larger than 10 km2 and lakes larger than 50 Ha). Some Member States have explicitly included smaller water bodies if they are protected under other legislation or if they are ecologically important in the basin. In a few cases size thresholds have been set for transitional waters. The following table presents the criteria used to deal with small water bodies for rivers and lakes:

Member State || Rivers || Lakes

AT || Catchment > 10 km2 || Area > 50 Ha

BE || Catchment > 50 km2 || Area > 50 Ha

BG || Catchment > 10 km2 (Eastern Aegean). Not reported in other RBDs. || Area > 50 Ha (Eastern and West Aegean).  Not reported in other RBDs.

CY || Catchment > 10 km2 || Area > 50 Ha but also smaller if significant ecological value

CZ || Tributaries with order less than 4 (Strahler) || Area > 50 Ha

DE || Generally catchment > 10 km2; some Lander include smaller water bodies || Generally area > 50 Ha; some Lander include smaller water bodies

DK || Catchment > 10 km2, but also smaller if protected under other environmental legislation || Area > 5 Ha, but also smaller if protected under other environmental legislation

EE || Catchment > 10 km2 || Area > 50 Ha

EL || No information || No information

ES || No information || No information

FI || Length > 30 km, catchment area >200 km2; catchment from 10 km2 to 200 km2 in case of Natura 2000 surface waters, water abstraction over 10 m3/d or serving more than 50 persons, designated bathing waters or waters important for fishing purposes. || Surface area > 500 Ha, catchment over 5 km2; surface area from 50 Ha to 500 Ha, in case of Natura 2000 surface waters, water abstraction over 10 m3/d or serving more than 50 persons, designated bathing waters, waters important for fishing purposes.. In Aland 50 Ha + smaller if used for or potential for drinking water.

FR || Catchment > 10 km2 || Area > 50 Ha

HU || Catchment > 10 km2 || Area > 50 Ha

IE || Catchment > 10 km2 || Area > 50 Ha, smaller included if protected

IT || Variable depending on the region, generally based on 10 km2 catchment area and/or river length of 3 to 10 km; in some cases smaller water bodies are included if protected || Generally 20 Ha for lakes; 50 Ha for reservoirs but no information found in a number of RBMPs

LT || Catchment > 10 km2 || Area > 50 Ha

LU || Catchment > 10 km2 || Not relevant

LV || Catchment > 100 km2 || Area > 50 Ha

MT || No information || No information

NL || Catchment > 10 km2 || Area > 50 Ha

PL || Catchment > 10 km2 || No information found

PT || No information || No information

RO || Catchment > 10 km2 || Area > 50 Ha

SE || Depending on the RBMP, catchment > 10 km2 or 15 km river length; smaller water bodies added if need protection || Area > 100 Ha

SI || Catchment > 100 km2 || Area > 50 Ha

SK || Catchment > 10 km2 || Area > 50 Ha

UK || Catchment > 10 km2 || Area > 50 Ha (10 Ha in Northern Ireland)

Table 8.2.7: Minimum size criteria used by Member States to delineate river and lake water bodies (Updated 26 June)

Source: WISE

Groundwater body characterisation

Details of the delineation of groundwater bodies can be seen in Table 8.2.6 above. The total number of groundwater bodies reported is 13,261. More than half of these groundwater bodies have been reported by Sweden and Finland (3,021 and 3,804 respectively) and are very small in size (on average 7 km2) when compared to the groundwater bodies of the remaining Member States (average size 600 km2). The total area of reported groundwater bodies is about 3.8 million km2.

The groundwater characterisation was based on a technical report from 2004 prepared under the CIS by the Working Group on Groundwater. It contains many examples of how Member States carried out the characterisation.

Following the assessment of the RBMPs it has become apparent that Member States have delineated and reported their groundwater bodies in different ways (different three-dimensional layers, different groundwater body sizes). Therefore, it has not been possible to compile a European GIS reference dataset of groundwater bodies.

8.2.6. Identification of significant pressures and impacts

In the case of surface waters, the WFD requires identification of significant pressures from point sources of pollution, diffuse sources of pollution, modifications of flow regimes through abstractions or regulation and morphological alterations, as well as any other pressures. ‘Significant’ is interpreted as meaning that the pressure contributes to an impact that may result in the failing of environmental objectives.

The identification of significant pressures can involve different approaches: numerical tools (e.g. modelling); expert judgement or a combination of both tools. The magnitude of the pressure is compared with a threshold or criteria, relevant to the water body type to assess its significance. The figure shows the types of tools reported to be used to assess the significance of the main types of pressures.

Figure 8.2.4: Type of tools used by MS to identify different types of significant pressures

Source: WISE

Note: Figures in brackets are the number of MSs that had reported methods

For most pressure types, most Member States use a combination of numerical tools and expert judgement. Expert judgement is more extensively used to assess other pressures: the most commonly reported other pressures were recreation, fishing and introduced species.

The EEA is preparing a report on ecological and chemical status and pressures which provides a wide overview of the identification of significant pressures and impacts. The report gathers and describes the information provided in the RBMPs reporting from MS. As mentioned in the report:

- The pressures reported to affect most surface water bodies are pollution from diffuse sources causing nutrient enrichment, and hydromorphological pressures causing altered habitats.

- The worst areas of Europe concerning ecological status and pressures in freshwater are in Central Europe, in particular in Northern Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, while for coastal and transitional waters the Baltic sea and Greater North Sea regions are the worst affected.

- The hydromorphological pressures in rivers and lakes are reported to be most severe in RBDs in the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Hungary and south-east England, and least severe in RBDs in Finland, the Baltic countries, Romania, as well as in many RBDs in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria and Cyprus. In coastal and transitional waters, hydromorphological pressure is considerably less than in freshwater bodies and is mainly a problem along the Greater North Sea coast of Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, as well as the in the southern coast of Italy[40].

Figure 8.2.6: Proportion of classified water bodies in different River Basin Districts affected by pollution pressures for rivers and lakes

Source: WISE Note: Better quality maps are available on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/index_en.htm

Figure 8.2.7: Proportion of classified water bodies in different River Basin Districts affected by pollution pressures for coastal and transitional waters

Source: WISE Note: Better quality maps are available on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/index_en.htm

Figure 8.2.8: Proportion of classified water bodies in different River Basin Districts affected by hydromorphological pressures for rivers and lakes

Source: WISE Note: Better quality maps are available on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/index_en.htm

Figure 8.2.9: Proportion of classified water bodies in different River Basin Districts affected by hydromorphological pressures for coastal and transitional waters

Source: WISE Note: Better quality maps are available on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/index_en.htm

8.2.7. Protected areas

Article 6 of the WFD requires Member States to establish a register or registers of all areas lying within each RBD which have been designated as requiring special protection under specific Community legislation for the protection of their surface water and groundwater, or for the conservation of habitats and species directly depending on water. RBMPs should identify and map protected areas (Annex VII WFD). The following table presents the WFD protected areas reported by Member States.

WFD requires that objectives for protected areas established under Community legislation should also be met. For example, if a water body falls within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone then the objectives of the Nitrates Directive (1991/676/EEC) must be met.

Article 7 of the WFD requires Member States to establish drinking water protected areas for bodies of groundwater and surface water providing more than 10m3 a day as an average or serving more than 50 persons, or bodies that are intended for that use in the future. The objective for these areas is to avoid deterioration in quality in order to reduce the level of purification treatment required.

Drinking water safeguard zones are commonly established in Europe. 25 Member States reported that such zones are already established or planned to be established for groundwater and 19 Member States reported for surface water. Ireland, Luxembourg, Sweden, UK (Wales) reported about efforts to start to implement respectively to further extend the establishment of safeguard zones. For Greece and Portugal information was not available.

For 16 and 13 Member States respectively the establishment of groundwater / surface water safeguard zones were reported to be in principle mandatory for each public drinking water abstraction (Ireland, Luxembourg and Slovenia reported that the establishment of such zones is currently not mandatory but will be in the near future). Four Member States foresee exemptions from this obligation for small abstractions (≤10,000m³/a (Czech Republic), ≤ 10 households (Denmark), 10m³/d or 50 people (Estonia and Slovak Republic)) or for confined aquifers (Belgium). Five Member States reported that the establishment is not mandatory but, nevertheless, safeguard zones are established.

However, for some protected areas, notably those designated as Natura 2000 sites under the Habitats Directive, the requirement is to meet the water-related biological criteria of a particular habitat according to the agreed protection programme of the area.

Existing Community legislation designating protected areas is summarised in the following table:

Directive || Reason for protection of waters

2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive) || Drinking water protected areas

76/160/EEC (Bathing water Directive) || Bathing waters

78/659/EEC (Freshwater fish Directive) || Fresh waters needing protection in order to support fish life.

79/923/EEC (Shellfish waters Directive) || Shellfish waters

79/409/EEC (Birds Directive) || To protect birdlife

92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive) || Natural habitats of wild fauna and flora

91/271/EEC (Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive) || Nutrient sensitive areas

91/676/EEC (Nitrates Directive) || Prevent nitrate pollution

All Member States reported Drinking Water Protected Areas in their RBMPs. Most also reported protected areas under the Habitats (25 Member States), Birds (23), Bathing Waters (23) and Nitrates (22) Directives.

The following table presents the WFD protected areas reported by Member States.

Member State || Drinking Water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

AT || 231 || 268 || 54 || || 71 || 93 || || || || ||

BE || 168 || 2 || 17 || || || 27 || || 1 || 2 || 1 || 2

BG || 331 || 93 || 111 || || 106 || 231 || || 103 || 4 || 8 || 22

CY || 18 || 113 || || || || 36 || || || 5 || || 2

CZ || 2673 || 188 || 15 || || || 439 || || 746 || 6040 || ||

DE || 1418 || 2271 || 1022 || 295 || || 4878 || || || 139 || ||

DK || 368 || || 113 || || || 257 || || || || 36 ||

EE || 2 || 89 || 73 || || 111 || 542 || || || 2 || ||

EL || 150 || 2108 || 181 || || || 273 || || || 11 || || 48

ES || 25857 || 1515 || 519 || 134 || 156 || 1125 || 1025 || 1302 || 366 || 201 || 440

FI || 2302 || || || || || || || || || ||

FR || 28.978 || 3.342 || 314 || 42 || || 771 || || || 8 || 83 || 64

HU || 1756 || 265 || 55 || || 7 || 467 || || 210 || 1 || || 3

IE || 943 || 126 || 136 || || 31 || 420 || || || 7 || 63 || 42

IT || 6023 || 1645 || 474 || 8 || 566 || 1725 || 718 || 43 || 92 || 141 || 213

LT || 1305 || 99 || 88 || 31 || || 427 || 185 || 1005 || 4 || || 4

LU || 84 || 4 || 13 || || || 30 || || || 2 || || 2

LV || 2 || 222 || || || 196 || 308 || || || 56 || ||

MT || 7 || || 3 || || || 9 || || 1 || 1 || || 8

NL || 31 || 644 || 90 || || || 159 || || || || 9 ||

PL || 357 || 320 || 141 || || || 364 || || || 19 || ||

PT || 526 || 462 || 60 || || 81 || 92 || 78 || || 17 || 34 || 12

RO || 1879 || 35 || 106 || || 12 || 213 || || 381 || 42 || 4 ||

SE || 1099 || 469 || 391 || || 28 || 1286 || || || 7 || 32 || 31

SI || 1265 || || || || 14 || || || || || ||

SK || 213 || 36 || 38 || || 73 || 381 || || || 1524 || || 1

UK || 1569 || 522 || 100 || 153 || 6650 || 302 || || || 574 || 135 || 17

EU || 79555 || 14838 || 4114 || 663 || 8102 || 14855 || 2006 || 3792 || 8923 || 747 || 911

Table 8.2.8: Number of different types of Protected Areas in each Member State

Source:WISE

8.2.8. Conclusions

· Six Member States with a coastline have not designated transitional waters and 2 have designated no (natural) lakes.

· Many different types of rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters have been identified by Member States. There seems to be a difference between the numbers of types identified and the number used in the classification of status. This may indicate that some of the types originally identified for the Article 5 analysis have not been practically implemented when the ecological classification of water types has been undertaken.

· Typologies used in all water categories appear to have not been tested against biological data for all identified types, and in some cases, no types at all for a significant number of Member States. Testing against biological data has been undertaken by 10 Member States for rivers, 7 for lakes, 3 for transitional waters and 5 for coastal waters.

· It is also clear that reference conditions have not been established for all water body types in a number of Member States for all water categories. This is most prominent in coastal waters where only 8 of the 22 Member States with coastal waters had established reference conditions for all their coastal water types.

· Expert judgment is used by many Member States in establishing reference conditions. Spatially based tools are also widely used particular for lakes and rivers but less so in transitional waters perhaps reflecting that is often difficult to find water bodies in transitional waters that are minimally impacted by human activities that can provide a suitable spatial reference condition.

· There has been an increase in the number of water bodies delineated since the initial characterisation in 2004. Most are rivers (82%) followed by lakes (15%) and transitional and coastal waters (3% combined). There are large differences between Member States in the numbers delineated which does not necessarily reflect the respective land area but perhaps indicates some differences in approach. Many Member States have used the minimum water body size criteria suggested by the WFD for rivers and lakes but there are examples of where larger size minima have been used and others where smaller water bodies have been delineated, for example, where the water body is also a protected area under other EU legislation.

· The identification of significant pressures by Member States involves different approaches such as those involving the use of numerical tools (e.g. modelling), expert judgment or a combination of both. For most pressure types, most Member States use a combination of numerical tools and expert judgement. Expert judgement is more extensively used to assess ‘other’ pressures such as pressures from recreation, fishing and introduced species.

· Member States have delineated and reported their groundwater bodies in different ways (different three-dimensional layers, different groundwater body sizes).

· All Member States reported the designation of drinking water protected areas: there are approximately 80,000 reported for the EU. The next most numerous protected areas were for Habitats Directive and Bathing Waters (both ~15,000 protected areas). The fewest protected areas reported were for Shellfish Waters Directive (747).

8.2.9. Recommendations

· There are 6 Member States with coastal waters that have not designated transitional waters. There is often no reported clear explanation or technical justification for this. It is recommended that these Member States reconsider whether or not transitional waters should be identified and to provide the Commission with the relevant information supporting the inclusion or non-inclusion of such water bodies.

· Many Member States have not validated their water body typology against biological data, and in particular quantified whether or not there are significant differences in the biological quality elements between the types identified by abiotic factors alone. It is recommended that Member States consider doing such validation for the next planning cycle. This should enable the production of a more robust ecological classification and perhaps enable a rationalisation of the large number of different types identified by some Member States.

· The criteria used to define significance of pressures were often not explicit in the RBMPs or in supportive documents. It is recommended that this information is provided in future reporting so that a quantitative comparison of criteria can be made across the EU.

· Delineation and reporting of groundwater bodies should be better harmonised. Reasons for different approaches should be clarified and related guidance documents should be improved, if necessary.

· It is recommended for any future reporting that data on pressures is reported at a more disaggregated level than it has been by some Member States for this cycle. This will enable a better comparison across the EU and help to better identify the link between pressures and sectoral measures.

8.3. Monitoring of surface waters and groundwater 8.3.1. Introduction

Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. These requirements include monitoring of protected areas as far as the status of surface water and groundwater is concerned. Monitoring programmes were to be operational by 22 December 2006 and reported to the Commission by March 2007[41]. The results of monitoring play a key role in determining whether water bodies are in good status and what measures need to be included in the RBMP in order to reach good status as a rule by 2015. Precise and reliable monitoring results are therefore a prerequisite for sound planning of investments in the programme of measures.

The selection of the quality elements and parameters to be monitored should enable the detection of all significant pressures on water bodies. This is particularly important where the pressures and impact assessment may not have been adequate enough to identify all potential pressures and impacts in the RBD perhaps because of lack of information or methods or because of unexpected, anthropogenic activities within the RBD.

The results of surveillance monitoring should ensure that the potential impacts of all pressures on water bodies in the RBD are detected. Incomplete coverage of quality elements and water bodies in surveillance monitoring could lead to the non-detection of significant pressures, the incorrect classification of water status and inappropriate targeting of measures. Surveillance monitoring must also be able to detect long-term natural changes and those arising from anthropogenic pressures.

The selection of biological quality elements (BQEs) for operational monitoring should focus on those most sensitive to the identified pressures and impacts on water bodies. The results of operational monitoring are used (with the results of surveillance monitoring) in the classification of water bodies and to monitor progress of implemented measures in achieving the objectives of the Directive.

The results of monitoring are used in the assessment and classification of the status of water bodies (ecological and chemical for surface waters, chemical and quantitative for groundwater). The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of quality elements, parameters, frequency and numbers of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of the status of all water bodies in the RBD. Insufficient monitoring leads to a low confidence in the classification of water bodies, and as a result the (expensive) measures required to achieve objectives may be incorrectly targeted, and objectives such as restoration of water bodies to good status may not be achieved.

Directive 2009/90[42] lays down technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status with the aim of improving the quality and comparability of monitoring results by establishing minimum performance criteria for methods of analysis to be applied by Member States when monitoring water status, sediment and biota, as well as rules for demonstrating the quality of analytical results.

The Commission published a report on Member States programmes for monitoring of water status in April 2009 (SEC(2009)156) accompanied by a Commission staff working document (SEC(2007)415) with an Annex on the monitoring undertaken by each Member State. Member States were given the opportunity to update the information on their monitoring programmes when reporting information on the first RBMPs in March 2010. A map of the monitoring networks established for the purposes of Article 8 and Annex V was also required to be reported in the RBMP (Annex VII WFD).

8.3.2. Overview of monitoring of monitoring networks in the European Union

Figure 8.3.1:Surface water monitoring stations in River Basin Districts

Source: WISE

Note: Better quality maps are available on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/index_en.htm

Figure 8.3.2: Groundwater monitoring stations in River Basin Districts

Source: WISE Note: Better quality maps are available on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/index_en.htm

The Table below presents the number of monitoring stations reported by Member States, and shows that there are more than 82,000 WFD monitoring stations for surface water and approximately 60,000 for groundwater. The numbers vary considerably between Member States in part because of differences in natural characteristics, population densities, types of water use and exerted pressures. Different concepts applied to the design of the monitoring programmes also play a part and may influence those numbers.

|| Rivers || Lakes || Transitional waters || Coastal waters || Groundwater

MS || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || quant

AT || 91 || 597 || 33 || 2 || nr || nr || nr || nr || 2008 || 234 || 3383

BE || 71 || 423 || 11 || 51 || 6 || 13 || 4 || 5 || 42 || 42 || 42

BG || 146 || 218 || 62 || 22 || ni || ni || 7 || 3 || 241 || 121 || 366

CY || 19 || 12 || 10 || 1 || nd || nd || 7 || 1 || 86 || 68 || 84

CZ || 111 || 835 || 27 || 76 || nr || nr || nr || nr || 167 || 167 || 268

DE || 287 || 8348 || 67 || 449 || 5 || 20 || 32 || 100 || 5472 || 3868 || 8963

DK || 776 || 2475 || 0 || 351 || nd || nd || 243 || 434 || 636 || 636 || 636

EE || 189 || 83 || 109 || 28 || nd || nd || 55 || 0 || 154 || 25 || 265

EL || 298 || 134 || 30 || 21 || 2 || 34 || 51 || 30 || 236 || 288 || 524

ES || 2525 || 1393 || 159 || 70 || 238 || 100 || 564 || 132 || 2774 || 2327 || 2509

FI || 273 || 220 || 607 || 288 || nd || nd || 57 || 82 || 206 || 203 || 211

FR || 1673 || 4267 || 199 || 217 || 63 || 72 || 109 || 65 || 1775 || 1446 || 1674

HU || 122 || 474 || 26 || 41 || nr || nr || nr || nr || 2014 || 427 || 1802

IE || 179 || 2516 || 74 || 217 || 26 || 55 || 12 || 24 || 274 || 112 || 186

IT || 1180 || 1276 || 70 || 89 || 4 || 135 || 53 || 263 || ni || ni || ni

LT || 128 || 309 || 188 || 101 || 0 || 25 || 0 || 6 || 240 || 2502 || 76

LU || 8 || 131 || nd || nd || nr || nr || nr || nr || 54 || 54 || 31

LV || 38 || 182 || 32 || 223 || 10 || 2 || 14 || 4 || 79 || 0 || 56

MT || nd || nd || nd || nd || nd || nd || 5 || 6 || 34 || 34 || 21

NL || 81 || 339 || 95 || 454 || 14 || 20 || 26 || 18 || 1164 || 213 || 1045

PL || 521 || 2105 || 586 || 692 || ni || ni || ni || ni || 789 || 369 || 828

PT || 324 || 321 || 56 || 63 || 42 || 5 || 54 || 4 || 575 || 215 || 420

RO || 1263 || 547 || 434 || 228 || 12 || 12 || 42 || 42 || 2365 || 1224 || 3338

SE || 234 || 769 || 338 || 653 || 2 || 1 || 112 || 132 || 115 || 0 || 0

SI || 48 || 200 || 4 || 15 || nd || nd || 4 || 5 || 104 || 29 || 115

SK || 560 || 594 || 23 || 7 || nr || nr || nr || nr || 130 || 1106 || 1507

UK || 5584 || 29702 || 174 || 1081 || 1971 || 2137 || 1133 || 1481 || 4080 || 4006 || 1289

Total || 16214 || 56381 || 2829 || 4750 || 2395 || 2631 || 2585 || 2838 || 25814 || 19716 || 29639

Total || 67178 || 7528 || 4528 || 3156 || 34134 || 29639

|| Total surface water:  82390 || Total groundwater: 60054

Table 8.3.1: Number of monitoring stations in surface waters and groundwater in EU27 (surv = surveillance monitoring, op = operational monitoring, quant = quantitative.

Source: WISE

nr= water category not relevant (land-locked Member State)

nd = water category not designated by Member State

ni = no information reported by Member States

The 2009 report (based mainly on 2007 data) indicated that there were around 57,000 monitoring stations established for WFD monitoring of surface waters and approximately 51,000 for groundwater. This assessment of the RBMPs (based mainly on 2010 data) shows an increase of monitoring stations with around 39% more in surface waters stations and 17% more for groundwater. As in 2009, by far the largest number of monitoring stations in surface waters was in rivers, followed by coastal waters and lakes and with the fewest stations in transitional waters. The Member States with the greatest number of surface water sites were UK (35,221 cf 12,807 in 2007), Germany (9,228 cf 6,688 in 2007) and France (5,507 cf 3,367 in 2007).

Figure 8.3.3:  Number of surveillance and operational monitoring sites for rivers and lakes per 1000 km2 area (some sites may be for both surveillance and operational monitoring)

Source: WISE

Member States are required to monitor for quality elements and parameters indicative of ecological (surface waters only), chemical (surface and ground waters) and quantitative (groundwater only) status, and for surface waters should include biological, hydromorphological and chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Before the introduction of the WFD and the assessment of ecological status in a regulatory framework, the focus of monitoring was on chemical and physico-chemical quality elements in many Member States. Table 8.3.2 below shows the number of monitoring sites in surface waters for each of the main quality element groupings, and indicates that at the EU level there are now more stations monitoring the biological quality of surface waters than either physicochemical quality or hydromorphological elements.

MS || Biological QEs || Hydro-morphological QEs || Physico-chemical QEs || Priority Substances || Non priority specific pollutants || Other national pollutants

AT || 668 || 567 || 223 || 186 || 186 ||

BE || 455 || 201 || 268 || 116 || 131 ||

BG || 310 || 204 || 448 || 394 || 359 || 61

CY || 49 || 49 || 49 || 22 || 19 || 16

CZ || 821 || 230 || 949 || 577 || 945 || 941

DE || 8071 || 2571 || 4704 || 1896 || 2573 || 1367

DK || Calculation not possible

EE || 13 || 13 || 13 || || ||

EL || 585 || 585 || 556 || 131 || 131 || 13

ES || 3963 || 3238 || 4308 || 2715 || 2801 || 2032

FI || 1195 || 174 || 1229 || 24 || 23 || 18

FR || 3734 || 4052 || 3821 || 3612 || 3184 || 2591

HU || Calculation not possible

IE || Calculation not possible

IT || 1371 || 615 || 1094 || 574 || 500 || 73

LT || Calculation not possible

LU || 133 || 114 || 140 || 7 || 118 || 20

LV || Calculation not possible

MT || 8 || 8 || || 3 || ||

NL || 734 || 384 || 686 || 345 || 507 ||

PL || Calculation not possible

PT || 841 || 593 || 841 || 312 || 201 ||

RO || 1356 || 1378 || 1275 || 831 || 1014 || 1013

SE || 1382 || 64 || 1503 || 314 || 246 ||

SI || 151 || 94 || 154 || 72 || 139 ||

SK || Calculation not possible

UK || 16422 || 8180 || 10061 || 1505 || 6373 ||

EU || 42262 || 23314 || 32322 || 13636 || 19450 || 8145

Table 8.3.2: Number of monitoring stations (not differentiated between surveillance or operational) in surface waters used for monitoring the different types of quality elements[43].

Source: WISE

8.3.3. Surface water surveillance monitoring

Member States are required to establish surveillance monitoring programmes to provide information for: supplementing and validating the impact assessment procedure detailed in Annex II; the efficient and effective design of future monitoring programmes; the assessment of long-term changes in natural conditions; and, the assessment of long-term changes resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity.

The assessed RBMPs were not clear in approximately a third of Member States, whether or not all the objectives had been taken into account in the design of surveillance monitoring. In particular it was not clear how the long term changes from widespread anthropogenic activity (7 Member States) and in natural conditions (3 Member States) would be monitored.

Annex V.1.3.1 of the WFD indicates that ‘surveillance monitoring shall be carried out of sufficient surface water bodies to provide an assessment of the overall surface water status within each catchment or sub-catchments within the river basin district’. To that end it might be expected that surveillance monitoring includes water bodies covering the range of statuses within the RBD and Member State. It is not expected that all water bodies will be included in surveillance monitoring. Representative stations should be selected to provide an overall picture of the status of water bodies in the basin.

Figure 8.3.4 shows the percentage of surface water bodies included in surveillance monitoring compared to the total number of water bodies. There is a wide variation in the percentages of surface water bodies included by Member States and this might be explained by the different approaches used in delineating surface water bodies in Member States, i.e. Member States with larger water bodies can easily reach higher percentages. For example, Sweden includes 2% of its surface water bodies in surveillance monitoring, and France 16 % (compared to the EU average of 11%). The average length of Sweden’s 15,563 river water bodies is 5 km and that of France’s 10,824 river water bodies is 22 km.

Figure 8.3.4: Percentage of surface water bodies included in surveillance monitoring compared to total number of surface water bodies

Source: WISE

Figure 8.3.5 shows the number of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring compared to a benchmark. The benchmark is derived from the criteria given in section 1.3.1 of Annex V of the Directive where the selection of monitoring points should include, where appropriate, points on large rivers where the catchment is greater than 2500 km2 and gives an average value of how many surveillance monitoring points would be necessary if only this criterion were to be applied. The relevance of the benchmark depends on the hydrography of each country and should be interpreted liberally, meaning that lower numbers do not necessarily represent a poorly designed network. Some Member States such as Denmark, Spain, Poland, Romania and the UK show significantly higher numbers than the benchmark. The very low number for Sweden is influenced by the large unpopulated areas in the North.

Figure 8.3.5: Number of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. The diamonds indicate a benchmark calculated by dividing the area of each Member State by 2500 km2 (criterion given by Annex V, 1.3.1)

Source: WISE

Surveillance monitoring requires that parameters indicative of all BQEs, all hydromorphological quality elements, all general physicochemical quality elements, those priority list pollutants which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin and those other pollutants discharged in significant quantities in the river basin or sub-basin are monitored in water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. However, the required quality elements will not necessarily be monitored at the same location within the water body as, for example, different habitats will be sampled for different BQEs.

At the time of the introduction of the WFD, monitoring and assessment methods for many quality elements (QEs), such as some biological and morphological QEs, were not developed or were not suitable to meet the requirements of the WFD, in assessing and classifying ecological status of water bodies.  Figure 8.3.6 shows that only a few Member States (e.g. Bulgaria and the Czech Republic) monitor for all the relevant BQEs in all of the surface water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. This may be because some Member States have not yet fully developed monitoring methods for some of the QEs and/or water body types. For example, in Slovenia and UK fish are not monitored in lakes and in Sweden benthic invertebrates and fish are the predominant BQEs monitored in lakes; in Italy the predominant biological quality elements monitored in rivers are benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos.

Figure 8.3.6: Percentage of surface water bodies in surveillance monitoring in which all relevant biological quality elements are monitored. In the case of DK, HU, IE, LT, LV, PL and SK it was not possible to extract the information because the data were not supplied at the station level

Source: WISE

Figure 8.3.7 illustrates the use of the different groups of QEs (biological, hydromorphological and chemical and physicochemical) by Member States in the four surface water categories (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters) for surveillance monitoring. For BQEs in rivers, most Member States use macroinvertebrates, in lakes phytoplankton, and in transitional and coastal waters macroinvertebrates. The choice of these elements reflects the traditional use of these indicators in the respective water categories. Surveillance monitoring requires the monitoring of all hydromorphological QEs but data show (Figure 8.3.7 below) that many Member States do not comply with this requirement particularly in terms of the morphological conditions of lakes, transitional and coastal waters. In contrast general physicochemical QEs and non-priority specific pollutants are monitored by most Member States in all water categories.

Figure 8.3.7 indicates that some Member States reported only QE information at an aggregated level for other aquatic flora, hydrological/tidal regime, morphological conditions and general physicochemical parameters. In these cases an estimate of overall monitoring of each component disaggregated element (e.g. nutrient conditions) can be obtained by adding the percentage of Member States reporting aggregated values to that for the disaggregated value. For example, 63% of the Member States reported nutrient conditions and 33% general physicochemical parameters equating to a possible maximum of 96% of Member States monitoring for nutrient status in rivers.

||

Biological Quality Elements PP: Phytoplankton FL: Other aquatic flora MA: Macroalgae AG: Angiosperms MP: Macrophytes PB: Phytobenthos MI: Macroinvertebrates FI: Fish Note: FL only includes those MS that did not report the component elements of other aquatic flora. || Hydromorphological Quality Elements HR/TR: Hydrological/Tidal regime - reported only at aggregated level FC: water flow in transitional waters,  lakes and rivers, and currents in coastal waters WE: Wave exposure in transitional and coastal waters CG: Connection to groundwater in rivers and lakes RT: Retention time in lakes RC: River continuity MC: Morphological conditions - reported only at aggregated level DV: Depth variation BED: Substrate, structure of bed RSZ/IZ: Structure of shore/riparian zone in lakes and rivers, and intertidal zone in transitional and coastal waters

|| Chemical and physicochemical Quality Elements PC: General Physicochemical QEs TR: Transparency TC: Thermal conditions OC: Oxygenation conditions SA: Salinity AS: Acidification status NC: Nutrient conditions NP: Non-priority specific synthetic and non-synthetic pollutants OP: Other (national) pollutants Note: PC only includes those MS that did not report the component elements e.g. nutrient conditions (NC).

Figure 8.3.7: Use of different groups of quality elements in the surveillance monitoring of rivers (RW), lakes (LW), transitional waters (TW) and coastal waters (CW)

Source: WISE

8.3.4. Surface water operational monitoring

Operational monitoring focuses on water bodies at risk of failing WFD objectives because of significant pressures in the RBD and Member State. Generally more surface water bodies are included in operational compared to surveillance monitoring (cf Figure 8.3.8 and Figure 8.3.9).

At first glance the percentages of water bodies with significant pressures that are included in operational monitoring appear to be relatively low. One of the main objectives of operational monitoring is to assess the status of those water bodies that have been identified as being at risk (i.e. subject to significant pressures). Water bodies that are subject to diffuse sources or hydromorphological pressures may be grouped for operational monitoring depending on certain conditions being met, and as long as a sufficient number are monitored within the group to provide an accurate assessment of status of those not monitored within the group. This means that the status of water bodies has to be inferred or extrapolated from the monitoring results of those in the group. Therefore, not all water bodies with significant pressures will necessarily be monitored. However, it may be that the more water bodies monitored, the higher the confidence can be in the status assessment results.

The different approaches adopted by Member States are illustrated in Figure 8.3.6. Sweden[44] monitors 2% of the surface water bodies identified as having significant pressures (from at least one significant pressure), AT, CY and IT monitor around 10%, France and Germany around 50% and Belgium and Slovenia all those identified as having significant pressures. Even accounting for the difference in numbers of water bodies identified as having significant pressures, it is difficult to explain why there is such a large difference between the percentages of water bodies with significant pressures included in operational monitoring. Germany has identified 8,853 water bodies with significant pressures compared to 8,527 in the UK. However, 47% of water bodies with significant pressures are included in operational monitoring in DE whereas 90% are included in the UK. In most cases, operational monitoring includes more water bodies than just those identified as having significant pressures.

Austria, Cyprus, Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, Slovenia and UK report the following percentages of water bodies classified in terms of ecological status with high confidence: 84%, 44%, 1%, 10%, 28%, none, 3 % and 27%, respectively. These figures (when compared with the percentages of water bodies with significant pressures included in operational monitoring above) suggest that the relationship between confidence in classification and the proportion of water bodies with significant pressures that are included in operational monitoring is not a simple one.

Figure 8.3.8: Percentage of surface water bodies included in operational monitoring compared to total number of surface water bodies and compared to surface water bodies with significant pressures that are included in operational monitoring. DK, LU and SK did not report data on significant pressures on water bodies

Source: WISE

In general, pressures resulting from human activity can be linked to population density in the RBD and thus used as a surrogate of pressures, related to urban wastewater discharges but also to other economic activities such as transport and urban development. Figure 8.3.9 presents the number of operational sites in relation to population density. The figure gives a rough indication of the level of effort in operational monitoring but should be interpreted with care. Member States that show a high number of sites in relation to population density are UK, Sweden and Denmark.

Figure 8.3.9:  Number of operational sites in relation to the population density of the Member State; population density is used as an indicator of the amount of potential pressure from human activity. No report on number of sites from MT

Source: WISE

For operational monitoring, Member States are required to monitor for those biological and hydromorphological QEs most sensitive to the pressures to which the water bodies are subjected (Annex V, 1.3.2 Selection of quality elements). Available information from the earlier Article 8 reports shows that Member States may have different understandings of which are those QEs. Member States are expected to select the BQEs most sensitive to the pressures identified as putting a water body at risk. If there are varied and many pressures at the RBD level then it is likely that all BQEs will be included. The selection of QEs is made on the basis of these main pressures. Operational monitoring may also systematically be based on one specific BQE in each water category, (e.g. typically macroinvertebrates for rivers and phytoplankton for lakes and coastal). In this case further information is needed, from detailed site-level information and/or technical supportive information, as to whether or not this is justified in terms of the significant pressures present.

Figure 8.3.10 shows the percentage of water surface bodies in which the main groups of biological quality elements are used in operational monitoring. There are large differences between Member States though most use more than one BQE. The percentages were calculated from information reported for each monitoring site which not all Member States provided. For those Member States not included in Figure 8.3.10, it is however, clear from information reported at the monitoring programme level that: Denmark monitors for one BQE in rivers (benthic invertebrates), and a range of BQEs in lakes and coastal waters; Estonia and Slovak Republic monitor for phytoplankton in lakes/reservoirs; no BQEs are included in Poland for rivers (only physicochemical parameters are included and there was no reported information for lakes, transitional and coastal waters); and Hungary, Ireland, Latvia and Lithuania include more than one BQE in their relevant water categories.

Phytoplankton || Other aquatic flora

||

Macroinvertebrates || Fish fauna

||

Figure 8.3.10: Percentage of surface water bodies included in operational monitoring in which phytoplankton, other aquatic flora, macroinvertebrates and fish are monitored (includes all relevant water categories).

Source: WISE

Note: It was not possible to calculate the data for DK, HU, IE, LT, LV, PL and SK because data on monitored quality elements was not reported at site level. (No report for MT.)

Regarding to the quality elements monitored in operational monitoring it is clear that approaches are different between Member States. Sweden and Bulgaria monitor only physicochemical QEs in 32% and 11%, respectively of the water bodies included in operational monitoring, and the UK monitors only morphological QEs in 20% of water bodies included in operational monitoring, all contrary to the requirements of the WFD where it would be expected at least one (sensitive) BQE would have been monitored. In other Member States such as France and Germany the focus is more on the BQEs where 60% and 30% of water bodies include at least one BQE.

8.3.5. Monitoring and classification of surface waters 8.3.5.1. Ecological status/potential

Member States have to report the ecological status or potential status of each water body in the RBD. Where no status has been assigned to a water body, ‘unknown’ is reported. In addition, Member States were also asked to report the classification results in terms of each of the BQEs monitored in each water body. Status in terms of a particular BQE in a monitored water body might also be extrapolated to non-monitored water bodies in the same group. As described above, not all BQEs are appropriate or will be monitored for all water categories and some are considered to be not applicable in some water body types. Figure 8.3.11 summarises the number of Member States where for each relevant BQE there are more or fewer water bodies classified than monitored, or where they are the same.

In cases where the number of monitored water bodies is greater than the number of classified water bodies for any particular QE there may be a lack of confidence in the monitoring results. This may mean that only the monitoring results/assessments with high and perhaps medium confidence are used in classification. Where the number of monitored water bodies is the same as the number of classified water bodies for any particular QE the classification is based on monitored water bodies. There may also be examples of where the number of monitored water bodies is less than the number of classified water bodies for any particular QE. This may indicate that there has been extrapolation of status from monitored water bodies to non-monitored water bodies, perhaps through grouping.

C || More classified than monitored || PP || Phytoplankton || R || rivers

M || More monitored than classified || MP || Macrophytes || L || lakes

S || Same number classified and monitored || PB || Phytobenthos || T || Transitional waters

NI/NC || No information/not clear || MA || Macroalgae || C || Coastal waters

NR || Water category not relevant || AG || Angiosperms || ||

|| || BI || Benthic invertebrates || ||

|| || FI || Fish || ||

Figure 8.3.11:  Comparison of number of surface water bodies monitored and classified in terms of each biological quality element indicative of ecological status

Source: WISE

The BQEs for which more water bodies are classified than monitored, thereby perhaps indicating there is more confidence that the monitoring and assessment results and the subsequent extrapolation of status by grouping are giving a reliable classification of status, are for benthic invertebrates in rivers, phytoplankton in lakes, and benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton in coastal waters. As described in section 8.3.3 and 8.3.4 these QEs are often the most commonly used for surveillance and operational monitoring. There are also examples (e.g. fish and benthic invertebrates in lakes, angiosperms and fish in transitional and angiosperms and macroalgae in coastal waters) of where more water bodies are monitored than classified perhaps indicating that assessment and classification methods are not yet fully developed in some Member States.

Information on the methods used for grouping water bodies for monitoring purposes was found for 14 Member States of the 25 for which RBMPs were assessed. Most methods involved forming groups of similar or the same types, subject to the same pressure (type and intensity) or combinations of pressures. Cyprus defines types as water bodies with comparable geography (altitude), hydrology, geomorphology and human pressures. Austria has defined ‘pressure’ groups for certain river types that have a specific hydromorphological or diffuse pressure combination. In Ireland clusters of river water bodies were formed based on typology, catchment pressures and the results of the risk assessments. In UK (Scotland) not at risk water bodies were grouped within coastal sediment transport cells (considered to the relevant geographic unit for marine ecosystems) and by pressure profiles. Two Member States (Cyprus, Ireland), describe a statistical analytical approach to identifying groups and the section of monitoring sites or water bodies representative of the group, and some others provide details on the extrapolation of the results and assessment of status from sampled water bodies to the group as a whole (Cyprus, Ireland, Lithuania, Sweden, UK).

8.3.5.2. Chemical status

In terms of surveillance monitoring Member States are required to monitor all priority substances which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin. For operational purposes, monitoring is required for those bodies of water into which priority list substances are discharged. The Directive distinguishes between the risk from point source discharges where sufficient monitoring points are required within each body in order to assess the magnitude and impact of the point source, and other types of pressure. For bodies at risk from significant diffuse source pressures (including priority substances), sufficient monitoring points are required within a selection of the bodies in order to assess the magnitude and impact of the diffuse source pressures.

Figure 8.3.12 compares the percentage of water bodies classified for chemical status with the percentage of water bodies monitored for priority substances. There are large differences between the numbers of water bodies monitored compared to those classified. In most Member States (for example, Germany and France) that provided information on classified and monitored water bodies, the percentage of water bodies monitored is lower than those classified whereas in Belgium the numbers are almost the same.  These differences may reflect the relative significance of the sources (e.g. point or diffuse) of priority substances in the RBD and also differences in approach by Member States. Sweden has adopted a different approach to other Member States in identifying most of its surface water bodies to be at risk of failing WFD objectives from diffuse sources of priority substances and has classified 99.99% its surface water bodies as in less than good chemical status mainly because of mercury deposition. Thus all water bodies in Sweden were classified on the basis of chemical status even though only around 1% were monitored for priority substances.

Overall in the EU (27 Member States), about 40% of surface water bodies have been reported as having ’unknown’ chemical status and only 9% of surface water bodies (in 18 Member States with reported information) are monitored for priority substances.

Figure 8.3.12: Percentage of surface water bodies classified for chemical status compared to the percentage of water bodies monitored for priority substances. There is no information on monitored water bodies for DK, EE, HU, IE, LT, LV, PL and SK because they did not report information on monitored quality elements at the site level. No information reported for MT.

Source: WISE

8.3.6. Groundwater monitoring

Figures 8.3.13 and 8.3.14, respectively, show the number of monitoring stations and the number per 1000 km2 of land area for quantitative and for chemical groundwater monitoring for each Member State. Some stations are used for both quantitative and chemical monitoring. The figures indicate significant differences across Member States in the approach to groundwater monitoring. The comparison between Member States is difficult because the numbers of stations are influenced by the size of the Member States and the density of the network depends on the intensity and type of groundwater use. For example more intensive monitoring may be needed where groundwater is used as a source of drinking water. However it can be seen from the figures that there is significant difference in the density of groundwater monitoring stations in the Member States.

Figure 8.3.13: Total number of monitoring sites for quantitative and for chemical groundwater monitoring. Incomplete information reported for IT.

Source: WISE

Figure 8.3.14: Number of groundwater monitoring sites per 1000km2 of Member State land area for quantitative and chemical monitoring. Incomplete information reported for IT.

Source: WISE

8.3.7. Monitoring the quantitative status of groundwater

The groundwater quantitative monitoring network has to include sufficient representative monitoring points to estimate groundwater level in each groundwater body or group of bodies taking into account short and long-term variations in recharge.

Many Member States include a high percentage of their groundwater bodies in quantitative monitoring with 11 including over 80% of groundwater bodies (Figure 8.3.15). However, the percentage may depend significantly on the delineation of groundwater bodies as some Member States have delineated a large number of groundwater bodies, for example over 3,800 in Finland and therefore the percentage of water bodies included appears low even with a similar number of monitoring stations as in other Member States. Sweden reported no sites for the quantitative monitoring of groundwater and Italy did not report detailed enough information for the calculation to be undertaken.

Figure 8.3.15: Percentage of groundwater bodies included in quantitative monitoring. Incomplete information reported for IT

Source: WISE

Figure 8.3.16 shows the number of quantitative monitoring sites per groundwater body. A large number of groundwater bodies in the EU do not have quantitative monitoring. This can be explained mainly due to two Member States that have delineated a large number of groundwater bodies (Finland 3804; Sweden 3021) and where only 4% and 0%, respectively, are included in the monitoring of quantitative status. Of the groundwater bodies monitored 70% have more than one monitoring site. This is partly because groundwater bodies generally are of large extent.

Figure 8.3.16 Number of groundwater bodies with 0, 1, 2-5, 6-10, and 11 and more monitoring sites for quantitative monitoring. Based on 25 MS excluding IT who did not report site purpose designations, and SE where there is no quantitative monitoring reported

Source: WISE

8.3.8. Monitoring the chemical status of groundwater

The surveillance monitoring of chemical status of groundwater needs to be carried out to supplement and validate the impact assessment procedure and provide information for use in the assessment of long term trends both as a result of changes in natural conditions and through anthropogenic activity. Sufficient monitoring sites should be selected for bodies identified as being at risk and for bodies which cross a Member State border.

Figure 8.3.17 (below) shows that a high percentage of groundwater bodies in the EU are included in chemical surveillance monitoring. As with the figure for quantitative monitoring, the percentage is influenced by the delineation of groundwater bodies i.e. lower numbers are not necessarily a signal of weaker monitoring as they may indicate a delineation resulting in a large number of groundwater bodies.

Figure 8.3.17: Percentage of groundwater bodies in chemical surveillance monitoring. IT did not report all required information to calculate the indicator

Source: WISE

Annex V of the WFD indicates that a set of core parameters (oxygen content, pH value, conductivity, nitrate and ammonium) must be monitored in all groundwater bodies included in chemical surveillance monitoring. Only five of the 14 Member States that reported the required level of detail on the parameters monitored achieved that requirement. Other Member States either do not include all core parameters in the groundwater chemical monitoring or the selection of the parameters is not clear. The lowest level of compliance was reported for Sweden and Finland. In the case of Sweden nitrate was not monitored in any water body and for Finland for most groundwater bodies only aggregated information was reported for those water bodies included in surveillance monitoring.

Figure 8.3.18: Percentage of GWB included in chemical surveillance monitoring where all core parameters are monitored. The calculation was not possible for BE, CY, LU and NL because parameter were only reported at an aggregated level; for AT, DK, HU, IE, LV, MT, PL and SK because parameters were not reported at site level; and for IT because groundwater bodies and parameters were not reported at site level.

Source: WISE

Operational monitoring is undertaken in the periods between surveillance monitoring in order to establish the chemical status of all groundwater bodies or groups of bodies determined as being at risk of failing to meet the environmental objectives and the presence of any long-term anthropogenic upward trend in the concentration of any pollutant. Figure 8.3.19 shows the percentage of groundwater bodies included in chemical operational monitoring. Only 6 Member States included more than 60% of their groundwater bodies in the chemical operational monitoring of groundwater.

Figure 8.3.19: Percentage of groundwater bodies in chemical operational monitoring. IT did not report all required information to calculate the indicator. There is no operational monitoring reported in LV or SE

Source: WISE

Member States were asked to report the significant pressures affecting groundwater bodies. Significant was in terms of groundwater bodies being at risk of failing to meet the environmental objectives because of the pressure. Figure 8.3.20 compares the number of groundwater bodies included in operational monitoring with those reported to be subject to significant pressures. A ratio of greater than 1 indicates that there are more in operational monitoring than reported with significant pressures, and a ratio less than 1 the reverse situation. Latvia and Sweden have identified groundwater bodies affected by significant pressures but neither has reported operational monitoring. Sweden has not established operational monitoring of groundwater although it reported the failure of chemical status in 61 groundwater bodies because of pesticides, heavy metal and nitrates. In Latvia even though significant pressures and impacts exist, all groundwater bodies are reported to have good chemical status and this may be the reason that no operational monitoring has been reported.

Eight of the 22 Member States that reported information included more groundwater bodies in operational monitoring than have reported significant pressures whereas the other 14 monitor fewer.

Figure 8.3.20: Relative number of groundwater bodies included in operational monitoring and those with significant pressures. DK and SK did not report significant pressures, SE and LV did not report chemical operational monitoring and IT did not report purpose of monitoring

Source: WISE

Figure 8.3.21 shows the number of chemical status (surveillance and/or operational) monitoring sites per groundwater body. The number of groundwater bodies that are not monitored is highly influenced by the relatively high number of delineated groundwater bodies in some Member States, not of all which are included in chemical monitoring. Almost 70% of groundwater bodies in the EU do not have chemical monitoring. Of the groundwater bodies monitored 70% have more than one monitoring site. This is partly because groundwater bodies generally are of large extent.

Figure 8.3.21: Number of groundwater bodies with 0, 1, 2-5, 6-10, and 11 and more monitoring sites for chemical monitoring. Based on 26 MS excluding IT which did not report site purpose designations

Source: WISE

8.3.9. Trends in pollutant concentrations in groundwater

One of the objectives of operational monitoring of the chemical status of groundwater is to establish the presence of any long-term anthropogenic induced upward trend in the concentration of any pollutant. The monitoring of the chemical status of groundwater bodies includes the requirement to identify and assess long-terms trends in pollutants resulting from anthropogenic activity. The trends must also be distinguishable from natural variation with an adequate level of confidence and precision. Trends must also be identifiable in sufficient time to allow measures to be implemented to prevent or mitigate environmental significant detrimental changes in groundwater quality.

23 Member States reported in WISE that trends of one or more pollutants in groundwater had been assessed in some or in all RBDs – 14 of these reported upward trends. 10 Member States provided an explanation in their RBMPs on how their monitoring programmes were designed to detect significant trends (see Figure 8.3.22). Trend assessments are however not complete mostly because of the short monitoring time series available.

Figure 8.3.22: Detection of trends of pollutants in groundwater bodies and information on how these were determined. RBMP: information from assessment of river basin management plans. WISE: electronic report to WISE

Source: WISE and RBMPs

8.3.10. Monitoring in relation to Article 6 of the Groundwater Directive

Article 6 of the Groundwater Directive (GWD) (2006/118/EC) includes a framework for making operational the WFD objective to 'prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater'. The Article clarifies which substances shall be prevented from entering and which shall be limited in groundwater. It also clarifies the exemptions from this 'prevent or limit objective'. Under Article 6.3 Member States may exempt groundwater bodies from these measures to provided that their competent authorities have established efficient monitoring of the groundwater bodies concerned, in accordance with point 2.4.2 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC (chemical surveillance monitoring), or other appropriate monitoring, is being carried out. The competent authorities should also decide whether additional monitoring is needed to verify that the effects of an exempted input are acceptable. The competent authorities of the Member States must keep an inventory of the exemptions for the purpose of notification, upon request, to the Commission.

The RBMP of most of the 25 Member States assessed had no information as to whether or not Article 6 exemptions had been applied. Of the 4 Member States (DK, HU, LT, NL) that reported Article 6 exemptions only LT provided an explanation of the associated monitoring undertaken. Here monitoring requirements are set in the permit and are based on case by case analysis. Groundwater monitoring (a part of operational groundwater monitoring programme) is conducted on the basis of individual monitoring requirements set for each economic entity for a period of 3-5 years (programmes approved by the Lithuanian Geological Survey). Monitoring data is reported to the Geological Survey which verifies that the effects of an exempted input are acceptable.

The assessment of the first RBMPs seems to indicate that very few Member States had applied Article 6 exemptions. This may be partially due to the fact that the Groundwater Directive came into force early in 2007 by which time the planning process for the first RBMPs was underway in most Member States, and the measures and tools available in the Groundwater Directive may not have been fully considered at that stage, but is required to fully consider from the second RBMP cycle.

8.3.11. Monitoring of drinking water protection areas

The WFD integrates all existing water legislation into its programme of measures and through the requirement to identify protected areas. Article 8.1 states that for protected areas the WFD monitoring programmes must be supplemented by those specifications contained in the Community legislation under which the individual protected areas have been established. Drinking Water Protected Areas designated under Article 7 of the WFD providing more than 100 m3 of water a day as an average are required to be monitored. There could be specific sub-programmes for this purpose or the requirements could be part of other WFD monitoring programmes. Table 8.3.3 lists the number of sites associated with drinking water abstraction areas. There are differences in the number of sites associated with surface waters and groundwater. For some of the Members in the Table the lack of reported sites in a particular water category may reflect differences in the relative importance of the source in the Member State. For example groundwater is the most important source of drinking water in Austria and Malta and monitoring sites were only reported for groundwater.

For 16 Member States separate programmes for the monitoring of groundwater drinking water abstraction areas were reported whereas there were separate programmes in 12 Member States for both rivers and lakes (Figure 8.3.23). Monitoring was undertaken as part of WFD monitoring in most of the other Member States where the water category was used as a source of drinking water.

Member State || Groundwater || Surface waters

AT || 527 || None reported

BE (Fl) || None reported || 9

BG || 249 || 120

CY || 5 || 17

CZ || None reported || None reported

DE || 1338 || 809

DK || None reported || None reported

EE || 127 || 7

EL || 205 || 8

ES || 525 || 747

FI || 236 || 30

FR || 1565 || 574

HU || 1754 || 13

IE || 195 || 223

IT || 1607 || 184

LT || 359 || None reported

LU || 18 || 6

LV || None reported || 2

MT || 15 || None reported

NL || 223 || 12

PL || 459 || None reported

PT || 287 || 123

RO || 105 || 67

SE || 28 || None reported

SI || None reported || None reported

SK || None reported || 52

UK || None reported || None reported

Table 8.3.3: Number of groundwater monitoring sites in drinking water abstraction areas (groundwater) and associated with Drinking Water Directive (surface waters)

Source: WISE

Figure 8.3.23: Number of Member States with Monitoring of Drinking Water Protected Areas in rivers, lakes and groundwater

Key: Yes: there is a specific monitoring programme for DWPAs

No: there is no specific monitoring programme for DWPA though maybe included in other WFD monitoring

Not relevant: since drinking water is mainly abstracted from groundwater

No report: RBMP not reported from EL and PT

Source: WISE

8.3.12. Monitoring in International River Basin Districts

Several international river basins have established transboundary monitoring networks as part of international agreements or Conventions. In addition, Annex V WFD requires that transboundary water bodies are considered in the design of, and selection of monitoring sites for, surveillance monitoring of surface and groundwater. Figure 8.3.24 below indicates that transboundary monitoring networks have been established in a relatively low percentage of the International River Basin Districts (IRBD) where there are transboundary surface or groundwater bodies.

Figure 8.3.24: Number of International River Basin Districts where there are transboundary surface water (Rivers (R), Lakes (L), Transitional (T) and Coastal Waters (C) and Groundwater (G) monitoring programmes in place. There are 89 International River Basin Districts reported to WISE.

Source: WISE

8.3.13. Conclusions

It is clear that Member States have developed monitoring programmes and there has been some progress since reporting to the Commission in 2007. For example, at the EU level there has been a 39% increase in monitoring sites in surface waters and 17% more for groundwater.

Whilst there has been an increase in numbers of surface water monitoring sites in a number of Member States there still is a significant number of Member States where there has been a decrease (9 Member States for rivers, 8 for lakes, 7 for coastal waters and 5 for transitional waters).

In general, there has been an increase in the number of surface water bodies included in operational monitoring between 2007 and 2010 in more Member States than there has been a decrease but there is a significant number that have decreased the number of water bodies included. In terms of surveillance monitoring, more Member States have decreased rather than increased the numbers of surface water bodies included, this is particularly so for rivers and transitional waters.

As was found in the assessment of Member States 2007 reports, there are significant differences between Member States in the approach to the design of surface water and groundwater monitoring programmes. These differences reflect the number and sizes of water bodies Member States have delineated, the extent and intensity of different pressures and impacts on water bodies across Europe and the different stages in the development of adequate monitoring and assessment methods for all of the quality elements and parameters required by the WFD. These differences often make the assessment and comparison of the monitoring undertaken by Member States difficult.

Whilst there has been progress it is not always clear whether or not all of the objectives of surveillance monitoring have been fully designed into surface water monitoring programmes.

Member States are required to monitor for all relevant quality elements in surface water bodies and for a core set of parameters in groundwater bodies in all water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. In terms of biological quality elements only 4 out of the 20 Member States that reported the required information complied with this requirement. In addition the morphological conditions in lakes, transitional and coastal waters are not monitored by many Member States. For groundwater, only 5 out of the 14 Member States that reported the required information monitored all core parameters in all groundwater bodies included in surveillance monitoring. This leads to some uncertainly whether the impacts of all relevant pressures acting on surface water and groundwater bodies are capable of being detected in some Member States.

For operational monitoring of surface waters, Member States are able to select those biological and hydromorphological quality elements most sensitive to the pressures affecting water bodies. Whilst this is clearly done in some water bodies, there are cases where there is still a focus on specific quality elements and others where no biological quality elements are monitored at all rather morphological and/or physicochemical QEs are solely monitored. As approximately 50% of surface water bodies in the EU are subject to more than one pressure/impact this may lead to water bodies being incorrectly classified or classified with low confidence, and may contribute to the inappropriate targeting of expensive measures required to achieve objectives.

The relative numbers of water bodies monitored for particular quality elements and subsequently classified in terms of their ecological status/potential may indicate the confidence in the monitoring and assessment methods in Member States. For all relevant biological quality elements, there are examples in Member States where more water bodies are monitored than classified. However, in particular for fish and benthic invertebrates in lakes, fish in transitional waters and macroalgae and angiosperms in transitional and coastal waters more water bodies are monitored than classified in more Member States than where the reverse is the case. This may indicate that in some Member States the methods may need further development to make them more robust and reliable, and/or so that the methods are applicable to all water body types present in the Member State.

Overall in the EU, 42% of surface water bodies have been reported as having “unknown” chemical status, 58% with either good or less than good status and only 9% (in 18 Member States with reported information) are monitored for priority substances. This may indicate that overall priority substances are inadequately monitored and/or the assessment of the risk to water bodies from priority substance has not been undertaken for all surface water bodies in the EU.

A high percentage of groundwater bodies are included in the monitoring of quantitative status with over 80% included in quantitative monitoring in 11 (out of 26) Member States. Sweden did not report any quantitative monitoring. In terms of chemical surveillance monitoring over 80% of groundwater bodies are included in 16 Member States but fewer are generally included in chemical operational monitoring with at least 80% only included by 4 Member States. No operational monitoring was reported by Latvia or Sweden.

Groundwater monitoring does not seem to be targeted to significant pressures as 14 Member States reported to include less groundwater bodies in operational monitoring than have reported significant pressures for.

Monitoring programmes not in all Member States are able to detect significant trends. Trend assessments are not complete in most of the Member States mostly because of the short monitoring time series available.

The assessment of the first RBMPs seems to indicate that very few Member States had applied exemptions and, if applied, considered the monitoring required in relation to Article 6 of the Groundwater Directive. This may be partially due to the fact that the Groundwater Directive came into force early in 2007 by which time the planning process for the first RBMPs was underway in most Member States, and the measures and tools available in the Groundwater Directive may not have been fully considered at that stage.

Drinking water abstraction areas are generally monitored across the EU. For 16 Member States separate programmes for the monitoring of groundwater drinking water abstraction areas were reported whereas there were separate programmes in 12 Member States for both rivers and lakes. Monitoring was undertaken as part of WFD monitoring in most of the other Member States where the water category was used as a source of drinking water.

There is a significant gap in the co-ordinated monitoring of international transboundary water bodies in the EU. Transboundary monitoring networks have not been established in around 30% of the international RBDs where there are transboundary groundwater bodies and in around 20% of the international RBDs where there are transboundary rivers and lakes. There was also no information in around a third of the international RBDs as to whether or not transboundary monitoring was undertaken.

In general there was only limited information provided, or focus on, monitoring in RBMPs.

8.3.14. Recommendations

· The monitoring network in Member States is a key WFD element and information source that should be maintained and further developed in a consistent way.

· It should be clearer how the characterisation and pressure analysis are linked to the development of the monitoring programmes. Establishment of the monitoring network should consider significant pressures.

· There are significant gaps in the monitoring of the relevant quality elements in surface water bodies and core parameters for groundwater. This should be improved in order to reduce the risk that certain impacts arising from one or several pressures would not be detected.

· Gaps in the monitoring network for ecological status and especially for chemical status are leading to an unknown status classification. These gaps should be addressed in order to improve our knowledge on the status of European waters.

· It was clear from Member States reports to the Commission on monitoring in 2007 that often the reported information was not adequate to undertake a thorough assessment and comparison of the monitoring programmes. Certain areas of improvement were highlighted in individual feedback reports to Member States. It is recommended that these improvements are implemented by Member States for any subsequent reporting of monitoring programmes. In particular detailed and disaggregated information is required on the monitoring undertaken at each site and water body so that a complete assessment of the monitoring across the EU can be done in future. The reporting of more background and interpretative information would also help the Commission to explain and understand the different approaches adopted by Member States.

· It is recommended that more detailed information is provided in future RBMPs as monitoring is one of the key aspects in classifying water bodies and identifying where measures are needed. This should help make the whole decision making process more transparent to all stakeholders.

· All monitoring programmes should be able to detect significant pollution trends in groundwater to provide basis for the groundwater trend assessments and reversals under the GWD. In this respect it is especially crucial to maintain a consistent network of monitoring sites.

· When applying exemptions under Article 6 GWD, appropriate and targeted monitoring is essential.

· Co-ordinated monitoring of international transboundary water bodies should be further developed in order to achieve effective monitoring of those water bodies.

[1]               E.g. Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, Directive 76/464/EEC - Water pollution by discharges of certain dangerous substances

[2]               Earlier WFD implementation reports are available at : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm

[3]               European Free Trade Association

[4]              Norway chose to follow the same schedule that applies within the EU for approximately 20% of the Norwegian water bodies, on a voluntary basis. This means that Norway has established river basin management plans (RBMP) for the period 2009-2015 for selected water bodies, although there is no legal obligation to do so until 2018. The Norwegian pilot plans were adopted by the Regional Councils who are competent authorities at River Basin District level, and then approved by the Norwegian Government through Royal Decree.

[5]               All reported RBMPs are publicly available at www.circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_documents_1/submitted_rbmps&vm=detailed&sb=Title  

[6]               See http://water.europa.eu and in particular

http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/interactive/water-live-maps/wfd

[7]               Updated overview at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/map_mc/map.htm

[8]               Norway has adopted 11 pilot RBMPs. Norway is implementing the Water Framework Directive as part of the European Economic Area Agreement, with the specific timetable agreed therein.

[9]               This means the Danube would be counted as 9 instead of 1, if only the EU national parts are counted.

[10] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0128:FIN:EN:PDF

[11] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/com_209_156_en.pdf

[12] Belgium - C‑366/11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0366:FR:HTML

[13] Greece - C‑297/11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0297:FR:HTML

[14]  Portugal - C-223/11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0223:FR:HTML 

[15] Spain – C -403/11 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=128021&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5324214

[16] http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-eionet-freshwater/library/eea_2012_state_report/july-2012-draft-versions/

[17] Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU. Task 1: 'Water Governance'.  (WRc et al, 2012)   The report is hereafter referred to as the 'Pressures and Measures study' report, available via  : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/index_en.htm  NB. The findings of this study were validated by the respective SCG member for all Member States apart from EL, ES, FR, IT, PT, SI, UK.

[18]  This is for instance the case in Sardinia and Sicily(IT), Cyprus, (Vuoksi, Kymijoki-Gulf of Finland, Kokemõenjoki-Archipelago Sea-Bothnian Sea, Oulujoki-Iijoki (FI),  Corsica, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyana(FR), Luxemburg part of Meuse and Rhine(LU), Slovakia, Eider & Warnow/Peene (DE) and 3 RBD Northern Ireland(UK). 

[19]  Sub-units have been designated in, for example, international RBDs where there has been a need for a smaller management unit (than a sub-basin) where international borders are not based hydrological boundaries

[20]             'Pressures and measures study', task 1 - Governance.

[21]             In Hungary, the regional offices of the environmental inspectorate are organized by sub-basin.

[22] Pressures & Measures study, task 1 - Governance.

[23] Pressures & Measures study, Task 1, Governance.

[24] Pressures & Measures study, Task 1, Governance.

[25]             Example of regional approaches: FI (mainland Finland is differently managed from the autonomous region Åland Island), FR (Some "Departements Outre Mer", DOMs, are very different from the mainland, such as Reunion Island), UK (different approaches are taken in Scotland, Northern Ireland and in England/Wales respectively).

[26]             German Working Group on water issues of the Federal States and the Federal Government represented by the Federal Environment Ministry.

[27] An overview of the timing of consultations can be found here http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/map_mc/map.htm. 

[28] Background document, 2nd European Water Conference 2009, available at : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/index_en.htm

[29] Background document  2nd European Water Conference, held 2-3.4.2009

[30] 'Pressures and Measures study', task 1, Governance.

[31] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/eurobarometer.htm

[32]             An in-depth study on international cooperation was carried out in the 'Pressures and Measures study', resulting in 32 factsheets covering specific 75 transboundary river basins and 30 transboundary sub-basins as parts of  those basins. The 30 "sub-basins" studied relate to the main river basins as follows (sub-basin or individual smaller basin in brackets) :  Po (Adda/Lake Como, Ticino/Lago Maggiore), Rhône (Allaine, Arve, Doubs, Lac Leman/Lake Geneva, Segre), Adour-Garonne RBD (Bidasoa, Nive, Nivelle), Vistula(Bug, Dunajec, Poprad), North Western RBD(Erne, Foyle), Vuoksi RBD (Hiitolanjoki, Hounijoki, Jänisjoki, Juustilanjoki, Kaltonjoki, Kiteenjoki-Tohamajoki, Koutajoki, Saimaa Canal, Tervajoki, Urpalanjoki, Vaalimanjoki, Vilajoki), Drin/Drim (Lake Prespa), Ebro RBD (Segre), Meuse RBD (Sambre), Haldenvassdraget (Strömsan)

[33] Pressures & Measures study, Task 1, Governance.

[34] For the Rhone basin it can be said that coordination of various joint activities takes place in its sub-basins of Doubs, Allaine, Arve and Lake Geneva.

[35] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2007_0362_en.pdf

[36] http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/guidancesnos2sidentifica/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[37] http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/guidancesnos3spressuress/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[38] See section 8.6 on designation of HMWB

[39] Commission vs. Malta (Case C-351/09, ruling of 22.12.2010) – Bad application -Monitoring networks – for not having established a network of monitoring for inland waters, and for failure to submit a summary report to the Commission. In this ruling, the court found that even if the Maltese inland surface water bodies are small, there is a need to ensure monitoring.

[40] Further details on hydromorphological pressures can be found in the EEA Hydromorphology Thematic Assessment report.

[41] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0128:FIN:EN:PDF

[42] COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2009/90/EC  of 31 July 2009  laying down, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status.

[43] In the case of Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia, , it was not possible to extract the information, because the data were not supplied at the station level

[44] The number of water bodies identified as having significant pressures in Sweden for use in computation of the values in the Figure has been adjusted (reduced) to take into account the approach adopted by Sweden in identifying all of its water bodies as subject to diffuse pressures from hazardous substances (mercury), an approach not adopted by other Member States.

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin Districts

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

France has a population of 64.3 million[1] and a total area of 550 000 km².

France has identified 13 River Basin Districts (RBDs), out of which 4 are overseas territories. Among them six are shared with another European country: Rhône, Adour Garonne, Rhin-Meuse, Artois Picardie, Seine and Normandie, with Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Spain. Four of the French RBDs are islands (Corsica, La Réunion, Martinique and Guadeloupe).

For the Meuse river basin, two separate but linked RBDs were designated (Sambre and Meuse).

RBD || Name || Size[2] (km2) || Countries sharing RBD

FRA || Scheldt, Somme and coastal waters of the Channel and the North Sea || 18738 || BE, NL

FRB1 || Meuse || 7787 || BE, DE, LU, NL

FRB2 || Sambre (part of the Meuse international RBD) || 1099 || BE

FRC || Rhine || 23653 || BE, CH, DE, LU, NL

FRD || Rhone and Coastal Mediterranean || 120427 || CH, ES, IT

FRE || Corsica || 8713 || -

FRF || Adour, Garonne, Dordogne, Charente and coastal waters of Aquitania || 116475 || ES

FRG || Loire, Brittany and Vendee coastal waters || 156490 || -

FRH || Seine and Normandy coastal waters || 93991 || BE

FRI || Guadeloupe || 1780 || -

FRJ || Martinique || 1102 || -

FRK || Guyana (French) || 90000 || -

FRL || Réunion Island || 2512 || -

Table 1.1: Overview of France’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[3]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/fr/eu/wfdart13

Mayotte was not a French territory by the date of the adoption of the RBMPs (2009). The RBMP for FRM Mayotte will be prepared for the next cycle (2015).

France has a number of major international river basins on its territory with established international co-operation, and RBMPs (Rhine, Meuse, Scheldt). There are also a number of river basins where small stretches of river cross the national frontiers, such as part of the river Po (mainly in Italy), and small parts of the Ebro (mainly in Spain and Andorra).  The Rhône river basin is shared with Switzerland. In some of these cases there is established co-operation on a bilateral level, although no international RBMPs have been adopted. Each of these French RBDs are therefore considered as international.

 

Name international river basin || National RBD || Other RBD  names || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

1 || 2

km² || % || km² || %

Ebro || FRD || Adour Garonne (FR) / Cantabrico Oriental (ES) || CH, ES, IT || || || 474 || 0.55

Garonne || FRF || Ebro (ES) || ES || || || 80122 || 99.3

Meuse-Maas || FRB1 || Meuse / Maas (BE, NL) || BE, DE, LU, NL || 8919 || 26.0 || ||

Po || FRD || Po/Rhône || CH, ES, IT || || || 173 || 0.23

Rhine || FRC || Rhine (BE), Rhein || BE, CH, DE, LU, NL || 23830 || 12.1 || ||

Rhone || FRD || CH, Po (IT) || CH, ES, IT || || || 88977 || 92.1

Scheldt || FRA || Escaut / Scheldt (BE) || BE, NL || 18486 || 50.8 || ||

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in France[4]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

In France, the River Basin Management Plans, called SDAGE (Schéma Directeur d'Aménagement et de Gestion des Eaux) were adopted in December 2009. They can all be found at http://gesteau.eaufrance.fr/consulter-les-sdage.

There are 13 River Basin Districts (RBDs) in France, of which 7 are national parts of International RBDs. Mayotte has only been recently added to the French territory as a Département d'Outre-Mer and has not yet adopted a RBMP.

A summary of the main strengths and weaknesses of the French RBMPs is presented below.

2.1 Main strengths

· The French RBMPs have gone through an extensive co-ordination process between the different sectors and stakeholders involved and a wide process of consultation with the public.

· There are a number of national guidelines that have been extensively developed for most of the WFD topics (monitoring, ecological and chemical assessment methods, groundwater assessment, exemptions).

· Substantial efforts have been made to integrate the WFD principles into the water management. A good understanding of the work needed for the proper implementation of the WFD has been demonstrated, and there has been continuous progress after the adoption of the first RBMPs (ecological and chemical assessment methods, designation of HMWBs, monitoring, etc.)

2.2 Main weaknesses

· There are significant gaps in the development of assessment methods for the biological quality elements in this first RBMP. The biological assessment methods for rivers are significantly more developed than those for other water type. The assessment methods for supporting quality elements on physico-chemical and hydromorphological characteristics are generally only partially developed.

· For most of the French RBDs, the assessment of chemical status has been based on the Annex I of Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) Directive 2008/105/EC, but not for all. Furthermore, different substances have been used in the different plans (and not all the 41 substances of Annex I) for the assessment of chemical status of water bodies. For these reasons, the methods for the assessment of chemical status are very unclear, including which substances have been used, and the reasons for the selection of certain specific substances.

· There are a relatively high number of exemptions under Article 4(4) and 4(5) based on disproportionate costs, for which no clear justification has been provided in the RBMPs.

· Water services have been interpreted differently in the French RBDs. Some RBDs have a broad approach, which takes into account all possible abstraction, storage, treatment, impoundment etc. In other RBDs the approach has been narrower, taking into account public and self-water abstraction and wastewater treatment for all sectors, as well as irrigation. Finally, in some RBDs, the approach has been even more limited, taking into account only abstraction and wastewater treatment for households, industry and abstraction for agriculture.

3. Governance 3.1 RBMP timelines

The table here below shows the dates of publication and adoption of the different documents to be produced during the planning cycle, as set in Article 14 of the WFD.

RBD || Timetable || Work programme || Statement on consultation || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Final RBMP

Due dates || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009

FRA || 01/09/2004 || 01/09/2004 || 01/09/2004 || 01/09/2004 || 15/04/2008 || 20/11/2009

FRB1 || 02/05/2005 || 02/05/2005 || 02/05/2005 || 04/02/2005 || 24/11/2006 to 15/04/2008 || 17/12/2009

FRB2 || 01/09/2004 || 01/09/2004 || 01/09/2004 || 01/09/2004 || 15/04/2008 || 20/11/2009

FRC || 02/05/2005 || 02/05/2005 || 02/05/2005 || 04/02/2005 || 24/11/2006 to 15/04/2008 || 17/12/2009

FRD || 02/05/2005 || 02/05/2005 || 02/05/2005 || 02/05/2005 || 15/04/2008 || 21/12/2009

FRE || 02/05/2005 || 02/05/2005 || 02/05/2005 || 15/03/2005 || 09/06/2008 || 21/12/2009

FRF || 02/05/2005 || 02/05/2005 || 15/04/2008 || 05/02/2005 || 15/04/2008 || 21/12/2009

FRG || 01/09/2004 || 01/09/2004 || 01/09/2004 || 01/09/2004 || 15/04/2008 || 21/12/2009

FRH || 02/05/2005 || 02/05/2005 || 02/05/2005 || 02/05/2005 || 15/04/2008 || 21/12/2009

FRI || 01/10/2005 || 01/10/2005 || 15/12/2008 || 01/03/2005 || 15/12/2008 || 17/12/2009

FRJ || 01/11/2005 || 01/11/2005 || 01/11/2005 || 01/05/2006 || 15/12/2008 || 17/12/2009

FRK || 02/01/2007 || 02/01/2007 || 02/01/2007 || 02/01/2007 || 15/12/2008 || 17/12/2009

FRL || 22/03/2006 || 22/03/2006 || 22/03/2006 || 22/03/2006 || 15/12/2008 || 17/12/2009

FRM || - || - || - || - || - || -

Table 3.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: WISE

3.2 Administrative arrangements

The main authority responsible for the implementation of the WFD is the French Ministry of Environment and its regional offices (Directions Régionales de l'Environnement, de l'Aménagement et du Logement).

There is a strong national approach in WFD implementation in the different RBDs.

French Ministry representatives have been responsible since 2006 for the ensuring implementation of the new French water law, which introduces WFD requirements into French law. They are responsible for information, and for the control of mandatory measures driven by new decrees (pesticides/nitrates diffuse and point contamination sources, water withdrawal for irrigation, ecological continuity...). Water basin agencies are responsible for implementing the Polluter Pays Principle through a tax/subsidy system, and for providing local engagement, and financial support for implementing the Programme of Measures annexed to the RBMP.

3.3 RBMPs – structure, completeness, legal status

RBMPs are prepared by the Water Agencies and the regional offices of the Ministry of Environment (DREAL), through a large process of cooperation and consultation. The documents are adopted by River Basin Committees, and approved by the Co-ordinating Prefect ('préfet coordonnateur de bassin').

The RBMP is a planning document. In the hierarchy of legal acts, on the one hand, it falls under laws and regulations (decrees) and cannot contradict them. On the other hand, it stands above water-related administrative decisions including various planning documents. In addition, it applies only at the river basin scale and therefore cannot modify national-level administrative decisions. The Environmental Code stipulates that the administrative programmes and decisions in the field of water must be compatible, or made compatible, with the provisions of the RBMP, in particular the environmental objectives. The binding nature of the RBMP derives from an obligation of compatibility, which stands between an obligation of taking into account and an obligation of compliance. It implies that the administrative decision or programme should not contradict the main objectives and provisions of the RBMP. It is not directly binding on individuals but on the administration. Therefore, it is the administrative decision which, for example, authorises an individual action contrary to the RBMP, which can be brought to court[5]. Such decisions would include permitting for industrial installations and hydropower concessions as well as authorisations for abstraction for agriculture. This obligation also applies to existing permit/concessions. However, there is no time limit specified for making the individual permitting decisions compatible with the RBMPs.

There is also an obligation to ensure other plans are compatible with the RBMPs.

SDAGE – SAGE: the coherence between the SDAGE ('Schémas Directeurs d'aménagement et de gestion des eaux' at RBD level) and the SAGE ('Schémas d'Aménagement et de Gestion des Eaux' for sub-basin or the appropriate hydrographical unit) – the SAGE translates the provisions of the SDAGE to the local context. The SAGE should always be or made compatible with the provisions of the SDAGE, and the SAGE is approved by the State. The River Basin Committee is responsible for the implementation of the SDAGE, and the SAGE is submitted for the opinion of the River Basin Committee. Furthermore, all programmes or administrative regulations related to water management (including town planning and land use) should be made compatible with the SDAGE.

Several guidance documents have been prepared by working groups with representatives of national authorities and of RBD level authorities. They set the common methodologies in accordance with the WFD requirements. This guidance documents are applied in each RBD, with some adaptations if needed, but always in line with the obligations stemming from the WFD.

Influence of public consultation in the adopted plans: websites have been established to provide information on the replies received and the assessment of those replies, and to make the opinions of different regional and local authorities publicly available.

The main changes that such consultation has brought about relate to changes in the selection of measures, or the modification of a specific measure, and to the provision of additional information. To a lesser extent, the consultation has resulted in methodologies being changed, further research being carried out or commitments being made for actions in the next cycle.

3.4 International cooperation and coordination

There are different levels of international co-ordination: ranging from the international RBMPs of the Scheldt, the Rhine and the Meuse, through international co-ordination through bilateral agreements in respect of the Rhone, to administrative arrangements on co-ordination of objectives and PoM (Spain – Adour) or exchange of information and some sort of co-ordination (Seine – with Belgium). Although the national RBMP states that the Rhône RBDs is not an international RBD, there is information about bilateral co-operation with, for instance, Switzerland, in the preparation of the RBMP.

3.5 Integration with other sectors

The different stakeholders involved in the implementation of the WFD (farmers’ organisations, industries, households, consumers, municipalities, fishing and recreational users, etc.) are involved through their representatives in the River Basin Committees.

There is a continuous involvement of stakeholders and the general public through the River Basin Committees, which are the bodies designated to ensure the proper implementation of the PoM. The Coordinating Prefect ('préfet coordonnateur de bassin') approves the SDAGE after adoption by the River Basin Committee and adopts the PoM after the consultation of the River Basin Committee. The implementation of the measures is divided between the State, the public authorities and the users.

After a wide process of consultation, with all relevant stakeholders, the River Basin Committee gathers the different contributions from the public and the stakeholders and submits the draft RBMP. The RBMP is an 'Arrêté'[6] to be applied only at river basin scale, which cannot contradict other laws or regulations, and which stands above other water-related administrative decisions.

The permits and the co-ordination with other policies seem to be co-ordinated by the main WFD Competent Authority.

Permits for hydropower authorisations must be compatible or made compatible with the provisions of the SDAGE (including for authorisations and their renewal), but the deadline to make them compatible is not established in the environmental law.

The revision of authorisations for water abstraction was aligned with the WFD 6 years, so the revision of the SDAGE may trigger a revision of the authorisation to make it compatible with the SDAGE. The same applies for IPPC and other industrial installations (they all are administrative decisions) – and the SDAGE can even impose stricter limits to the direct or indirect discharge of hazardous substances to the limits set at national level, if that is necessary for the achievement of good status.

3.6 Other information

A Strategic Environmental Assessment has generally been carried out for the planned Programme of Measures (PoM), except from for the Rhone, the Loire and the Seine, and has been either integrated in the RBMP or adopted as a different document. However, an environmental report is compulsory for all SDAGEs and it is included in the document of the plans.

The financial resources of water taxes are allocated to the Water Agencies' budget and therefore directly allocated to the French water policy. There are binding financial commitments through the Water Agencies' intervention programs for financing WFD priorities, and are complemented by funding from regulatory activities of public institutions and local and regional authorities. These sources of funding are however not mentioned in the RBMPs.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

All mainland French RBMPs include all types of water categories, except for transitional and coastal waters for the Meuse, the Sambre and the Rhine. The RBMP of Guadeloupe only includes rivers and coastal waters, and the one of the Réunion Island does not include transitional waters.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

The following table presents an overview of the different typologies identified and the total number of water bodies for each water type. Surface water typologies have been developed for all water categories. France has reported just over 100 water surface water body types, of which more than 70% are rivers.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

FRA || 9 || 3 || 2 || 3

FRB1 || 9 || 3 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 12 || 4 || 2 || 3

FRC || 18 || 8 || 0 || 0

FRD || 143 || 31 || 3 || 7

FRE || 143 || 31 || 1 || 4

FRF || 143 || 31 || 5 || 7

FRG || 143 || 31 || 12 || 26

FRH || 143 || 31 || 2 || 7

FRI || 4 || 0 || 0 || 6

FRJ || 3 || 1 || 1 || 7

FRK || 8 || 1 || 3 || 1

FRL || 6 || 2 || 0 || 6

Table 4.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

However, the water typologies have in general not been tested against biological data. Only in the RBMPs of the Rhone and the Loire, is it stated that the typology has been tested against biological data for all water categories. For the rest, this has only been done for rivers (Sambre), only for rivers but partially (Seine) and only partially for rivers, coastal and transitional water bodies (Martinique Island).

The reference conditions have not been completely defined in all RBMPs. They have not been established for all types, but mainly for rivers and lakes, and in general they have been established only partially (only for some quality elements). This is expected to be improved for the next cycle of RBMPs. Furthermore, some biological quality elements still need to be intercalibrated. Further development of the methods to establish the reference conditions will be needed, and especially for transitional and coastal waters.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

FRA || 55 || 44 || 4 || 1 || 4 || 15 || 5 || 101 || 16 || 1307

FRB1 || 141 || 21 || 4 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 1062

FRB2 || 11 || 33 || 1 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 773

FRC || 473 || 22 || 25 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 15 || 2282

FRD || 2610 || 15 || 103 || 8 || 27 || 28 || 32 || 79 || 180 || 786

FRE || 210 || 14 || 6 || 1 || 4 || 7 || 14 || 151 || 9 || 1000

FRF || 2680 || 15 || 105 || 3 || 12 || 48 || 11 || 140 || 105 || 3641

FRG || 1940 || 51 || 141 || 2 || 30 || 17 || 39 || 305 || 143 || 1489

FRH || 1679 || 15 || 45 || 3 || 7 || 39 || 19 || 102 || 53 || 3497

FRI || 47 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 281 || 6 || 295

FRJ || 20 || 12 || 1 || 0 || 4 || 3 || 19 || 51 || 6 || 180

FRK || 934 || 20 || 1 || 350 || 8 || 78 || 1 || 1943 || 12 || 7309

FRL || 24 || 25 || 3 || 0 || 0 || || 13 || 12 || 16 || 177

Total || 10824 || 22 || 439 || 4 || 96 || 30 || 164 || 163 || 574 || 1904

Table 4.2: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

There is a national approach for the delineation of water types. The methodology is based on the identification of natural types together with the consideration of significant pressures. For rivers, system B has been used for the typology of natural water bodies. All river water bodies in a basin larger than 10 km2 are taken into account (as required by directive system A).

The delineation of surface water bodies was carried out following a national approach, which establishes the general criteria to be used for the different RBMPs. This method is set in accordance with the 'Arrêté du 12 janvier 2010 relatif aux méthodes et aux critères à mettre en œuvre pour délimiter et classer les masses d’eau et dresser l’état des lieux prévu à l’article R. 212-3 du code de l’environnement'. There is also a national methodology for the delineation of transitional water bodies.

Small water bodies – Small water bodies are defined to ensure coherence on the assessment units. For rivers, range 1 to 3 (2 to 5 km), range 4 and 5 (10 to 15 km), for higher ranges, 25 to 30 km. For lakes, water bodies are considered from 50 ha (around 500 lakes), and smaller lakes that include reference sites have been also considered as water bodies.

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

Pressures should have a sufficient intensity and geographical scope in order to be identified. The identification of the main pressures on the water bodies is used for the definitive delineation of water bodies.

There is a national guidance document to establish the methodologies for the identification of pressures ('Arrêté du 12 janvier 2010 relatif aux méthodes et aux critères à mettre en œuvre pour délimiter et classer les masses d'eau et dresser l'état des lieux prévu à l'article R. 212-3 du code de l'environnement'), which has been incorporated in the pressures definition of the different SDAGEs.

The definition of significant pressures is contained in a guidance document of March 2003 ('Guide Pressions et Impacts. Mars 2003'). A single pressure or a combination of several pressures should be considered as significant when it may lead to failure in the achievement of the WFD objectives. The difficulty lies in the establishment of a link between pressures and the potential degradation of the status of the water bodies. Therefore, modelling and spatial extrapolation needs to be carried out, and local expert judgment is required to verify the results of such modelling.

The significant pressures are established from the available monitoring data. However, these data are not complete or homogenous, and modelling together with expert judgment has been used to complete the assessment. The potential impact of the pressures has been deduced by this method and. by taking into account possible future developments, the risk of failing to achieve the objectives has been calculated. The thresholds have been defined ex-ante for the different pressures, and needed to be adapted to the characteristics of the specific water bodies with the help of expert judgment.

The data produced, together with expert judgment, has allowed for the production of the first RBMPs, and these will be consolidated for the next cycle with more quantitative / monitoring data. It is stated that the gaps encountered in the definition of significant pressures will be reduced in future planning cycles with the improvement of status data from monitoring and with the development of new rules and methodologies.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

FRA || 0 || 0 || 62 || 91.18 || 63 || 92.65 || 0 || 0 || 55 || 80.88 || 54 || 98 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 5.88

FRB1 || 58 || 40 || 35 || 24.14 || 54 || 37.24 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 4.14 || 44 || 31 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 91.67 || 12 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 12 || 100 || 11 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 119 || 23.9 || 185 || 37.15 || 289 || 58.03 || 0 || 0 || 49 || 9.84 || 158 || 33 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRD || 1153 || 41.59 || 869 || 31.35 || 713 || 25.72 || 477 || 17.21 || 1183 || 42.68 || 923 || 35 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0.11

FRE || 178 || 76.07 || 24 || 10.26 || 16 || 6.84 || 26 || 11.11 || 36 || 15.38 || 20 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRF || 1180 || 42.02 || 630 || 22.44 || 1176 || 41.88 || 748 || 26.64 || 1243 || 44.27 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRG || 400 || 18.6 || 846 || 39.35 || 710 || 33.02 || 826 || 38.42 || 0 || 0 || 1318 || 68 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 0.19

FRH || 190 || 10.86 || 725 || 41.43 || 1167 || 66.69 || 160 || 9.14 || 277 || 15.83 || 601 || 36 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 0.63

FRI || 21 || 36.21 || 6 || 10.34 || 26 || 44.83 || 11 || 18.97 || 19 || 32.76 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 4 || 9.09 || 25 || 56.82 || 35 || 79.55 || 9 || 20.45 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRK || 586 || 62.08 || 38 || 4.03 || 181 || 19.17 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 245 || 25.95

FRL || 8 || 20 || 6 || 15 || 6 || 15 || 20 || 50 || 13 || 32.5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 16 || 40

Total || 3897 || 33.82 || 3462 || 30.04 || 4448 || 38.6 || 2277 || 19.76 || 2893 || 25.11 || 3129 || 29 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 283 || 2.46

Table 4.3: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

Around 33% of water bodies are not subject to any significant pressure. Pressures from point and diffuse sources have been identified in all RBMPs, and have been identified as significant pressures for 30 and 39% of surface water bodies respectively. Water abstraction has been identified as a significant pressure in 8 RBDs, being particularly relevant (around 38% of water bodies) in the Loire RBD. Morphological modifications and flow regulation affects more than 80% and river management for more than 92% of water bodies of the Scheldt RBD.

RBD || Point Source || Diffuse Source || Water Abstraction || Artificial Recharge || Saltwater Intrusion || Other Pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

FRA || 0 || 0 || 48 || 300 || 26 || 163 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 5.88

FRB1 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 36 || 4 || 36 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 300 || 3 || 150 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 2 || 13 || 8 || 53 || 13 || 87 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRD || 18 || 10 || 59 || 33 || 149 || 83 || 2 || 1,1 || 5 || 2,8 || 3 || 0.11

FRE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 22 || || 0 || 2 || 22 || 0 || 0

FRF || 0 || 0 || 96 || 91 || 125 || 119 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRG || 0 || 0 || 74 || 52 || 66 || 46 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 0.19

FRH || 12 || 23 || 50 || 94 || 12 || 23 || 2 || 3,8 || 1 || 1,9 || 11 || 0.63

FRI || 0 || 0 || 1 || 17 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 0 || 0 || 3 || 50 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRK || 8 || 67 || 18 || 150 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 245 || 25.95

FRL || 1 || 6.3 || 11 || 69 || 12 || 75 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 38 || 16 || 40

Total || 41 || 7.1 || 378 || 66 || 412 || 72 || 4 || 0.7 || 14 || 2.4 || 8 || 1.4

Table 4.4: Number and percentage of groundwater bodies affected by significant pressures.

Source: WISE

The main sectors responsible for the different type of pressures have also been identified in the all RBMPs. Point sources have, in general, not been clearly defined (Urban Waste Water Treatment plants, storms, IPPC or other non-IPPC pollution (only in the Sambre, and Rhone for UWWT and IPPC). Although this information on point source pollution is publicly available on a government website[7], it has not been clearly explained in the RBMPs. The RBMPs state that all pollutants from which the impact on the environment is proven are considered as 'significant pressures' and are quantified. However, there are no reference values for the consideration of those pollutants.

There is no clear explanation either on diffuse sources (urban, agriculture, transport, etc.) or for other pressures (such as water abstraction, water flow regulation and morphological alterations) (except from the Rhone).

4.5 Protected areas

France has designated 33 602 protected areas, of which 86% are designated for abstraction for drinking water under Article 7 of the WFD, 10% under the Bathing Waters Directive, 2% under the Habitats Directive and 1% under the Birds Directive.

There are 2772 protected areas (around 8% of the total) that may be associated with groundwater bodies.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

FRA || 1016 || 47 || 12 || || || 8 || || || 1 || 9 || 4

FRB1 || 670 || 8 || 7 || || || 11 || || || 1 || || 1

FRB2 || 58 || 1 || 2 || || || 1 || || || 1 || || 1

FRC || 2834 || 58 || 16 || || || 38 || || || 1 || || 3

FRD || 8915 || 1.035 || 74 || || || 78 || || || 1 || 8 || 6

FRE || 932 || 223 || 9 || || || 28 || || || || 1 ||

FRF || 4.424 || 510 || 61 || || || 269 || || || 1 || 8 || 19

FRG || 5.327 || 995 || 94 || 42 || || 302 || || || 1 || 38 ||

FRH || 4.461 || 245 || 39 || || || 36 || || || 1 || 19 || 28

FRI || 50 || 125 || || || || || || || || ||

FRJ || 34 || 61 || || || || || || || || ||

FRK || 55 || 14 || || || || || || || || ||

FRL || 202 || 20 || || || || || || || || || 2

Total || 28.978 || 3.342 || 314 || 42 || || 771 || || || 8 || 83 || 64

Table 4.5: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[8]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

France has applied a national approach in the methodologies for establishing the surveillance and the operational monitoring schemes. There is a guidance document that has been approved after the adoption of the first RBMPs. ('Arrêté du 25 janvier 2010 établissant le programme de surveillance de l'état des eaux en application de l'article R.212-22 du code de l'environnement').

The surveillance monitoring programme is designed to provide information on the general status of water bodies. The monitoring network is composed of a number of permanent sites (both in the mainland France and in the overseas territories), with the objective of having enough data to monitor the aquatic ecosystems in the long term, in particular to assess the impacts on those ecosystems by the changes in the natural conditions of water bodies, both due to human activities and to climate change.

The surveillance network is not designed for monitoring the different pressures, but rather to improve the knowledge of the status of water bodies. It also provides the necessary information to set up the operational monitoring network.

The surveillance network does not include the monitoring of protected areas. However, France is currently improving the coherence of monitoring networks under the WFD and the Nitrates Directive.

The operational monitoring programmes should be based on the pressures and impacts analysis. However, for the French RBMPs, these are established for water bodies at risk of not achieving the environmental objectives by 2015, and to assess the improvements of the status of water bodies after the implementation of the programme of measures. The monitoring sites in the water bodies are fixed as being representative of the water body and of the impacts or pressures causing the risk of failure to achieve good status or potential, and also as being representative of the scale of the water body.

A 'sampling principle' is used to group the water bodies, but only for water bodies subject to diffuse pollution from agricultural activities and for some hydromorphological pressures, or for short-term pressures affecting small water bodies under similar conditions. This sampling is carried out for homogenous water bodies: water bodies with the same type of water use and natural structure (for hydromorphological pressures), and the same type of pressures. The sampling rate is of 50%, and of 50 water bodies per group, with the selection being made taking into account the proportion of water bodies at risk of not achieving the objectives per water type.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

FRA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRB1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRB2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRC || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRD || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRF || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRG || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRH || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRI || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRJ || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRK || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

FRA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRB1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRB2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRC || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRD || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRF || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRG || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRH || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRI || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRJ || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRK || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

FRA || 42 || 43 || 4 || 4 || 2 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 50 || 139 || 68

FRB1 || 27 || 87 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 54 || 21 || 17

FRB2 || 8 || 6 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 3 || 6

FRC || 80 || 376 || 15 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 144 || 96 || 64

FRD || 396 || 658 || 45 || 47 || 12 || 18 || 18 || 8 || 337 || 351 || 335

FRE || 22 || 23 || 6 || 5 || 4 || 3 || 6 || 7 || 18 || 0 || 26

FRF || 355 || 935 || 52 || 38 || 8 || 10 || 7 || 1 || 312 || 185 || 409

FRG || 420 || 957 || 49 || 78 || 16 || 30 || 25 || 22 || 357 || 227 || 399

FRH || 216 || 1161 || 23 || 44 || 5 || 7 || 12 || 12 || 439 || 376 || 260

FRI || 20 || 17 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 7 || 9 || 1 || 22

FRJ || 14 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 12 || 0 || 18 || 20 || 29

FRK || 53 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 13 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 18 || 0 || 17

FRL || 20 || 4 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 4 || 14 || 27 || 22

Total by type of site || 1.673 || 4.267 || 199 || 217 || 63 || 72 || 109 || 65 || 1.775 || 1.446 || 1.674

Total number of monitoring sites[9] || 4967 || 315 || 96 || 129 || 3883

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

|| River || Lake || Coastal Water || Transitional Water || Groundwater

RBD || SM || OM || SM || OM || SM || OM || SM || OM || SM || OM

FRA || 40 || 35 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 2 || 4 || 15 || 15

FRB1 || 27 || 87 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 4

FRB2 || 7 || 6 || 01 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2

FRC || 78 || 375 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 13 || 9

FRD || 357 || 596 || 45 || 47 || 18 || 8 || 12 || 18 || 151 || 45

FRE || 22 || 23 || 6 || 5 || 6 || 7 || 4 || 3 || 8 || 0

FRF || 308 || 705 || 52 || 38 || 7 || 1 || 8 || 10 || 92 || 45

FRG || 375 || 936 || 48 || 77 || 25 || 22 || 16 || 30 || 135 || 88

FRH || 208 || 736 || 23 || 44 || 12 || 12 || 5 || 7 || 53 || 53

FRI || 20 || 17 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 7 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 1

FRJ || 14 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 12 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 6 || 6

FRK || 53 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 13 || 0 || 12 || 0

FRL || 14 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 10

Total No of sites || 1.523 || 3.519 || 180 || 216 || 109 || 65 || 63 || 72 || 513 || 278

Table 5.3: Number of water bodies included in surveillance (SM) and operational monitoring (OM) at RBD level

Source: WISE

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

There are some gaps in the surveillance monitoring for surface waters. Not all quality elements (QEs) are monitored in the surveillance monitoring programmes.

For those water bodies included in surveillance monitoring, all the required biological quality elements are monitored at RBD level and have been monitored in 90% of water bodies in rivers, 75% in lakes, 81% in transitional waters and 68% in coastal waters.

In the RBD Scheldt, Somme and coastal waters of the Channel and the North Sea, there is a lack of surveillance monitoring in rivers (of river continuity and morphological conditions), in lakes (of fish and benthic invertebrates), and in transitional and coastal waters (of the morphological conditions and tidal regime). According to the information received from France, the monitoring networks have been improved after the adoption of the first RBMPs, and the river continuity and morphological conditions are currently being monitored in the Scheldt and the Sambre (for 13 WBs in Scheldt and 6 in Sambre). Also, according to this information, there is currently monitoring of fish in lakes (3 WBs out of total of 4) in the Sambre. The monitoring of macroinvertebrates for heavily modified lakes in the Sambre has not yet been developed. For transitional and coastal waters, the results will be consistent with the intercalibration exercise at EU level when it has been finalised.

In the RBD Rhone and Coastal Mediterranean, there is lack of surveillance monitoring in lakes (phytobenthos). According to the latest information from France, there is work currently in progress to complete these monitoring networks in the near future.

Priority substances and other pollutants are monitored in surface waters, but there is no information in the RBMPs about the monitoring of specific individual substances. Furthermore, the extent of monitoring of sediments and/or biota is not clear.

Transboundary co-operation on monitoring programmes is in place in the international RBDs for both surface and groundwater. This co-operation is carried out in the framework of the work of the International Commissions for the Scheldt, the Rhine, the Meuse and in the sector Moselle-Sarre.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

There is monitoring of quantitative status of groundwater in all French RBDs. The monitoring network is designed to determine the available groundwater resources, taking into account the long-term tendencies of recharge, and the impact of water abstraction on the level of groundwater bodies at risk of failing to achieve good quantitative status. There is also monitoring of transboundary groundwater bodies. All the requirements of the WFD have been transposed via the 'Arrêté' of 2010.

There is general information in the RBMPs on the parameters to be monitored for operational monitoring of chemical status, in relation to the main pressures on groundwater bodies. The groundwater monitoring is focused on those water bodies that are at risk of failing to reach good chemical status and for evaluating effectiveness of the Programme of Measures. All core parameters and other pollutants are included in operational monitoring. Nitrates and pesticides are recognised as main pressures and are monitored as part of operational monitoring.

The methodology to detect trends of pollutants in groundwater is explained in the background documents of the different RBMPs. There is no national method established for this monitoring, and each RBD uses the method that best suits the specific characteristics of its water bodies. There are however national recommendations for which data should be used for this.

There has been no use of Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive[10].

On international co-operation, there has been some sort of co-operation with Belgium (no agreement or plan made, but existing communication, no information on transboundary groundwater bodies), in the Rhone (France has not identified this RBD as international - it however shares a small part of its basin with neighbouring countries including Switzerland, Italy and Spain - under the CIPEL discussions have taken place on monitoring programme - no details provided), and in the Meuse and in the Rhine (for both, since exchanges between groundwater layers are limited, it was suggested to limit international co-ordination to a bilateral or trilateral technique at the border zones where exchanges are significant: localisation of the sites, the piezometric evaluation at both sides of the boundary, the frequency of measurements is discussed). The level of international co-operation is not clear for the Sambre.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

Drinking water protected areas are generally clearly designated in accordance with Article 7 WFD and surveillance monitoring is done in these protected zones. There are a number of sites associated with drinking water abstraction included in the groundwater quantitative and qualitative monitoring programme.

However, information in the RBMP is unclear on whether a specific monitoring programme for drinking water protected areas is in place. According to information received from France, the new 'Arrêté' of January 2010 established a programme for additional controls on the analysis of water quality for surface water abstractions for drinking water of more than 100m3/jour day in average. Additional monitoring is integrated in the 'sanitary monitoring' for drinking water.

The updated number of monitoring sites reported into WISE for drinking water and other Protected Areas may be found in the table below.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

FRB1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 14 || 0 || 116 || 0

FRB2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 0 || 9 || 0

FRC || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 0 || 7 || 92 || 0 || 471 || 0

FRD || 0 || 0 || 0 || 100 || 0 || 38 || 155 || 1 || 237 || 0

FRE || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0

FRF || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 9 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 0

FRG || 21 || 16 || 0 || 148 || 0 || 280 || 722 || 36 || 1201 || 0

FRH || 0 || 568 || 0 || 70 || 0 || 27 || 1020 || 18 || 1247 || 568

FRI || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRK || 0 || 6[11] || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6

FRL || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 0

Total || 21 || 590 || 4 || 344 || 0 || 364 || 2075 || 65 || 3367 || 574

Table 5.4: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas[12]

Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

Almost 35% of surface water bodies have been assessed as being in good ecological status, and 6.5% at high ecological status. However, 56.4% of surface water bodies are considered to be in less than good status (almost 40% in moderate, 12.5% in poor and just over 4% in bad status). There are just over 2% of French surface water bodies in unknown ecological status.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

FRA || 42 || 0 || 0 || 15 || 35.7 || 15 || 35.7 || 8 || 19.0 || 4 || 9.5 || 0 || 0

FRB1 || 133 || 3 || 2.3 || 63 || 47.4 || 59 || 44.4 || 6 || 4.5 || 2 || 1.5 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 20.0 || 5 || 50.0 || 1 || 10.0 || 2 || 20.0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 422 || 3 || 0.7 || 134 || 31.8 || 206 || 48.8 || 64 || 15.2 || 15 || 3.6 || 0 || 0

FRD || 2550 || 211 || 8.3 || 1178 || 46.2 || 1035 || 40.6 || 93 || 3.6 || 28 || 1.1 || 5 || 0.2

FRE || 224 || 121 || 54.0 || 68 || 30.4 || 32 || 14.3 || 2 || 0.9 || 1 || 0.4 || 0 || 0

FRF || 2634 || 259 || 9.8 || 951 || 36.1 || 1056 || 40.1 || 251 || 9.5 || 99 || 3.8 || 17 || 0.6

FRG || 1923 || 90 || 4.7 || 532 || 27.7 || 1040 || 54.1 || 191 || 9.9 || 66 || 3.4 || 4 || 0.2

FRH || 1630 || 53 || 3.3 || 430 || 26.4 || 764 || 46.9 || 279 || 17.1 || 91 || 5.6 || 13 || 0.8

FRI || 58 || 6 || 10.3 || 11 || 19.0 || 28 || 48.3 || 4 || 6.9 || 9 || 15.5 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 42 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 21.4 || 26 || 61.9 || 6 || 14.3 || 1 || 2.4 || 0 || 0

FRK || 943 || 0 || 0 || 512 || 54.3 || 79 || 8.4 || 352 || 37.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRL || 39 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 15.4 || 14 || 35.9 || 9 || 23.1 || 10 || 25.6 || 0 || 0

Total || 10650 || 746 || 7.0 || 3911 || 36.7 || 4359 || 40.9 || 1266 || 11.9 || 328 || 3.1 || 39 || 0.4

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

FRA || 26 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 7.7 || 6 || 23.1 || 5 || 19.2 || 13 || 50.0 || 0 || 0.0

FRB1 || 12 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 50.0 || 1 || 8.3 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 8.3 || 4 || 33.3

FRB2 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 76 || 0 || 0 || 17 || 22.4 || 19 || 25.0 || 22 || 28.9 || 13 || 17.1 || 5 || 6.6

FRD || 222 || 0 || 0 || 49 || 22.1 || 40 || 18.0 || 53 || 23.9 || 52 || 23.4 || 28 || 12.6

FRE || 10 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 20.0 || 2 || 20.0 || 2 || 20.0 || 1 || 10.0 || 3 || 30.0

FRF || 174 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 4.0 || 35 || 20.1 || 15 || 8.6 || 20 || 11.5 || 97 || 55.7

FRG || 227 || 0 || 0 || 18 || 7.9 || 99 || 43.6 || 45 || 19.8 || 25 || 11.0 || 40 || 17.6

FRH || 120 || 1 || 0.8 || 11 || 9.2 || 22 || 18.3 || 35 || 29.2 || 13 || 10.8 || 38 || 31.7

FRI || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 2 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0

FRK || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRL || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0

Total || 873 || 1 || 0.1 || 113 || 12.9 || 225 || 25.8 || 179 || 20.5 || 140 || 16.0 || 215 || 24.6

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Source: WISE

The chemical status of surface water has been assessed as good for just over 43% of water bodies, whilst almost 23% fail to achieve good status. The high percentage of surface water bodies (34.1%) with unknown chemical status should be emphasised. This is a major issue, as it hinders the rest of the planning process, i.e. establishing the objectives and designing the appropriate measures to improve the status.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

FRA || 42 || 9 || 21.4 || 33 || 78.6 || 0 || 0

FRB1 || 133 || 72 || 54.1 || 61 || 45.9 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 10 || 1 || 10.0 || 9 || 90.0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 422 || 143 || 33.9 || 277 || 65.6 || 2 || 0.5

FRD || 2550 || 1768 || 69.3 || 128 || 5.0 || 654 || 25.6

FRE || 224 || 206 || 92.0 || 6 || 2.7 || 12 || 5.4

FRF || 2634 || 1246 || 47.3 || 320 || 12.1 || 1068 || 40.5

FRG || 1923 || 1108 || 57.6 || 423 || 22.0 || 392 || 20.4

FRH || 1630 || 98 || 6.0 || 1120 || 68.7 || 412 || 25.3

FRI || 58 || 44 || 75.9 || 14 || 24.1 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 42 || 5 || 11.9 || 14 || 33.3 || 23 || 54.8

FRK || 943 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 943 || 100

FRL || 39 || 19 || 48.7 || 3 || 7.7 || 17 || 43.6

Total || 10650 || 4719 || 44.3 || 2408 || 22.6 || 3523 || 33.1

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

FRA || 26 || 4 || 15.4 || 22 || 84.6 || 0 || 0

FRB1 || 12 || 2 || 16.7 || 1 || 8.3 || 9 || 75.0

FRB2 || 2 || 1 || 50.0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 76 || 12 || 15.8 || 37 || 48.7 || 27 || 35.5

FRD || 222 || 88 || 39.6 || 46 || 20.7 || 88 || 39.6

FRE || 10 || 7 || 70.0 || 1 || 10.0 || 2 || 20.0

FRF || 174 || 39 || 22.4 || 16 || 9.2 || 119 || 68.4

FRG || 227 || 87 || 38.3 || 49 || 21.6 || 91 || 40.1

FRH || 120 || 5 || 4.2 || 44 || 36.7 || 71 || 59.2

FRI || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 2 || 1 || 50.0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0

FRK || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100

FRL || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0

Total || 873 || 246 || 28.2 || 219 || 25.1 || 408 || 46.7

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

The chemical status of groundwater bodies has been assessed as good for almost 59% of groundwater bodies, and less than good for almost 41% of groundwater bodies. There is only one water body with unknown chemical status (in Rhone RBD).

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

FRA || 16 || 5 || 31.2 || 11 || 68.8 || 0 || 0

FRB1 || 11 || 7 || 63.6 || 4 || 36.4 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0

FRC || 15 || 6 || 40 || 9 || 60 || 0 || 0

FRD || 180 || 144 || 80 || 35 || 19.4 || 1 || 0.6

FRE || 9 || 9 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRF || 105 || 61 || 58.1 || 44 || 41.9 || 0 || 0

FRG || 143 || 72 || 50.3 || 71 || 49.7 || 0 || 0

FRH || 53 || 9 || 17 || 44 || 83 || 0 || 0

FRI || 6 || 5 || 83.3 || 1 || 16.7 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 6 || 3 || 50 || 3 || 50 || 0 || 0

FRK || 12 || 11 || 91.7 || 1 || 8.3 || 0 || 0

FRL || 16 || 6 || 37.5 || 10 || 62.5 || 0 || 0

Total || 574 || 338 || 58.9 || 235 || 40.9 || 1 || 0.2

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

The quantitative status of groundwater bodies (Table 13) has been assessed as good for almost 90% of groundwater bodies. There are 48 groundwater bodies of poor quantitative status (mainly in RBDs of Scheldt, Rhone, Adour, Loire and Réunion Island) and there are 13 groundwater bodies of  unknown status (in RBDs of Adour and Guadeloupe Island).

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

FRA || 16 || 15 || 93.8 || 1 || 6.2 || 0 || 0

FRB1 || 11 || 11 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 15 || 15 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRD || 180 || 164 || 91.1 || 16 || 8.9 || 0 || 0

FRE || 9 || 9 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRF || 105 || 77 || 73.3 || 18 || 17.1 || 10 || 9.5

FRG || 143 || 133 || 93 || 10 || 7 || 0 || 0

FRH || 53 || 53 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRI || 6 || 3 || 50 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 50

FRJ || 6 || 6 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRK || 12 || 12 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRL || 16 || 13 || 81.2 || 3 || 18.8 || 0 || 0

Total || 574 || 513 || 89.4 || 48 || 8.4 || 13 || 2.3

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

The status of surface water bodies is expected to improve 13% from 2009 to 2015 for all French RBDs. For the Seine and Réunion RBDs, the improvement is expected to be 37 and 35% until 2015. For the Sambre RBD, there is improvement foreseen for surface water bodies.

The status of groundwater bodies is expected to improve by 7% from 2009 to 2015 for all French RBDs. The difference in predicted improvement of groundwater status between the French RBDs is greater than for surface water bodies.

Note: in France, the 2015 target is set taking into account waterbodies with unknown status and therefore, if no exemption is mentioned explicitly for a give water body, even if this water body has unknown status, the objective for this water body will be good status in 2015. Improvements in the water status are expected for most waterbodies, but would rather be visible on either chemical or ecological status.

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FRA || 68 || 5 || 7.4 || 11 || 16.2 || 8.8 || || || || || || || || || 84 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB1 || 145 || 49 || 33.8 || 63 || 43.4 || 9.7 || || || || || || || || || 50 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 12 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 9 || || 2 || || 12 || || 10 || || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 498 || 94 || 18.9 || 133 || 26.7 || 7.8 || || || || || || || || || 69 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRD || 2772 || 1378 || 49.7 || 1539 || 55.5 || 5.8 || 2457 || || || || 2952 || || || || 37 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRE || 234 || 185 || 79.1 || 205 || 87.6 || 8.5 || || || || || || || || || 7 || 2 || 0 || 2

FRF || 2808 || 699 || 24.9 || 934 || 33.3 || 8.4 || || || || || || || || || 41 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRG || 2150 || 440 || 20.5 || 825 || 38.4 || 17.9 || || || || || || || || || 48 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRH || 1750 || 31 || 1.8 || 677 || 38.7 || 36.9 || || || || || || || || || 39 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRI || 58 || 17 || 29.3 || 27 || 46.6 || 17.2 || || 36 (CW) || || 94(RW) 100(CW) || || || || 94(RW) 100(CW || 52 || 2 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 44 || 4 || 9.1 || 7 || 15.9 || 6.8 || 12 || || 14 || || 10 || || 7 || || 73 || 23 || 0 || 0

FRK || 944 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || || || || || 34 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRL || 40 || 4 || 10 || 18 || 45 || 35 || || || || || || || || || 25 || 5 || 0 || 5

Total || 11523 || 2906 || 25.2 || 4439 || 38.5 || 13.3 || || || || || || || || || 42 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027*

RW = River water bodies CW = Coastal water bodies

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

* Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FRA || 42 || 15 || 35.7 || 28 || 66.7 || 31.0 || || || || || 33.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB1 || 133 || 66 || 49.6 || 104 || 78.2 || 28.6 || || || || || 21.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 10 || 2 || 20.0 || 6 || 60.0 || 40.0 || || || || || 40.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 422 || 137 || 32.5 || 279 || 66.1 || 33.6 || 2259 || || 2730 || || 33.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRD || 2550 || 1389 || 54.5 || 1702 || 66.7 || 12.3 || || || || || 32.9 || 0.2 || 0 || 0

FRE || 224 || 189 || 84.4 || 204 || 91.1 || 6.7 || || || || || 6.7 || 2.2 || 0 || 1.8

FRF || 2634 || 1210 || 45.9 || 1566 || 59.5 || 13.5 || || || || || 40.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRG || 1923 || 622 || 32.3 || 1179 || 61.3 || 29.0 || || || || || 38.9 || 0.1 || 0 || 0.1

FRH || 1630 || 483 || 29.6 || 1155 || 70.9 || 41.2 || || || || || 28.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRI || 58 || 17 || 29.3 || 27 || 46.6 || 17.2 || || 36 (CW) || || || 51.7 || 1.7 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 42 || 9 || 21.4 || 10 || 23.8 || 2.4 || || || || || 71.4 || 21.4 || 0 || 0

FRK || 943 || 512 || 54.3 || 619 || 65.6 || 11.3 || || || || || 34.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRL || 39 || 6 || 15.4 || 27 || 69.2 || 53.8 || || || || || 25.6 || 5.1 || 0 || 5.1

Total || 10650 || 4657 || 43.7 || 6906 || 64.8 || 21.1 || || || || || 34.8 || 0.2 || 0 || 0.1

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[13]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FRA || 42 || 9 || 21.4 || 12 || 28.6 || 7.1 || || || || || 71.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB1 || 133 || 72 || 54.1 || 73 || 54.9 || 0.8 || || || || || 45.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 10 || 1 || 10.0 || 1 || 10.0 || 0 || || || || || 90.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 422 || 143 || 33.9 || 143 || 33.9 || 0 || || || || || 65.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRD || 2550 || 1768 || 69.3 || 1770 || 69.4 || 0.1 || || || || || 5.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRE || 224 || 206 || 92.0 || 212 || 94.6 || 2.7 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRF || 2634 || 1246 || 47.3 || 1358 || 51.6 || 4.3 || || || || || 13.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRG || 1923 || 1108 || 57.6 || 1198 || 62.3 || 4.7 || || || || || 17.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRH || 1630 || 98 || 6.0 || 686 || 42.1 || 36.1 || || || || || 32.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRI || 58 || 44 || 75.9 || 55 || 94.8 || 19.0 || || || || || 5.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 42 || 5 || 11.9 || 9 || 21.4 || 9.5 || || || || || 23.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRK || 943 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 33.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRL || 39 || 19 || 48.7 || 22 || 56.4 || 7.7 || || || || || 5.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 10650 || 4719 || 44.3 || 5539 || 52.0 || 7.7 || || || || || 19.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[14]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FRA || 16 || 5 || 31.2 || 5 || 31.2 || 0 || || || || || 69 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB1 || 11 || 7 || 63.6 || 7 || 63.6 || 0 || || || || || 36 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || || 2 || || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 15 || 6 || 40 || 7 || 46.7 || 6.7 || || || || || 47 || 7 || 0 || 0

FRD || 180 || 144 || 80 || 150 || 83.3 || 3.3 || 176 || || 180 || || 16 || 1 || 0 || 0

FRE || 9 || 9 || 100 || 9 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRF || 105 || 61 || 58.1 || 61 || 58.1 || 0 || || || || || 42 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRG || 143 || 72 || 50.3 || 78 || 54.5 || 4.2 || || || || || 45 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRH || 53 || 9 || 17 || 19 || 35.8 || 18.9 || || || || || 64 || 6 || 0 || 0

FRI || 6 || 5 || 83.3 || 5 || 83.3 || 0 || || 83 || || 83 || 17 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 6 || 3 || 50 || 3 || 50 || 0 || || || || || 33 || 50 || 0 || 0

FRK || 12 || 11 || 91.7 || 12 || 100 || 8.3 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRL || 16 || 6 || 37.5 || 13 || 81.2 || 43.8 || 16 || || || || 13 || 0 || 6 || 0

Total || 574 || 338 || 58.9 || 369 || 64.3 || 5.4 || || || || || 35 || 1 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[15]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FRA || 16 || 15 || 93.8 || 15 || 93.8 || 0 || || || || || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB1 || 11 || 11 || 100 || 11 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 2 || || 2 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 15 || 15 || 100 || 15 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRD || 180 || 164 || 91.1 || 180 || 100 || 8.9 || 181 || || 181 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRE || 9 || 9 || 100 || 9 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRF || 105 || 77 || 73.3 || 90 || 85.7 || 12.4 || || || || || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRG || 143 || 133 || 93 || 140 || 97.9 || 4.9 || || || || || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRH || 53 || 53 || 100 || 53 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRI || 6 || 3 || 50 || 3 || 50 || 0 || || 100 || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 6 || 6 || 100 || 6 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRK || 12 || 12 || 100 || 12 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRL || 16 || 13 || 81.2 || 14 || 87.5 || 6.2 || 16 || || || || 13 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 574 || 513 || 89.4 || 550 || 95.8 || 6.4 || || || || || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[16]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FRA || 26 || 2 || 7.7 || 6 || 23.1 || 15.4 || || || || || 76.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB1 || 12 || 6 || 50.0 || 8 || 66.7 || 16.7 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 76 || 17 || 22.4 || 46 || 60.5 || 38.2 || || || || || 32.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRD || 222 || 49 || 22.1 || 100 || 45.0 || 23.0 || 198 || || 222 || || 41.4 || 0.9 || 0 || 0

FRE || 10 || 2 || 20.0 || 7 || 70.0 || 50.0 || || || || || 0.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRF || 174 || 7 || 4.0 || 26 || 14.9 || 10.9 || || || || || 29.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRG || 227 || 18 || 7.9 || 115 || 50.7 || 42.7 || || || || || 31.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRH || 120 || 12 || 10.0 || 36 || 30.0 || 20.0 || || || || || 38.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRI || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 2 || 1 || 50.0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || || || || || 50.0 || 50 || 0 || 0

FRK || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 100 || 0 || 0

FRL || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 100 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 873 || 114 || 13.1 || 346 || 39.6 || 26.5 || || || || || 35.4 || 0.5 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[17]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FRA || 26 || 4 || 15.4 || 6 || 23.1 || 7.7 || || || || || 76.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB1 || 12 || 2 || 16.7 || 2 || 16.7 || 0 || || || || || 8.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRB2 || 2 || 1 || 50.0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || || || || || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRC || 76 || 12 || 15.8 || 12 || 15.8 || 0 || || || || || 48.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRD || 222 || 88 || 39.6 || 92 || 41.4 || 1.8 || || || || || 18.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRE || 10 || 7 || 70.0 || 7 || 70.0 || 0 || || || || || 10.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRF || 174 || 39 || 22.4 || 43 || 24.7 || 2.3 || || || || || 6.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRG || 227 || 87 || 38.3 || 103 || 45.4 || 7.0 || || || || || 14.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRH || 120 || 5 || 4.2 || 8 || 6.7 || 2.5 || || || || || 34.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRI || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRJ || 2 || 1 || 50.0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || || || || || 50 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRK || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FRL || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 100 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 873 || 246 || 28.2 || 276 || 31.6 || 3.4 || || || || || 21.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[18]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). A 1cm diameter pie chart represents 640 natural surface water bodies (2600 in French Guiana).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). A 1cm diameter pie chart represents 640 natural surface water bodies (2600 in French Guiana).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). A 1cm diameter pie chart represents 640 natural surface water bodies (2600 in French Guiana).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). A 1cm diameter pie chart represents 640 natural surface water bodies (2600 in French Guiana).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). A 1cm diameter pie chart represents 640 natural surface water bodies (2600 in French Guiana).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). A 1cm diameter pie chart represents 640 natural surface water bodies (2600 in French Guiana).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

France has followed a national approach in the methods developed for the assessment of ecological status of surface waters. Since 2003, several guidance documents have been developed and transmitted to local authorities in order to support in their implementation of the first phases of the WFD. The status assessment of water bodies in 2009 was done on the basis of two guidance documents[19], of which the main elements have been incorporated into the current applicable regulation in 2010[20].

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

Assessment methods for ecological status have not yet been developed for all biological quality elements (BQEs), and there are methods missing for one or several water types.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

FRA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || * || * || * || * || * || || || * || * || * || * || * || *

FRB1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

FRB2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

FRC || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

FRD || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || * || * || || || || || || * || || || ||

FRE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || * || * || || || || || || * || || || ||

FRF || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || * || * || * || * || * || || || * || * || * || || ||

FRG || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || * || * || * || * || * || || || * || * || * || || ||

FRH || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || * || * || * || * || * || || || * || * || * || || ||

FRI || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

FRJ || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRK || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FRL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

Table 7.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

* not normalised protocol has been developed

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs and WISE

However, there are significant gaps in the development of assessment methods for the biological quality elements in this first RBMP. This has in turn, important consequences in the rest of the steps in the planning process, i.e. establishing the objectives for the water bodies, and designing the most appropriate measures. Not all water categories are equally covered by the biological assessment methods. There is significantly more knowledge on rivers than other water categories for the moment, and therefore more biological assessment methods have been developed for rivers than for the others. Therefore the aim is to develop new methods for the missing biological elements in particular for lakes, transitional and coastal waters.

The methods developed so far are considered by France to be as representative as possible of all relevant pressures. France has confirmed that the biological assessment methods are being further developed and improved. This will allow the results of the intercalibration exercise to be taken into account and will result in better assessment methods being available for the next cycle.

The assessment of supporting quality elements on physico-chemical and hydromorphological characteristics have generally been only partially developed so far.

Some physico-chemical elements have been assessed in most French RBDs, such as water temperature, pH and oxygen concentration, and transparency (only in lakes). Others have not been taken into account for the assessment, such as conductivity and salinity. Nutrient concentration has been assessed in most of French RBDs.

The physico-chemical quality elements are assessed on the basis of the historical evaluation method of the assessment of water quality[21]. All thresholds have been established for the different elements that have an influence on the biology.

For the hydromorphological elements, river continuity, hydrological regime and morphological conditions have generally not been assessed. In these first RBMPs, no standards have yet been established for hydromorphological quality elements, and the assessment has been based on the available information on hydromorphological pressures.

The one-out-all-out principle has been applied to derive the overall ecological status in the French RBMPs.

In all French RBMPs, there is an indication of the level of confidence to express the uncertainty on the classification of ecological status. A confidence assessment is done for each water category for ecological status assessment based on availability of data and their coherence with the significant pressure identified. There is quite a lot of information on how confidence and precision have been evaluated, and the information is generally given for each BQE. The RBMPs also state that the necessary improvements to reduce the level of uncertainty are on-going.

After the adoption of the RBMPs, a national methodology for assessing confidence in the classification of ecological and chemical status was included in the applicable law[22]. It describes three levels of confidence: 3 (high), 2 (medium), 1 (low). Details are provided on how data derived from monitoring or modelling in freshwater may be assigned to a particular confidence level. In addition, two decision methods are explained, for freshwater and for transitional and coastal waters.

It is not clear whether the national class boundaries are consistent with the intercalibrated class boundaries of the phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise[23]. According to information received from France, the thresholds established in the 'Arrêté' of 2010 would be consistent with those of the Commission Intercalibration Decision.

There is no information in the RBMPs on how spatial variability has been taken into account in the classification of ecological status. However, this is mentioned in the 'Arrêté' of 2010 (article 13 and annex 10).

7.2 River basin specific pollutants

For this first RBMP, nine substances have been identified as river basin specific pollutants of national relevance, and one substance of local importance (chlordecone in Guadeloupe and Martinique). The identification of these substances has been derived establishing a hierarchy of substances to be monitored as established in Directive 76/464/CEE and other pesticides. According to information received from France, the methodology applied for the definition of environmental quality regulations for these specific pollutants is in compliance with Annex V 1.2.6 of the WFD. However, this methodology is not contained in the RBMPs, as it seems to have been developed after the adoption of the plans. It has been verified by an expert group, and has been subject to public consultation from 4 to 17 January 2010.

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)

FRA || || ||

FRB1 || || ||

FRB2 || || HAP ||

FRB2 || || nonylphenol ||

FRC || || ||

FRD || || ||

FRE || || ||

FRF || || atrazine ||

FRF || || cadmium ||

FRF || || nitrates ||

FRF || || phopshorous ||

FRG || || ||

FRH || || ||

FRI || || chlordecone || 15

FRI || || nutrients ||

FRI || || organic matter ||

FRJ || || 2,4 MCPA || Nil

FRJ || || 2-4 D || Nil

FRJ || || chlordecone || Nil

FRJ || 117817 || DEHP || Nil

FRJ || 330541 || diuron || Nil

FRJ || || HAP || Nil

FRK || || ||

FRL || || ||

Table 7.2: River basin specific pollutants

Source: WISE

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial water bodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

France has designated 692 heavily modified water bodies (HMWBs) and 181 artificial water bodies (AWBs) in all its RBD. This represents 6% of all water bodies for HMWBs, and 1.5% for AWBs. There is a significant decrease of the number of water bodies designated as HMWBs and AWBs compared to the provisional designation carried out for the purposes of the Article 5 analysis (HMWBs around 22%, AWBs around 7%[24]).

The distribution in number and percentage by RBD for the different water types can be found in Table 8.1.1 (HMWBs) and Table 8.1.2 (AWBs).

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

FRA || 15 || 27.27 || 1 || 25 || 3 || 75 || || 0

FRB1 || 2 || 1.42 || 4 || 100 || || 0 || || 0

FRB2 || 1 || 9.09 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0

FRC || 25 || 5.29 || 21 || 84 || || 0 || || 0

FRD || 136 || 5.21 || 45 || 43.7 || 4 || 14.81 || 6 || 18.75

FRE || 4 || 1.9 || 6 || 100 || || 0 || || 0

FRF || 53 || 1.98 || 88 || 83.8 || 4 || 33.33 || 2 || 18.18

FRG || 69 || 3.56 || 121 || 85.8 || 7 || 23.33 || || 0

FRH || 48 || 2.86 || 16 || 35.6 || 6 || 85.71 || 2 || 10.53

FRI || 0 || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0

FRJ || 1 || 5 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0

FRK || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || || 0 || || 0

FRL || 1 || 4.17 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0

Total || 355 || 3.28 || 303 || 69 || 24 || 25 || 10 || 6.1

Table 8.1: Number and percentage of HMWBs in France.

Source: WISE

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

FRA || 4 || 7.27 || 3 || 75 || || 0 || || 0

FRB1 || 6 || 4.26 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0

FRB2 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || || 0 || || 0

FRC || 28 || 5.92 || 2 || 8 || || 0 || || 0

FRD || 9 || 0.34 || 22 || 21.4 || || 0 || || 0

FRE || 0 || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0

FRF || 22 || 0.82 || 5 || 4.76 || || 0 || || 0

FRG || 27 || 1.39 || 3 || 2.13 || || 0 || || 0

FRH || 20 || 1.19 || 28 || 62.2 || || 0 || || 0

FRI || 0 || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0

FRJ || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || || 0 || || 0

FRK || 0 || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0

FRL || 0 || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0

Total || 116 || 1.07 || 65 || 14.8 || || 0 || || 0

Table 8.2: Number and percentage of AWBs in France.

Source: WISE

In the RBMPs and accompanying documents, the information provided on the designation process is quite general, and more detailed information may be found in a national guidance document[25]. The objective of this guidance was to harmonise the designation process across the different RBDs.

The water uses for which the HMWB have been designated are generally specified in the RBMPs, and in some cases given per water body. The main uses that are behind the designation of HMWBs are navigation, power generation, recreational purposes, drinking water supply, flood protection, irrigation and water regulation. Navigation and power generation are the uses for which HMWBs have been designated in almost all RBDs (except from Guadeloupe and Réunion RBDs for navigation and in Meuse, Guadeloupe and Martinique for power generation). Flood protection has also frequently been used for the designation (except from Meuse and Rhine in the mainland, and in all overseas territories).

The national guidance document also provides the list of physical modifications potentially leading to the pre-identification due to hydromorphological alterations. This includes urbanisation of river/lake banks; roads and embankments/dykes; navigation; straightening and recalibration; water storage (dams), weirs and sills, obstacles to migration, etc.

It seems that some steps are missing in the methodology used for the designation of HMWBs. The stepwise approach of the CIS Guidance nº 4[26] seems to have not been completely followed. In particular, the significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use or wider environment, and the lack of better environmental options, are not clearly assessed in the RBMPs. The national guidance of 2006 gives some indications on the impact on the use of the modifications needed to achieve good ecological status. It also provides guidance on the assessment of better environmental options for the achievement of the objectives that the HMWB modification serves to deliver. However, the plans generally contain only very general information on the designation process and the results of the assessments mentioned above are not described in the plans.

The uncertainty of the designation process is discussed in most RBMPs (except from those of Guadeloupe and Réunion), and those that consider the uncertainties also include possible future actions to improve the designation process.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

The methodology to define good ecological potential (GEP) has been developed at national level in 2010, i.e. after the adoption of the first RBMPs.

In the first RBMPs, there seems to have been a combined approach of the Prague approach and reference-based approach based on elements already intercalibrated (diatoms, chlorophyll A). The GEP is defined as being close to reference conditions.

A preliminary national method for determining the GEP (until the intercalibration is ready for GEP in HMWBs) has been established nationally by the 'Arrêté' of 25 January 2010[27]. It is a combined approach between the specific uses of a water body and the national type of the water body. Whenever the BQEs are not sensitive to the hydromorphological pressures (e.g. phytoplankton, diatoms, physico-chemical), these have been incorporated in the GEP method.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

In French mainland RBDs, the assessment of the chemical status has been done on the basis of the substances in Annex I of Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) Directive 2008/105/EC, except in Meuse, Rhine and Rhone RBDs, where no clear reference to these substances is made in the plans. However, different substances have been used in the different plans (and not all the 41 substances of Annex I) for the assessment of chemical status of water bodies. Therefore it is unclear for each of the French RBMPs which substances have been used, and the reasons for the selection of certain specific substances.

According to information received from France, the assessment of chemical status in Adour-Garonne has been delayed, as the monitoring has only started in 2009.

In the case of France, no national standards more stringent than the EQS of Directive 2008/105/EC have been set for the assessment of chemical status of surface water. The assessment of chemical status is carried out on the basis of national guidelines[28].

In the RBMPs of the overseas territories, there is no information as to whether the EQS Directive has been applied. It may be assumed that the national guidelines have been followed, but this is not in clearly stated in the plans, nor has it been reported in WISE.

There is no information in French plans on whether the EQSs have been derived for sediment and/or for biota for some of the 41 substances, or whether France has applied EQSs for biota for mercury and its compounds, and/or for hexachlorobenzene, and/or for hexachlorobutadiene according to Article 3(2a) of the EQS Directive.

The only exemption is Réunion RBD, where Maximum Allowable Concentrations have been applied to biota for mercury and its compounds (20 µg/kg); hexachlorobenzene (10 µg/kg); and, hexachlorobutadiene (55 µg/kg), and the concentration is based on wet weight. It is not clear whether EQSs have been derived specifically for sediment and/or biota in Réunion, but it is stated that in biota and sediments, the EQSs are established based on AA wet weight concentration for biota and AA dry weight concentration for sediments.

There is very little information in the RBMPs on whether the background concentrations have been taken into account in the assessment. In general, the plans acknowledge that it is possible to consider background concentrations, but there is no explanation on the methodology to do so. Furthermore, the 'Arrêté' of 25 January 2010 states that, for metals and their compounds, it is possible to account for natural background levels in the assessment of results, but it does not provide a methodology either.

The same lack of detailed information applies for the analysis of how bioavailability factors of metals are considered in the assessment of compliance with the EQS Directive. It is reported in the national guidelines that bioavailability factors could be taken into account in the assessment, but there is no further explanation on the methodology. The 'Arrêté' of 25 January 2010 states that for metals and their compounds, it is possible to take into account the water hardness, the pH, or other parameters linked to water quality that affect the bioavailability of metals, but no more details on the methods are provided.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

All French RBMPs, except from the Guyana, include information on the specific substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status.

Substance || FRA || FRB1 || FRB2 || FRC || FRD || FRE || FRF || FRG || FRH || FRI || FRJ || FRK || FRL

608-73-1 Hexachlorocyclohexane || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene || ü || ü || || || ü || || || || || ü || || ||

18-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene || || ü || || || ü || || || || || ü || || ||

75-09-2 Dichloromethane || || ü || || || || || || || ü || ü || || ||

120-12-7 Anthracene || || || ü || || ü || || || || || || ü || ||

115-29-7 Endosulfan || || || ü || || ü || || ü || || ü || || ü || ||

608-93-5 Pentachlorobenzene || ü || ü || || || ü || || || || ü || ü || || ||

191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || || || ||

193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || || || ||

50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene || ü || ü || || ü || ü || || || ü || ü || ü || || || ü

205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene || || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

206-44-0 Fluoranthene || ü || ü || || ü || ü || || || ü || ü || ü || || ||

207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene || || ü || || ü || ü || || || ü || ü || ü || || ||

15972-60-8 Alachlor || || ü || || || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ||

1912-24-9 Atrazine || || ü || ü || || || || ü || || || ü || ü || ||

330-54-1 Diuron || || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ||

34123-59-6 Isoproturon || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü

1582-09-8 Trifluralin || || || ü || || ü || || || || || || ü || ||

2921-88-2 Chlorpyrifos || || || ü || || ü || || ü || || || || ü || ||

470-90-6 Chlorfenvinphos || || || ü || || ü || || || || || || ü || ||

32534-81-9 Pentabromodiphenylether || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

117-81-7 Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ||

50-29-3 para-para-DDT and DDT total || ü || || || || ü || || || || ü || || || ||

60-57-1 Dieldrin || ü || ü || || || ü || || || || ü || ü || || || ü

104-40-5 Nonylphenol || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || || || || ü || || ||

140-66-9 Octylphenol || || ü || || || ü || || || ü || || ü || || ||

87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol || || ü || || || || || || || ü || ü || || ||

7440-43-9 Cadmium and its compounds || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || || ü || ü || ü || ||

7439-92-1 Lead and its compounds || || ü || ü || || || || || || ü || ü || ü || ||

7439-97-6 Mercury and its compounds || || ü || ü || ü || || || || || ü || ü || ü || ||

7440-02-0 Nickel and its compounds || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü

36643-28-4 Tributyltin compounds || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || ü || ||

2 Pesticides - aggregated || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ||

3 Industrial Pollutants - aggregated || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ||

4 Other pollutants - aggregated || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ||

1 Heavy Metals - aggregated || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ||

4.11 Polyaromatic hydrocarbons || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || ||

2 Pesticides - aggregated || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || ü || || ü

Table 9.1: Substances responsible for exceedances

Note: No information reported to WISE for FRK (French Guyana).

Source: WISE

9.3 Other issues

In general, there is no information on whether mixing zones have being used in this first set of RBMPs. In the national guidance document, it is mentioned that good chemical status is achieved when compliance with EQS is achieved in all points of a water body outside a mixing zone.

A national approach for mixing zones has been described in the 'Arrêté' of 25 January 2010, by which it is established that monitoring sites should be outside of a mixing zone. If a monitoring site is within a mixing zone, there must be other monitoring of the same water body outside of the mixing zone, in order to ensure that the monitoring is representative. It is stated that good chemical status is achieved for a pollutant if all the EQSs for the pollutant are met at all monitoring points for the water body that are outside of the mixing zone (i.e. EQSs may be exceeded within the mixing zone and good chemical status can still be achieved).

10. Assessment of groundwater status

The approach to the assessment of the status of groundwater has varied significantly in the different RBDs. There are national guidance documents on this issue, but this guidance seems to have been interpreted differently in different RBDs.

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

The impacts of groundwater abstractions have been considered but there is no information on how the balance between recharge and abstraction of groundwater is assessed.

All the criteria of groundwater quantitative status assessment seem to be considered. The associated surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems are considered in every RBD. The knowledge on the dynamics between groundwater and dependent terrestrial ecosystems was, however, not sufficient at the time of developing these first RBMPs. Furthermore, there was a lack of appropriate methods to assess the status of those terrestrial groundwater dependent ecosystems. The different RBD authorities have therefore used the best available knowledge in the different districts. A number of studies have been launched over the past few years all across France in order to develop a sound methodology, and the first results of these studies will be available during 2012.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

For surface waters associated to groundwater and GW dependent terrestrial ecosystems, see the explanation on quantitative status.

There is no methodology in every RBD for defining acceptable threshold value (TV) exceedances.

TVs were established at the national and local level, but the link between them is not clear. It seems common that TVs were established in connection to risks. Consideration of background levels is different in the RBDs.

The methodologies for trend assessments and starting points for trend reversals are often missing. According to the information received from France, this is due to the fact that these assessments were not compulsory in the first RBMPs. Regarding existing methods there are significant differences for the different RBDs. However, this may result from an incomplete reporting by the different districts, which have only reported the data available at that time. France is currently developing a national methodology on this issue.

10.3 Protected areas

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

FRA || 16 || ||

FRB1 || 1 || ||

FRB2 || || ||

FRC || 2 || ||

FRD || 76 || 39 ||

FRE || || ||

FRF || || 6 ||

FRG || 9 || 11 ||

FRH || 14 || 9 ||

FRI || 1 || ||

FRJ || || ||

FRK || || ||

FRL || 3 || || 0

Total || 122 || 65 ||

Table 10.1: Number and status of groundwater drinking water protected areas.

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions 11.1 Environmental objectives

An overview of the reported objectives for surface water bodies may be found in the status section. The information on the expected status for subsequent cycles (2021 and 2027) has been provided only in some RBDs.

The main impacts necessitating an extension of the deadline (Article 4(4) WFD) or lowering the objective (Article 4(5) WFD) have been identified for all the RBDs. In some cases, the drivers causing the need for exemptions are clearly defined per water body, or for other RBDs these are generally described for the whole RBD. The main drivers include diffuse and agricultural pollution, wastewater treatment plant discharges, etc.

11.2 Additional objectives in protected areas

Protected areas have been clearly designated in all French RBDs. Additional more stringent objectives should be contained in the RBMP, including for areas for drinking water, shellfish, bathing water and Natura 2000, where the protected area objectives are more stringent than those that constitute good status.

Additional objectives for drinking water have been identified in all RBMPs. However, in some RBDs, the definition of additional objectives is not very clear, as the protected areas are only referred to as part of a register under the relevant national legislation, with a general reference to the objectives to be achieved.

Shellfish production areas are also Shellfish Protection Areas and are subject to national and departmental or local legislation covering water and shellfish quality. Additional objectives have been set in those RBDs with shellfish areas although the level of detail provided between different RBMPs differs. For bathing water and Natura 200 sites, the objectives are generally not clearly mentioned in the RBMPs. France has established the additional objectives through the implementation of the Bathing and the Habitats Directives, by which the water bodies protected are part of a national register. However, the RBMPs do not mention those additional objectives.

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and Article 4(5)

There are a relatively high number of exemptions under Article 4(4) and 4(5) based on disproportionate costs, for which there is no clear justification.

The basic measures (as referred to in 11(3)(a) WFD) have been excluded[29] from the calculation of disproportionate cost.

The national guidelines on exemptions[30] mention that alternative financing has to be sought. This is an important issue, given that affordability has been used as a reason to extend the deadline (exemption under Article 4(5) WFD).

RBD || Global[31]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

FRA || 44 || 0 || 24 || 0 || 22 || -

FRB1 || 68 || 0 || 18 || 0 || 9 || -

FRB2 || 12 || 0 || 5 || 0 || 1 || -

FRC || 339 || 0 || 65 || 0 || 42 || -

FRD || 952 || 7 || 226 || 0 || 73 || -

FRE || 7 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 9 || -

FRF || 1097 || 0 || 7 || 0 || 1085 || -

FRG || 929 || 0 || 493 || 2 || 169 || -

FRH || 294 || 0 || 518 || 0 || 203 || -

FRI || 30 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

FRJ || 5 || 10 || 28 || 0 || 20 || -

FRK || 296 || 1 || 294 || 1 || 49 || -

FRL || 3 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 7 || -

Total || 4076 || 26 || 1678 || 3 || 1689 || -

Table 11.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

The exemption under Article 4(6) has not been used in any RBD of France.

11.5 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

There are a number of projects for which the Article 4(7) WFD is applicable in this first round of RBMPs. In general, the plans mention the projects, but only provide some general information on the projects, so it is not clear whether a proper assessment has been carried out as required by Article 4(7) WFD.

More details can be found in the websites of the different RBDs, and in the projects’ websites[32], which also generally contain a number of studies that have been developed on these projects.

· Several projects in the RBD Seine-Normandie.

· Adour-Garonne: one project on the transfer of energy through pumped water in Rédant.

· Artois-Picardie: one project on the Canal Seine Nord Europe.

· Réunion: two projects on a coastal road and a hydroelectric dam (information on these projects is not available in the internet).

· Corsica: two projects.

· Loire-Bretagne: one project on the dam of the Auzance River (this project has been stopped, as better alternatives were found).

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[33] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

For the international RBDs that France is a part of, there has been some co-ordination in the framework of the works of the International Commission for the Protection of the Scheldt, the Meuse and the Rhine. Furthermore, the co-ordination on some of the more relevant issues (river continuity, nutrient reduction and exceedances of EQS due to transboundary chemical pollution) has also been tackled in these international conventions.

Basic measures are applied everywhere and whenever these are necessary to achieve the WFD objectives.

Although the PoM has been drafted to take into account the results of the status assessment, the link between the status and the measures is generally unclear. Some measures are reported to be specifically implementing the WFD and other specific to the different RBDs.

The status of all water bodies has been defined, as well as the pressures having a significant impact on those water bodies and the objectives per water body. Based on this information, a first list of supplementary measures has been prepared. The provisional list of measures underwent an assessment of economic feasibility and a consultation was conducted with stakeholders and the general public at a later stage. Subsequently, the list was modified as necessary and adopted in the PoM.

The PoMs have been designed with the best available knowledge, and are considered to be appropriate to tackle significant pressures and those impacts which may cause failure in achieving the environmental objectives.

For all water bodies for which good status is not envisaged by 2015, it can be concluded that the basic and supplementary measures in this first RBMP are insufficient.

Concerning the scope of the measures, basic measures are defined on the national scale. Some supplementary measures (e.g. legal, financial, organizational, but also hydromorphological measures) are defined at RBD or sub-basin level. The remaining supplementary measures are generally defined per water body. In the cases where measures are designed at RBD or sub-basin level, not much detail is provided as to the specific measures to be applied by water body. Some supplementary measures are targeted to urban areas.

There are some measures that, although they are not included in the PoM, contribute to the overall objective of good status. For example, the upgrade of individual wastewater plants, which is mainly implemented for public health reasons; the recycling of sewage sludge, the upgrade of sewerage networks, etc.

There are different authorities or actors responsible for the implementation of the different measures. For the agricultural measures, the national, regional and local authorities, together with the farmers and farmers' organisations, are responsible for the implementation. For those measures related to households, the public authorities are generally the main actors, while the enterprises are also responsible for the implementation of the measures related to the industry (together with the authorities).

The cost of the different measures is clearly identified in the RBMPs. All plans include the source of financing for the planned measures for the major investment needs. However, it is not clear whether there is a concrete financial commitment for the implementation of the measures in RBMPs. However, France has confirmed that there is a legal commitment through the allocation of the water taxes to financing water policy (charges related to water abstraction and pollution of discharged water).

The PoMs have been adopted by the river basin authorities and endorsed by the 'Préfet Cooronnateur', and therefore it is the responsibility of the State to ensure their implementation. The detailed costs of actual measures will only be known with the specific characteristics of the individual projects.

The PoMs are mainly financed by the investment programmes of the water agencies, which have been adapted with the adoption of the PoM. For agriculture, the main source of funding is the Rural Development Programmes.

In the Loire RBD, there is a chapter presenting in general terms how the implementation of the PoM will be monitored. In Adour RBD, there will be a mid-term evaluation of the PoM (in 2013) of the progress achieved and additional measures may be added to the PoM if needed, but this is not specific to agriculture measures.

France has confirmed that all necessary requirements (administrative, financial and regulatory conditions) will be in place on time to make all measures operational by the end of 2012 in all French RBDs.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Agriculture has been identified as one of the main pressures in all mainland RBDs, mainly for diffuse pollution, including nitrogen, phosphorus, pesticides, metals and micro-pollutants. Water abstraction and transfers for agriculture purposes are considered as significant pressures in the Adour-Garonne, Loire, Martinique, Réunion and Guadeloupe RBDs. Morphological pressures due to the farming activity are highlighted in the Scheldt, Sambre and Loire RBs. Eutrophication is significant in the Scheldt, Meuse, Sambre, Rhine, Rhone, Seine, Loire, Martinique and Guyana RBDs.

Agriculture was not identified as a main pressure in the Corsican RBD.

Farmers and other relevant stakeholders were consulted during the preparation of the measures for agriculture. The River Basin Committee has been responsible for drafting the PoM. It has involved different groups of stakeholders through local commissions, which have been involved in the drafting of plan. It is likely, although not clearly stated in the plans, that farmers were involved in the working groups that drafted the plans and the PoM. The final drafts of the plans were formally consulted with the 'Chambres d'agriculture' at the local level. However, there is no detailed information in the RBMPs on the different stakeholders involved in the process and the extent of their contributions.

The main measures related to agriculture in the French RBDs (Table 12.2.1) are mainly technical and non-technical measures. Measures related to economic instruments are generally limited to water pricing for irrigation, and in some cases compensation for land cover and co-operative agreements.

Measures || FRA || FRB1 || FRB2 || FRC || FRD || FRE || FRF || FRG || FRH || FRI || FRJ || FRK || FRL

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || ü ||

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || ü || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ü || ü || ü || || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || || ü || || ü || || ü || || ü || || || ||

Measures against soil erosion || ü || || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü || ü || || || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || || || ü

Technical measures for water saving || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || || ü || ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || || || ü || || || || || ü || || || || || ü

Co-operative agreements || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || || || ü || || || ü ||

Nutrient trading || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || || || ü || || ü || || ü || || || || || ||

Institutional changes || || || || || || || ü || || || || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || ü || ü || || ü || || ü || || || ü || || || || ü

Farm advice and training || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || || ü || || || ü || || ü || || || ü || || ||

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || || ü || || ü || || ü || || ü || || ü || ü || ||

Certification schemes || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || || || || || ü || || || || || || || || ü

Land use planning || ü || ü || || ü || || ü || || || ü || || || ||

Technical standards || ü || ü || || ü || || ü || ü || || ü || || ü || || ü

Specific projects related to agriculture || || || || || || || || || || ü || || || ü

Environmental permitting and licensing || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 12.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

The geographical scope of the application of the measures depends on the pressures that the measures are designed to tackle. Some basic measures (e.g. regulation of use of fertilisers) are generally applied at the RBD level. Other more specific measures are presented at sub-basin or water body level.

Many measures are specific to a sector of agriculture, e.g. crop farming or livestock farming, and this is clearly stated in the PoM.

In Guyana, there is no clear scope provided for the implementation of the measures. In the Réunion island, no agricultural measures are described for sub-river basins.

There is no precise information in the RBMPs on the planned financing of the agricultural measures. In particular, the Rural Development Regulation is not really considered in the programmes of measures. Although specific to the WFD, Article 38 of the Rural Development Regulation is not referred to in the plans. According to information received from France, the financing of agricultural measures will indeed be supported with Rural Development Programmes, among other available funds. Furthermore Article 38 of the RDR will be considered for financing prevention actions related to Article 7 WFD on protected areas for drinking water.

There are no clear references in the plans to the expected timing for the implementation of the measures. However, the measures are defined for the period 2009-2015.

As regards the controls on the implementation of the agricultural measures, in most RBMPs it is mentioned that a control mechanism is in place or will be further developed, but no further details are provided.

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

Table 12.3.1 presents a summary of the hydromorphological measures that have been included in the PoM of the different RBDs.

The most common measures are fish ladders and the restoration of bank structures, followed by removal of structures, habitats restoration and reconnection of meander beds or side arms.

Measures || FRA || FRB1 || FRB2 || FRC || FRD || FRE || FRF || FRG || FRH || FRI || FRJ || FRK || FRL

Fish ladders || ü || ü || || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü

Bypass channels || ü || ü || || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || || || ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ü || ||

Sediment/debris management || || || || || ü || || ü || ü || || || ü || ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ||

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || ü || ||

Lowering of river banks || || || || || ü || || ü || || || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || ü || ||

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || || || || || ü || || ü || || || || ü || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || || || || ü || || ü || || || || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || ü || || || || ü || || ü || ü || ü || || ü || ||

Construction of retention basins || || || || || ü || || ü || ü || || || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || || || || || ü || || ü || ü || || || ü || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || || || ü

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || || || ||

Table 12.2: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

However, the basis for the selection of hydromorphological measures is not clear. This is because the hydromorphological measures are not clearly linked to water uses and pressures. Furthermore, there is no clear link between the measures and the current status or explanations about the potential improvement of the status.

According to information received from France, there have been delays in the planning process in its RBDs, due to the delays in the intercalibration exercise for rivers. For the other water types, the delays in the intercalibration are even bigger.

The description of the specific measures to be implemented is generally quite vague and general in the plans.

An important issue that has also not been clearly defined is the ecologically based flow regime. Quantitative objectives are defined during summer periods for main river confluences and other strategic points. This is the case in particular for the areas where chronic water deficit has been identified. The minimum flow should also be defined for each and every project.

The hydromorphological measures are presumably envisaged for HMWBs. However, clear reference to this can only be found in RBMPs of Scheldt, Sambre, Seine and Réunion RBDs. Specific measures of setting minimum ecological flow requirements and to tackle hydropeaking have been adopted for the Rhone, Adour and Martinique (only minimum flow) RBDs.

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

The basic measures to tackle the overexploitation of groundwater include: a management plan of water resources for drinking water, a regime of authorisation and declaration, rules for abstraction and classification of facilities and activities involving water abstraction, and definition of areas for the allocation of water to different uses.

Supplementary measures include: measures to reduce of water abstraction; studies and governmental actions concerning the scarcity of the resource (Seine); efficient water use (Loire); definition of strategic points to monitor groundwater to ensure a balanced management of the resource (Corsica); measures for water saving by industry, farmers, households and communities; improved controls of water abstractions and improvement of efficiency of drinking water system; actions for rain water recovery (Rhine); definition of the piezometric level of reference (Rhone); ensuring coherence between authorisation for water abstractions and the needs of the aquatic environment and available volumes in groundwater bodies (Guyana); assessment of demand against availability of resources, including future trends and scenarios; promotion of programmes to reduce water use; development of a regional drought management plan; a campaign to encourage farmers to abstract water sustainably; development of a regional plan of water use; identifying the qualitative and quantitative needs for abstractions and assessment of the options for transfers (Réunion); and addressing salt water intrusion (Guadeloupe).

There are a number of basic measures foreseen regarding chemical status. These measures aim at preventing and limiting inputs of pollution and are mostly based on EU legislation, including the prohibition of the release of some products and restrictions in the use of others, the use of alternative techniques to replace synthetic herbicides, measures to prevent pollution at abstraction points, a catalogue of operations subject to authorisation or declaration, a licence system for underground storage, measures to prevent accidents from high risk plants, measures to prevent spills of urban waste water, and measures to reduce pollution from agriculture and pesticides such as improving agricultural practices.

When basic measures are deemed to be insufficient, supplementary measures are applied, such as bank restoration, measures to improve waste water collection, remediation measures, measures to tackle other diffuse pollutants, etc. There is no information on the measures established to address TV exceedances.

Some international co-ordination of measures related to groundwater has taken place with different intensity in the Scheldt, the Meuse, and the Rhine international RBDs.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

An inventory of the sources of chemical pollution is included in most French RBMPs, with the exception of Corsica, Guyana and Réunion RBDs. All of the inventories include nutrients and deoxygenating substances (except Loire for the latest). Priority substances are included in Meuse, Sambre, Rhine, Rhone, Adour, Martinique and Guadeloupe. Rhone, Adour, Martinique and Guadeloupe also include other non-priority specific pollutants.

A number of different measures have been included in all the French PoMs to address chemical pollution:

· measures to reduce emissions of chemicals and the prevention of accidental spills;

· measures to characterise and diminish waste and dangerous substances;

· establishment of norms, license system for certain machinery and other legal prerequisites;

· measures on the risk of major accidents in plants (SEVESO);

· measures for improving and ensuring waste water collection and treatment;

· measures for sustainable water use and measures to develop clean technologies;

· norms for sample taking for specific pollutants and establishment of modalities for laboratories analysing water samples;

· improvement of research related to the reduction of dangerous substances;

· modalities for taxes on polluting substances and penalties for polluting;

· sanitation of polluted sites;

· supplementary measures to reduce industrial emissions of organic matter and nutrients (Sambre).

Some specific measures have also be taken as necessary in specific RBDs, such as measures to reduce pollution in the harbour of Dunkerque, Boulogne and Calais; supplementary measures to reduce industrial emissions of organic matter and nutrients and self-monitoring (Sambre), local planning for sewage sludge recycling (Rhone), defining a management system for pollution from the harbour (Corsica), and to reduce the use of pesticides (Loire), etc.

France has developed a National Strategy[34], which forms the basis for competent authorities in relation to monitoring, assessment and reduction of chemical pollutants.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

The assessment of RBMPs gave the impression that water services are defined differently in different RBMPs. However, the French authorities confirmed that the broad definition in line with the WFD was applied in all French RBMPs.

The incentive function of water pricing is not clearly described in the RBMPs. However, provisions of the Law on water and aquatic ecosystems recognise that water-pricing policy provides adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently through volumetric charging, and tariffs for all users designed to provide incentives of resource efficient water use.

The 'polluter pays' principle has not been clearly defined in the RBMPs. However, the provisions of Article 9 of the WFD have been transposed into French national law through the Law nº 2006-1772 of 30 December 2006 on water and aquatic ecosystems, which establishes the obligation of, inter alia, collecting from all water users, and of environmental charges related to water abstraction and pollution of discharged water.

Cost recovery rates have been calculated for agriculture, industry, households, and also in some RBDs for small production activities similar to households.

Financial costs generally include capital (capital costs for new investments and depreciation costs), operating and maintenance costs. Administrative costs are also included in Adour, but maintenance costs do not seem to be included in Guyana and Réunion RBDs.

Flexibility under provisions of Article 9(4) has been applied in the following RBDs: Scheldt, Meuse, Sambre, Rhine, Corsica, Seine, Guyana and Réunion.

French legislation establishes that the costs related to water use, including environmental and resource costs, should be borne by the users, taking into account the social, environmental and economic consequences, but also the geographical and climatological conditions. These RBMPs have reported that the tariffs will be recalculated in areas where resources are not quantitatively in balance.

The River Basin Committees adapt the tariffs charged by the water agencies depending on the area, as classified by the environmental pressures and objectives. So each river basin committee is authorised to adjust the rates of environmental charges in accordance with the status of water bodies and the objectives formulated in the RBMP.

There are significant differences concerning water services, cost recovery calculation, contribution to cost recovery, and incentive pricing in different RBMPs, which prove that there has been insufficient co-operation at the national level. Co-operation on the international level has also not been reported.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

The objectives of the protected areas go beyond the good status required by the WFD, and are established under the relevant EU Directives (Drinking Water, Bathing Water, Shellfish). Therefore, these additional objectives of protected areas and the measures necessary to achieve them should be included in the main planning instrument applicable to all different activities within a RBD, i.e. the RBMPs.

Protected areas in France have been clearly identified. However, the plans do not provide the specific measures to be implemented in order to reach the more stringent objectives for which the protected area has been designated. It is considered that the measures included in the PoM will improve the status of all water bodies and will therefore contribute to the preservation of the protected areas.

There are very few measures included as such in the plans, such as restoration of extraction sites of drinking water in the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD, and the restoration of wetlands and diversification of habitats in the Rhone and Seine-Normandy RBDs respectively.

Specific additional measures needed to ensure water and shellfish quality under the Shellfish Directive are not clearly described. In general terms, there are no specific targeted measures for designated protected areas under this Directive, but other measures such as the ones mentioned above may have a positive effect on them.

13. water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management AND Climate change adaptation 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity and droughts are considered to be relevant in several French RBDs, and its importance is acknowledged in their RBMPs.

In Corsica, for example, water scarcity has been taken into account for the development of the whole RBMP. In particular, the importance of ensuring a quantitative balance and to anticipate the consequences of climate change has been acknowledged in the main objectives of the RBMP.

The Loire-Bretagne RBD foresees measures to minimise the effects of droughts and to ensure good quantitative status, by reducing or limiting water abstraction in specific areas of the RBD, including controls over the available quantities for irrigation.

In the Seine-Normandy RBD, the management of water scarcity and droughts is underpinned by a framework RBD regulation, together with local legislation ('arrêtés départementaux').

All French RBMPs identify some measures to address water scarcity and droughts, including:

· Improvement of the efficiency of water agricultural uses;

· Reduction of losses in urban distribution networks;

· Reduction / management of groundwater abstraction (e.g. by controls, registers);

· Modification of the water pricing system to foster a more efficient use of water;

· Establishment of water rights markets or schemes to facilitate water reallocation;

· Development of fiscal or economic incentives for the promotion of water-efficient devices and practices;

· Development of Drought Risk Management Plans;

· Measures to foster aquifer recharge;

· Training, education and capacity-building in water saving;

· Measures to enhance water governance;

· Promotion of rainwater harvesting;

· Development of Drought Risk Management Plans.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

There is in general little information in the French RBMPs on specific plans for floods risk management. Article 4.6 has not been applied.

There are however hydromorphological measures foreseen to address floods and which mainly include inundation flood plains, removal of structures, bank reinforcement, water regulation and construction of retention embankments. Although these measures have not been included in some of the plans, a combination of them has been planned in the Rhone, Seine, Adour-Garonne, Loire, Guadeloupe and Martinique RBDs.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

The impact of climate change is mentioned in some RBMPs as a possible additional pressure on water resources that needs to be taken into account in the future. However, climate change is only included in a limited way, and it is mainly referred to in the context of flood management, water availability and water scarcity situations. There has been no attempt to check whether the PoM is adapted to climate change.

Some RBDs have included some more information related to climate change. For example, in the Seine-Normandy RBMP, climate change is included as part of one specific chapter, i.e. the chapter describing the main directions and challenges of the RBMP. It is mentioned that one challenge to take into account is climate change, it is said that models have been developed taking into account future weather conditions and that there is a high uncertainty on the outcome. However, neither effects on the water system are described nor is this linked with the measures.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· The current French assessment methods still need to be improved and further developed for the next cycle of RBMPs. A considerable effort has been made to develop a number of assessment methods for the biological quality elements, but there are still important gaps in the methodology. The methods for assessment of physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements should also be further developed.

· The assessment of chemical status should be clearly defined in the RBMP, including the methodology and which substances have been used in the different plans.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· The application of exemptions under Article 4(4) and Article 4(5) has not been thoroughly justified in the French RBMPs. In particular, the use of disproportionate costs as the reason to apply the exemptions has not been sufficiently justified. A sound economic analysis should be carried out in order to identify cost-effective programmes of measures and to properly justify the use of exemptions.

· The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances, and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status.  It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combating chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.    

· The biota standards for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene in the EQSD, or standards providing an equivalent level of protection, should be applied where not already used. Trend monitoring in sediment or biota as specified for several priority substances in Directive 2008/105/EC Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next French RBMPs.

· Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so the approach to achieve the objectives is clear and the ambition in the PoM is transparent. All the relevant information on basic and supplementary measures should be included in the summary of the PoM to ensure transparency on the planned actions for the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in the WFD.

· On measures related to agriculture, the baseline for water protection needs to be very clear so all farmers are informed, and the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resource in most of French RBDs. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic and mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance.

· Assessment of groundwater status should be better harmonised among RBDs to increase the knowledge base and the transparency. Trend assessment and reversals should be performed in the 2nd RBMP cycle.

· Water services have been interpreted differently in the French RBD. Some RBDs have a broad approach, which takes into account all possible abstraction, storage, treatment, impoundment etc. In other RBDs, the approach has been narrower, taking into account public and self-water abstraction and wastewater treatment for all sectors, as well as irrigation. Finally, in some RBDs, the approach has been even more limited, taking into account only abstraction and wastewater treatment for households, industry and abstraction for agriculture.

· The consideration of climate change issues should be more extensively incorporated into the second RBMPs including pressure analysis, monitoring and a climate check of the Programmes of Measures.

[1]     Source: http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/france/index_en.htm

[2]     Area includes coastal waters.

[3]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[4]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[5]     Information from the 'EC Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU'

[6]     'Arrêté du préfet coordonnateur de bassin'

[7]     http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/-L-assainissement-.html

[8]     This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[9]     The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[10]    Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration. OJ L 372, 27.12.2006, p. 19–31

[11] Number of monitoring sites reported at programme level.

[12]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[13]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[14]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[15]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[16]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[17]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[18]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[19]    'Guide DCE 2009/27 du 30 mars 2009' and 'Guide relatif aux eaux littorales'

[20]    'Arrêté du 25 janvier 2010 relatif à l'évaluation de l'état des eaux de surface'

[21]    Le Système d'Évaluation de la Qualité de l'eau (SEQ-Eau)

[22]    Annex 11 of the 'Arrêté du 25 janvier 2010 relatif aux règles d'évaluation de l'état des eaux de surface

[23]    2008/915/EC: Commission Decision of 30 October 2008 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise.  OJ L 332, 10.12.2008

[24]    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2007_0362_en.pdf

[25]    Guide technique du 15 février 2006: La désignation des masses d'eau fortement modifiées (MEFM) et des masses d'eau artificielles (MEA)

[26]http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/gds04shmwbspolicyssummar/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[27]    The methodology for the definition of GEP may be found in Annex V of the 'Arrêté du 25 janvier 2010 relatif aux méthodes et critères d'évaluation de l'état écologique, de l'état chimique et du potentiel écologique des eaux de surface'.

[28]    Guide national pour l'évaluation de l'état des eaux douces de surface métropolitaines - projet d'arrêté en cours (information reported in WISE)

[29]    'Guide méthodologique de justification des exemptions prévues par a directive cadre sur l'eua'

[30] Page 9, chapter 2.3: 'Etape 3 : la capacité à payer et les modes de financement alternatifs' - http://www.rapportage.eaufrance.fr/annexes/dce/2010/FR/5%20Exemptions%20prevues%20par%20la%20directive%20cadre%20sur%20l%20eau/Guide%20methodologique%20de%20justification%20des%20exemptions.pdf

[31] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[32]    http://www.seine-normandie.eaufrance.fr/index.php?id=274

      http://www.seine-nord-europe.com/

      http://www.debatpublic-prolongementdugrandcanalduhavre.org/

      http://www.rouen.port.fr/documents-amenagement-acces-port-de-rouen.html

[33]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management

[34]    'Plan Micropollutants 2010-2013'

      http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-micropolluants-dans-les.html

      http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-micropolluants-dans-les.html

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Population: 82 million

Total area: 356854 km²

RBD || Name || Size[1] (km2) || % share of total basin in DE || Countries sharing RBD

DE1000 || Danube || 801000 (56259 in DE) || 7 || AT, BA, BG, CH, CZ, HR, HU, IT, MD, ME, MK, PL, RO, RS, SI, SK, UA, AL

DE2000 || Rhine || 197177 (105775 in DE) || 54 || AT, BE, CH, FR, IT, LI, LU, NL

DE3000 || Ems || 20246 (17117 in DE) || 84 || NL

DE4000 || Weser || 49063 || 100 || -

DE5000 || Elbe || 150558 (99506 in DE) || 65.5 || AT, CZ, PL

DE6000 || Odra || 124000 (9600 in DE) || 7.7 || CZ, PL

DE7000 || Meuse || 34364 (3984 in DE) || 11.6 || BE, FR, LU, NL

DE9500 || Eider || 9202 (DE only[2]) || - || DK

DE9610 || Schlei/Trave || 9218 (DE only[3]) || 99.95 || DK

DE9650 || Warnow/Peene || 21088 || 100 || -

Table 1.1: Overview of Germany’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[4]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/de/eu/wfdart13

The following provides an overview of German RBDS and the Länder they cover.

RBD || Federal State included in RBD || % of territorial share per Federal State

DE1000 || Bavaria, Baden-Wuerttemberg || Bavaria (6%), Baden-Wuerttemberg (1%)

DE2000 || Baden-Wuerttemberg, Rhineland-Palatine, Saarland, Hessia, North Rhine-Westphalia, Bavaria, Lower Saxony, and Thuringia || Baden-Wuerttemberg (not possible to determine), Rhineland-Palatine (2%), Saarland (1.7%), Hessia (6.1%), North Rhine-Westphalia (not reported in the plan), Bavaria (not possible to determine), Lower Saxony (not possible to determine), Thuringia (about 0.4%)

DE3000 || North Rhine-Westphalia, Lower Saxony || 23% in North Rhine-Westphalia, 61% in Lower Saxony

DE4000 || Bavaria, Bremen, Hessia, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxon-Anhalt, and Thuringia || Bavaria (0.1%), Bremen (0.8%), Hessia (18.4%), Lower Saxony (including transitional and coastal waters: 60.1%), North Rhine-Westphalia (10.1%), Saxon-Anhalt (1.4%), Thuringia (9.1%)

DE5000 || Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-West Pommerania, Lower Saxony, Saxonia, Saxon-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, Thuringia || Information not reported in the plan[5]

DE6000 || Mecklenburg-West Pommerania, Brandenburg, Saxonia || Information not reported in the plan[6]

DE7000 || North Rhine-Westphalia || Information not reported in the NRW plan

DE9500 || Schleswig-Holstein || 100%

DE9610 || Mecklenburg-West Pommerania, Schleswig-Holstein || Mecklenburg-West Pommerania (9.45%), Schleswig Holstein (90.55%)

DE9650 || Mecklenburg-West Pommerania || 100%

Table 1.2: Länder governing the different German RBDs

Source: RBMPs

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

1 || 3

km² || % || km² || %

Danube || DE1000 || AT, BA, BG, CH, CZ, HR, HU, IT, MD, ME, MK, PL, RO, RS, SI, SK, UA, AL || 56184 || 7.0 || ||

Rhine || DE2000 || AT, BE, CH, FR, IT, LI, LU, NL || 105670 || 54.0 || ||

Ems || DE3000 || NL || 15008 || 84.0 || ||

Ems-Dollart || DE3000 || NL || 482 || 3.0 || ||

Elbe || DE5000 || AT, CZ, PL || 99730 || 65.5 || ||

Odra || DE6000 || CZ, PL || 9602 || 7.7 || ||

Meuse || DE7000 || BE, FR, LU, NL || 3984 || 11.6 || ||

Vidaa/Wiedau (Rudboel Soe/Ruttebüller See) || DE9500 || DK || || || 261 || 19.0

Jardelund Groeft/Jardelunder Graben/Bongsieler Kanal || DE9500 || DK || || || 732 || 99.0

Krusaa/Krusau || DE9610 || DK || || || 6 || 26

Table 1.3: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Germany[7]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

The RBMPs were adopted on 22 December 2009 or earlier[8]. RBMPs were reported to the Commission in March 2010: the Danube, Elbe, Weser, Meuse and Schlei/Trave on the 4th; the Eider and Warnow/Peene on the 9th; the Odra on the 19th; and the Ems and the Rhine on the 22nd.

Germany is a federal state and this is reflected by the different approaches to co-ordination in the context of the WFD. Some Länder worked together to submit one plan, while other Länder produced individual plans for the same basin, sometimes to varying degree of detail. The result of these differences is only a patchwork of information on how the WFD is being implemented[9].

Nevertheless, one of the strengths of the plans is that they all follow a similar structure, making them easy to follow and compare. This has been helpful during the public participation phase. In general, the RBMPs are readable, even for non-technical persons. The German RBMPs are useful information tools that summarise the work being carried out under the WFD. Specific information on precise implementation is found in other documents, which have not been officially submitted.

On the other hand, the plans give only a limited picture of which methodologies have been used or which measures will be implemented. It is also not always clear what has been co-ordinated by the LAWA (LänderarbeitsgruppeWasser) with respect to monitoring, status and economic assessments. The information as regards methodologies required to implement the GWD is often missing but this could be explained by the fact the GWD had not been transposed into national law when the plans were drafted. In addition, the plans give a short summary regarding the work to be carried out under the programmes of measures. Information regarding the allocation of the financial resources to measure implementation is lacking, so it is unclear what will be achieved in the 1st planning cycle.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the German RBMPs were:

Of the river basin districts that fall within the borders of Germany – the Danube, Rhine, Maas, Ems, Weser, Oder, Elbe, Eider, Warnow/Peene and Schlei/Trave - eight extend into other countries, with only the Weser and Warnow/Peene being managed in Germany alone. Germany is a federal state made up of sixteen Länder sharing these 10 basins. This federal structure is reflected by the different approaches to coordination in the context of the WFD. The following is a summary of the main strengths and weaknesses of the German plans:

Governance:

The federal structure requires additional efforts for water management. A specific working group “Länderarbeitsguppe Wasser” was set up to co-ordinate among Länder. The aim was to develop common methodologies and approaches. In addition some Länder formed a national River Basins commission. So some “Länder” worked more closely together to submit one plan, while other Länder produced individual plans for the same basin, sometimes to varying degrees of detail and with different methodologies. The result of these differences is only a patchwork of information on how the WFD is being implemented. Nevertheless, the strength of the plans is that they all follow a similar structure, making them easy to follow and compare. This has been helpful during the public participation phase. In general, the RBMPs are readable, even for non-technical persons. The German RBMPs are useful information tools to get a general idea of the working being carried out under the WFD. Specific information on precise implementation is found in other documents, which have not been officially submitted.

Characterisation of the RBDs:

In general the German RBMPs reported that typologies have been developed and are in place for all water categories in all river basins. Furthermore, a common approach was taken by all RBDs. However, some individual RBDs have no defined transitional water bodies and no information as to why is provided in the plans (Odra, Schlei/ Trave, Warnow/Peene).

A largely uniform nationwide approach LAWA (LänderarbeitsgruppeWasser), based on the EU CIS guidance, has been applied for the identification of pressures and impacts in the German RBDs, allowing for easy comparison. Yet, in some RBMPs specific criteria/thresholds to identify significant pressures are not described.

Reference conditions are well developed in all German RBDs with some shortcomings in some RBDs regarding the water categories “rivers, lakes and coastal waters”.

Monitoring

The German plans indicate a high level of ambition with respect to monitoring: often the monitoring networks go significantly beyond the explicit and implicit WFD minimum requirements. The monitoring of chemical substances especially has been extensively addressed. Nevertheless, with respect to BQEs, there are unclear or inconsistent approaches to selected BQEs most sensitive to pressures, making it difficult to compare RBDs between Länder. In addition, not all monitoring sites measure BQEs.

Assessment of Ecological Status of Surface Waters

For the most part, nationwide standards and approaches (through LAWA and RAKON) have been developed and applied in the German RBDs for type-specific ecological status assessments. Previously lacking assessment methodology for BQEs have now been developed and especially sensitive BQEs have been identified. Despite the progress on methodologies, there are still some gaps in implementation for some water categories (e.g. lakes) and BQEs (e.g. macroinvertebrates). Transparency is still an issue as regards how ecological assessments are addressed for transitional and coastal waters. In the plans, information for the assessment of the status quality assurance is very general, making it difficult to judge whether uncertainties have been properly addressed.

Designation of HMWBs

The designation of HMWB mostly followed the steps in the CIS guidance. Information on methodologies for setting GEP was not that clear in all RBMPs.

Assessment of Chemical Status

The first assessment of chemical quality was supported by a comprehensive assessment of all priority substances. This serves as a strong basis for undertaking trend analyses in the future and developing future programmes on the basis of the trends. A very few substances, however, still lack proper analytical tools to make a proper chemical quality assessment. In addition, there appear to be different and partly non WFD compliant measurement frequencies for priority substances with too little information provided in the RBMPs.

Assessment of Groundwater Status

Strategies and approaches to assess groundwater status were harmonised at the national level but still enabled regions to take local circumstances into account. This has enabled a high level of comparability between RBDs. The methodology for deriving groundwater threshold values is quite sophisticated as it can be applied to all types of substances and can take regional characteristics into account. On the other hand, information on groundwater status remains at a general level and provides few details. Moreover, RBMPs where Länder developed separate plans have not provided a comprehensive view of the whole basin.

Information regarding the status of groundwater bodies is missing in the plans although threshold values are exceeded at some monitoring points. It is not clear which groundwater bodies are at good status or at risk of failing good status.

Environmental objectives and exemptions

In total 80% of the German water bodies are subject to an exemption with 79% being subject to an extended deadline (Article 4.4.). Only for 1% of the water bodies will lower objectives be applied (Article 4.5).  This seems to be a precautionary approach as there is a lot of uncertainty to the effectiveness of measures. The justification in relation to technical and natural reasons is well defined. For disproportionate costs, the justification provided is unclear as no detailed methodology was reported. Also new derogations under Article 4.7 will not be used.

Programme of Measures

As with the other sections of the RBMPs, the programmes of measures were developed at the national level under the LAWA. Measures have been developed for each respective theme (i.e. agriculture, groundwater, hydromorphology, water pricing, etc). On the one hand, this ensures a common approach in the Länder, especially in RBDs with multiple administrative districts. On the other hand, the information provided in the plans remains very general as only overarching categories of measures are provided. Detailed information on measures – for example, exactly what will be implemented, whether it will be implemented and how it will be financed – is missing in the PoM summaries found in the RBMPs. Although Länder level PoMs were developed in Germany, these were not officially reported, leading to a lack of transparency on what is being planned in the individual basins. Additionally, the implementation of the measures is the responsibility of the Länder, so it is hard to assess their comparability within a RBD.

With respect to the definition of costs, the plans are working with a narrow interpretation of water services and estimations of the contributions of the different water users to the costs of water services are lacking. Details regarding financial cost recovery are also lacking, as well as for environmental and resource costs. Nevertheless, significant efforts were made to coordinate work on Article 9 among the different Länder. Moreover, historically strong incentive structures through pricing and economic instruments had existed even before WFD implementation.

Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts

Climate change as well as adaptation is addressed in all the river basins. A climate check was carried out by the majority of river basins to better align the setting of objectives and the selection of measures. However, the details of the methodologies to do so have not been presented.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

The German draft RBMPs were made available to the public from 22 December 2008 until 22 July 2009. The final RBMPs were published on 22 December 2009. As stated above, the RBMPs were reported to the Commission in March 2010: the Danube, Elbe, Weser, Meuse and Schlei/Trave on the 4th; the Eider and Warnow/Peene on the 9th; the Odra on the 19th; and the Ems and the Rhine on the 22nd. There were no resubmissions.

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

Based on the federal structure of Germany, the Federal States (and therein the relevant ministries) are responsible for water management within the Länder. The environmental ministries cover water issues as well as other water relevant sectors such as agriculture, energy or climate protection or health[10]. A division of competences among water categories is not applied in any of the “Länder”[11].

In cases where a RBD (all RBDs except the Eider, Meuse and Warnow/Peene) is governed by different Länder, bi- or multilateral agreements have been set up. Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg co-ordinated their RBMPs for the Danube through the 'Co-ordination Group upper Danube'. In the German part of the Rhine RBD, the river basin management planning was structured into RBMPs for each Federal State, in accordance with the federal framework for the political, water law and administrative responsibilities in Germany. In preparing the RBMP, the competent ministries of the Federal States and their subordinate agencies were in charge and took over co-ordination tasks. More specialized agencies, e.g. regarding Nature Conservation, Agriculture and Forestry, Health, Consumer Protection and the Water and Shipping Administration of the federal government, were involved when required. For the national co-ordination of the implementation of the WFD in the Ems, Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia signed an administrative agreement setting up the Ems River Basin Commission (FGG Ems), consisting of the “Emsrat” and the management office Ems. For the Weser an administrative agreement between the Federal States for the establishment of the Weser river basin authority was signed in 2003 and updated in 2009. For the Elbe, the 10 Federal States set up a coordinating institution called 'FGG Elbe' in 2004 to co-ordinate the development of the RBMP and POMs (at the B-level) for the German part of the Elbe. The three Federal States that make up the German part of the Oder produced a common RBMP ('B level') without putting an 'official' co-ordination institution in place (like e.g. the FGG Elbe). The Schlei/Trave RBMP was developed under the co-ordination of the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein (the Ministry for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas). The co-ordination with Mecklenburg-Vorpommern took place through the contacts between the two ministries. An intensive exchange of information and data took place between the administrations so that a commonly developed RBMP exists.

The guidelines drawn up within the framework of the Common Implementation Strategy played an important role in Germany’s efforts to ensure the uniform interpretation of key provisions of the WFD within Germany. In some cases, however, the discussion processes surrounding the CIS guidelines were still on-going whilst practical implementation work had begun at national level, driven by the ambitious timetable of the WFD. As such, full consideration could not be given to these guidelines in the first round of RBMPs. Additional national guidelines were prepared within the RBDs and in the “Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser” (LAWA). As a result, methodologies and approaches to the implementation of the WFD vary slightly among the Länder but the approaches are nevertheless all compatible with CIS guidelines. These differences can be mainly found in the following areas: inventory (including inventory of priority substance discharges), monitoring structures and methods, criteria for the designation of heavily modified water bodies and determination of good ecological potential, exemptions and the justification thereof, supra-regional management objectives, individual aspects of financial analysis, and reporting modalities. Being aware of different approaches taken among the Länder, in 2011 the LAWA initiated a further harmonisation of methodologies for the second management cycle within its work programme "River basin management (Flussgebietsbewirtschaftung)".

The co-ordination among the Länder has led to the following situation when it comes to the development of RBMPs:

· Danube: No common German plan (B-Level) was developed. Both Länder developed their own river basin management plans for their territorial share of the Danube basin.

· Rhine: No common German plan (B-Level) was developed. The following Länder submitted their own territorial plans for the Rhine: Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, Rhineland-Palatine, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saarland, Thuringia and Hessia. Lower Saxony has also developed its own RBMP[12] and its territory is covered by the international plan.

· Ems: No common German plan (B-Level) was developed. North Rhine-Westphalia developed its own territorial plan covering all the RBDs in its jurisdiction, including the Ems. Lower Saxony did not develop its own RBMP and its territory is covered by the international plan.

· Weser: One German plan (B-Level) was developed among the Länder. In addition, North Rhine-Westphalia developed its own territorial plan covering all the RBDs in its jurisdiction, including the Weser.

· Elbe: One German plan (B-Level) was developed among the Länder.

· Odra: One German plan (B-Level) was developed among the Länder.

· Meuse: Only one Länder lies in the basin. North Rhine-Westphalia developed its own territorial plan covering all the RBDs in its jurisdiction, including the Meuse.

· Eider: The basin lies solely within one federal state.

· Schlei/Trave: One German plan (B-Level) was developed and co-ordinated by the two Länder included in the RBD.

· Warnow/Peene: The basin lies solely within one federal state.

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

The adopting authorities are the Federal States/Länder. The type of adoption act varies from one Federal State to another. Some laws of the Federal States lay down provisions that allow the adoption of parts of PoMs as legally binding ordinances if needed. There is a general obligation to take the RBMPs into account when individual decisions are taken, including when interpreting broad legal notions.  There is no specific provision governing this interpretation and the situation varies between the Federal states, but the general consensus is that RBMPs and PoMs are binding for the authorities responsible for water management. The provisions of RBMPs and PoMs have, for example, specific determining effects as regards the management discretion of authorities when they decide on water use permits. Authorities may also invoke them to interpret and specify broad legal notions, for example the notion ‘adverse changes to waters’.

At the Federal level, the legal effect is not regulated. At the level of the Federal State it is partly regulated. In Schleswig Holstein, the environment ministry may declare the entire or parts of RBMPs and PoMs legally binding for all authorities. In North-Rhine Westphalia all administrative decision related to the RBMPs and PoMs are legally binding for the parts of the river basins situated North-Rhine Westphalia. In other Federal States the legal effect of the RBMP is not regulated.

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

According to Article 14 of the WFD, the Member States are responsible for public participation, and under German law this responsibility rests with the Länder. As such each federal state conducted its own consultation process. Public participation in accordance with the WFD has clearly shown the expediency of involving stakeholders and in some cases the general public, from an early stage in order to avoid or minimise conflicts of interest further down the line. 

The consultation process on the draft RBMP was carried out through a number of different routes, including written consultation and web based comments (only in the Danube, Rhine, Ems and Warnow/Peene). In Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria, several informal meetings with local and regional stakeholder groups took place before the formal public participation process. Information on the consultation process could be obtained through the media, internet, printed media, local authorities (not in Schlei/Trave or the Eider); round tables and cooperation between regions were also organized. The stakeholders involved in the consultation included a wide range of sectors, such as water and sanitation, agriculture, energy, fisheries, industry and NGOs. Involvement was through regular meetings as well as round tables and thematic working groups (Odra). Continuous involvement of these stakeholders or the general public took place. The comments provided led to adjustments in specific measures (Danube, Rhine) as well as changes to the selection of measures (e.g. in the Danube, Rhine, Elbe). A full list of these changes as a result of the comments gathered during the public participation phase has not been provided in the individual RBMPs[13].

In consultations regarding the draft river basin management plans, in the case of international RBDs, German-language versions of the draft international plans have always been published as well, so that the general public has access to overview planning for the entire RBD. However, public participation experience has clearly shown that interest among organised interest groups and the general public tends to focus mainly on regional or local issues, and they are only motivated to become involved when such issues are under debate. Public participation became more active as the debate surrounding local changes and improvements became more detailed and opportunities were available to exert a direct influence.

Most often as a result of the consultations, additional information was added to the RBMPs. Only in the case of the Danube, Rhine and Elbe did the consultations lead to changes in the selection of measures or adjustments to measures. Changes in methodologies used were also reported in the Danube and the Rhine[14]. In the Baden-Württemberg part of the Rhine, some issues will be clarified in the 2nd planning cycle. Public participation in the consultations was very low in Eider and Schlei/Trave due to a previous consultation; as such the impact of the consultation on draft plans was considered low. Information for the Ems and Meuse was difficult to separate as North Rhine-Westphalia produced one plan for both basins; therefore, the impact of the consultations for the both basins is unknown as the information was not disaggregated[15]. However, the RBMP mentions that the comments have been integrated as far as possible.

3.5 International cooperation and coordination

As set out in Table 1.1, Germany contains 8 international RBDs. For the Danube, the Rhine, the Elbe, the Odra, the Ems and the Meuse international plans have been developed. These international plans have been part of the official reporting process.

The co-ordination and management of the international plans and the German level plans was split into three levels: Part A, Part B and Part C. Part A comprises the international RBMPs and includes information relating to the transnational significant water management issues (SWMIs) and environmental objectives. Part B is the German level plan where one plan was co-ordinated among all affected Länder (see section 1 for details). Part B plans focus on the national level and provide additional national level SWMIs, environmental objectives, etc. Part C covers plans developed by individual Länder for each of the basins covered in their territory.

All the IRBDs in Germany except the Eider and Schlei/Trave co-operated to develop an international RBMP. International Commissions governed by international agreements have long been established to facilitate co-operation in these IRBDs, all[16] of which predate the WFD. To facilitate the developments of the international RBMPs, technical working groups were set up. Reference is made by the German plans to the two levels of the management for the international basins: Part A, parts of the river basin management plans in case of international RBD, established in co-ordination with all basin countries on international level, which deal with the umbrella management issues of the transboundary basin,; and Part B, the national plans for the national parts of the basins, which focuses on German management issues, objectives and measures. Most of the plans reflect the Part A plans and/or the umbrella management issues in the national plans (e.g., the Elbe and the Baden-Württemberg RBMP for the Danube).

The Eider and Schlei/Trave only share a very small part with Denmark and as such an international plan was deemed unnecessary. Co-ordination with Denmark, however, is regulated through an international agreement. As such, for both RBDs Germany and Denmark worked together on a number of topics, including monitoring, environmental objectives, development of PoMs, exemptions and public participation.

Integration with other sectors

All RBMPs contain links to other sectors and related plans and programmes, mainly agriculture, through the Nitrates National Action Programme and the Rural Development Programmes, the chemical industry, through the IPPC licensing programme, and biodiversity through nature conservation plans.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

All four water categories, rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters, occur in Germany. The four WFD water categories vary in occurrence over the 10 German RBDs. The following shows the water categories included in the respective German RBDs:

i) Danube, Rhine and Meuse: two water categories - rivers and lakes.

ii) Odra, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene:  three water categories - rivers, lakes and coastal waters[17].

iii) Ems, Weser, Elbe, Eider - four water categories - rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

The RBMPs show that typologies have been developed for all water categories in the German RBDs. The following table shows the number of defined surface water types for each RBD and water category:

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

DE1000 || 21 || 8 || 0 || 0

DE2000 || 25 || 9 || 0 || 0

DE3000 || 15 || 3 || 1 || 5

DE4000 || 24 || 10 || 1 || 5

DE5000 || 24 || 11 || 1 || 4

DE6000 || 13 || 6 || 0 || 1

DE7000 || 11 || 1 || 0 || 0

DE9500 || 6 || 3 || 1 || 5

DE9610 || 9 || 6 || 0 || 4

DE9650 || 8 || 5 || 0 || 4

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

In general, the approaches follow the LAWA guidelines (Bund/Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser). LAWA documents that have been developed to identify typologies for the water categories of the German RBDs are the RAKON B - Arbeitspapier I_Entwurf_21-11-06 (typology, reference conditions, class boundaries) and RAKON B - Arbeitspapier II_Stand_07_03_2007 (thresholds for physical parameters), and RAKON B - Arbeitspapier III_Entwurf_22-11-2006. The LAWA documents were used as a common approach to define typology in the German RBDs.[18]

Abiotic typologies were validated against biological data for all water categories in each RBD except for the lakes and coastal waters in the Odra RBD and for coastal waters in the Elbe RBD. The reason for this was the on-going development of biological assessment methods and missing data on reference conditions for these water categories.

When it comes to the development of reference conditions in general, it can be summarised that these have been established for all water categories in most RBDs. However, it is reported that certain gaps still exist. The RBMPs report that reference conditions are not yet fully developed for rivers for the RBDs of Ems, Weser, Odra and Meuse nor for both lakes and coastal waters in the Odra RBD and coastal waters in the Elbe RBD. The reason for this relates to missing reference data regarding certain Biological Quality Elements (WISE chapter 3.1.1.1) when the RBMPs were drafted. For the Ems RBD it is reported that the process on reference conditions is not complete because the development of biological assessment and quantification methods in DE and NL is not fully complete. In addition, the RBMP of North Rhine Westphalia, covering parts of the Weser, Ems and Meuse RBDs, further clarifies the lack of reference conditions indicating the difficulties in defining these for certain basin sharing rivers in karstic areas, which seasonally fall dry.  Missing data on reference condition assessment will be supplemented in the next WFD cycle. Therefore, respective results can be expected to be part of the 2015 RBMPs.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

In the context of the LAWA, a common approach for most issues related to the delineation of water bodies has been developed that is based on the CIS EU guidance on Water Body Delineation. This approach has been applied in all German RBDs. Small water bodies have been taken into account for all RBDs within the delineation approach based on a requirement of the German water act that small waters also need to be addressed accordingly[19]. The minimum thresholds for delineation applied for the different water categories are the same for all RBDs. For rivers, the delineation was undertaken for catchment areas >10 km2, for lakes >0,5 km2, for transitional waters >10 km2 and for coastal waters up to 1 sea mile off the coast. The indications on methods to delineate water bodies in transitional water bodies vary. While the delineation is not relevant for all RBDs (e.g. Danube, Rhine) other RBDs have not delineated transitional water bodies[20] (Odra, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene). The respective RBMPs (Odra, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene) do not outline why no transitional water bodies have been delineated[21]. For the other RBDs both the CIS guidance and the Coast guidance was used for water body delineation. The indicators eco-region, salinity and tidal action have been used for delineation.

For the Elbe RBMP, a comparison of water body numbers reported in WISE and the ones in the RBMP resulted in differences in relation to some pressures (e.g. diffuse pollution). This difference could be explained by differing survey structures and evaluation algorithms applied for statistical analysis. This will be eliminated in the next planning cycle[22].

Table 4.3.1 presents the numbers and areas of water bodies in the German RBDs/water category[23].

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

DE1000 || 621 || 31 || 50 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 46 || 1318

DE2000 || 2208 || 18 || 71 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 399 || 264

DE3000 || 502 || 11 || 6 || 2 || 2 || 98 || 6 || 518 || 40 || 351

DE4000 || 1380 || 12 || 27 || 3 || 1 || 208 || 6 || 263 || 144 || 328

DE5000 || 2773 || 12 || 359 || 3 || 1 || 395 || 5 || 511 || 224 || 445

DE6000 || 453 || 7 || 49 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 288 || 23 || 412

DE7000 || 227 || 7 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 32 || 125

DE9500 || 135 || 12 || 16 || 2 || 1 || 16 || 11 || 418 || 23 || 227

DE9610 || 274 || 7 || 51 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 25 || 124 || 19 || 426

DE9650 || 499 || 9 || 82 || 2 || 0 || NaN || 20 || 381 || 39 || 359

Total || 9072 || 14 || 712 || 3 || 5 || 163 || 74 || 309 || 989 || 372

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

In the context of the LAWA a largely uniform nationwide approach has been applied for the identification of pressures and impacts in the German RBDs. The work was guided by the documents ‘Arbeitshilfe zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie’, (2003) and the LAWA paper ‘Significant Pressures – Signifikante Belastungen’ (2003), that include criteria/thresholds to determine anthropogenic pressures from relevant drivers and to assess their impacts in time to report to the EC. The general method (contained in the mentioned documents) to define significance is based on the EU guidance and includes Länder specific approaches. In general, the DE approaches consider a pressure that is not of natural origin to be significant in the DE RBDs if it is likely to cause a water body to fail the ‘good status’.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

DE1000 || 155 || 23.1 || 110 || 16.39 || 352 || 52.46 || 88 || 13.11 || 386 || 57.53 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 42 || 6.26

DE2000 || 313 || 13.73 || 1403 || 61.56 || 1456 || 63.89 || 50 || 2.19 || 1767 || 77.53 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 250 || 10.97

DE3000 || 27 || 5.23 || 180 || 34.88 || 452 || 87.6 || 0 || 0 || 484 || 93.8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 158 || 30.62

DE4000 || 88 || 6.22 || 296 || 20.93 || 1199 || 84.79 || 0 || 0 || 1303 || 92.15 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE5000 || 282 || 8.99 || 546 || 17.4 || 2385 || 76 || 42 || 1.34 || 2411 || 76.83 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 89 || 2.84

DE6000 || 52 || 10.34 || 40 || 7.95 || 369 || 73.36 || 3 || 0.6 || 367 || 72.96 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0.2

DE7000 || 22 || 9.65 || 181 || 79.39 || 140 || 61.4 || 0 || 0 || 200 || 87.72 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 35 || 15.35

DE9500 || 7 || 4.29 || 0 || 0 || 156 || 95.71 || 0 || 0 || 136 || 83.44 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9610 || 8 || 2.29 || 0 || 0 || 342 || 97.71 || 0 || 0 || 274 || 78.29 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9650 || 53 || 8.82 || 6 || 1 || 518 || 86.19 || 0 || 0 || 499 || 83.03 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1007 || 10.21 || 2762 || 28 || 7369 || 74.71 || 183 || 1.86 || 7827 || 79.36 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 575 || 5.83

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

Pressures from point and diffuse source pollution

Regarding point source pollution, it can be summarised that for the Danube and Rhine RBD significance of pressures is assessed through a combined application of numerical tools and expert judgement, whereas for the Ems, Weser, Elbe, Odra, Meuse, Schlei/Trave and Warnow/Peene RBDs numerical tools have been used exclusively. Regarding significance of diffuse source pollution a combination of numerical tools and expert judgement has been applied for the Danube, Rhine, Weser, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave and Warnow/Peene RBDs. Numerical tools have been used in the Ems, Elbe and Odra RBDs.

Respective information on approaches can be found in the Article 5 assessments as well as in the international RBMPs of the RBDs and in the above-mentioned German guidance documents. According to the LAWA document on ‘Significant pressures – Signifikante Belastungen’, the identification of pressure significance from point and diffuse sources is performed on the water body level based on emission data and via in-stream assessments. The estimated degree and type of pressures is assessed against in-stream data and thresholds.

Pressure assessments for point sources address urban wastewater treatment plants > 2000 PE, industrial emissions and other point source pollution like stormwater overflow. For diffuse pollution load estimations are undertaken to identify pressure significance. In case of absence of respective monitoring data for such estimates, expert judgement is applied. In consequence, two options are implemented to estimate if a pressure is significant regarding diffuse pollution: (i) the emission approach using different nutrient models like MONERIS, MOBINEG or MODIFFUS – (Modell zur Abschätzung diffuser Stoffeinträge in die Gewässer) to estimate the relevance of the diffuse pollution on the water body and (ii) the in-stream approach that aims to assess which pollution sources stem from point sources in order to estimate the remaining diffuse load. Threshold values – relevant for point and diffuse pollution - exist for specific chemical substances (WFD Annex VIII), nitrogen, phosphorous, for saprobic organic pollution, eutrophication, biological quality elements, salinity, acidity and water temperature.

The LAWA approach – outlined above - is applied for all RBDs and through the Länder as the basic national approach for the identification of significant pressures and impacts. In addition, the Länder undertook RBD specific variations/differences to adapt to specific situations, which included:

· The exceedance of in-stream and emission values was used to determine significance including values laid down in specific licences.

· Additional aspects to exceedance of emission values were applied in the RBDs and the Länder according to principles of the Directives 91/271 EEG and 76/464/EEG.

· Almost all RBDs and Länder used the basic principle that significance can be identified if the load from point sources has a major share to the overall load.

· Further, pressure significance in relation to point and diffuse sources has been defined in many RBDs and the Länder, if a biological quality element was less than good status due to a pressure (e.g. Ems, Elbe, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene RBDs).

· For nutrients it is often stated that significance is defined where 20% of the total load comes from a specific source (e.g. Eider and Schlei/Trave RBDs).

· Regarding diffuse pollution, various models have been applied (e.g. MONERIS – Modelling Nutrient Emission in River Systems, Behrendt et al., 2000[24] in the Danube RBD and MEPHOS in the Rhine RBD).

Pressures from water abstraction, water flow regulation and morphological alterations

Regarding pressures due to water abstraction, it can be summarised that for all German RBDs numerical tools have been applied for significance definition. Exclusively for the Warnow/Peene RBD a combination of numerical tools and expert judgement has been used. Regarding pressure significance caused by water flow regulation and morphological alterations, a combination of expert judgement was applied for most of the RBDs except the Eider and Schlei/Trave RBDs where exclusively numerical tools have been used. The significance of other pressures has been estimated through expert judgement.

Respective information on approaches applied to determine the significance of all pressures above can be found in the Article 5 assessments as well as in the international RBMPs of the RBDs as well as in the above-mentioned German guidance documents. According to the LAWA document on ‘Significant pressures – Signifikante Belastungen’, guidance is provided for all pressures of water abstraction, water flow regulation and morphological alterations.

Water abstraction

According to the LAWA document, water abstraction larger than 1/3 of the Mean Low-Flow Discharge (MNQ) and unregulated abstractions of in-stream minimum flow have to be considered as significant pressure and respective information needs to be collected in follow-up[25]. Therefore, a water abstraction is considered significant when it causes a minimum flow that is less than 2/3 of the Mean Low-Flow Discharge[26] or it causes significant impacts on the biological quality elements.

It can be said that the above LAWA criteria for pressure significance due to water abstraction have been applied in all RBDs and by all Länder. Some variations occur to adapt to specific cases and data bases. In some cases additional criteria have been applied to the LAWA criterion (water abstraction larger than 1/3 of the Mean Low-Flow Discharge): therefore, significance was defined if 50 l/s were abstracted without recharge (e.g. Rhine RBD, Elbe, Eider, Weser, Odra; Hesse, Saxony-Anhalt). It is reported in the RBMPs, that significance was sometimes defined if 10% of the average flow was abstracted and not discharged back[27] (e.g. Ems RBD, Elbe RBD, LS/Bremen and Thuringia). The international Ems RBMP also refers to licenses and significance thresholds for the German Länder, which have to be met regarding water abstraction. However, the thresholds are not explicitly mentioned in the RBMPs and are reported to be set on case-by-case basis if needed.

Water flow regulation and morphological alterations

The LAWA developed a classification scheme to assess morphological alterations for rivers and which has been implemented in all DE RBDs. The scheme includes various parameters and 7 classes. Whereas class 1 stands for rivers that are morphologically not altered, class 7 indicates complete alteration of river morphology. This classification scheme was used in all RBDs and by all Länder to assess significant pressures due to water flow regulation and morphological alterations. Additional respective criteria are outlined in the following paragraphs.

Water flow regulations that are assessed with classes 6 and 7 for the parameters ‘difference in height (Absturzhöhe)’ and/or class 7 in relation to the parameter impoundment according to the respective LAWA classification scheme for morphological alteration, are to be assessed in detail for pressure significance. For morphological alterations and according to the LAWA document, water bodies that have been allocated to classes 6 and 7 according to morphological alterations have been further investigated on the significance of pressures[28].

The following criteria determine the final significance of identified pressures as impacts from flow regulations and morphological alterations. Significance is defined if (i) classes 6 and 7 regarding overall morphological alteration according to LAWA are assessed, (ii) the biological quality elements are significantly impacted, and/or (iii) up- as well as downstream migration for fish and macroinvertebrates is hindered.

It can be said that the above LAWA criteria for pressure significance due to flow regulation and morphological alterations have been applied in all RBDs and also the Länder. A broad spectrum of criteria supports the definition of respective significant pressures. These include in summary connectivity, barriers, energy production, morphology, hydrological cycle, recreation, fishing, drainage, shipping, flood defence, water supply, agriculture and forestry, industrial activities, urbanisation, water transfers, agriculture and others.

In some RBDs and Länder additional criteria to LAWA were applied to define significance and to adapt to specific situations. The international Danube RBMP states significance criteria for the Danube mainstream and its tributaries regarding river continuity and habitat interruption and impoundments impacting on flow for the German parts. Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria also introduced several criteria to define significance for the Danube. Baden-Württemberg summarised these in a respective document (Methodenband – Bestandsaufnahme der WRRL in BW, LfZ, 2005). Significance was defined where the ecological water status was less than good (e.g. Odra, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene RBDs). The Bavarian RBMP describes several drivers and impacts caused by morphological alterations. Criteria for pressure significance include changes in flow regimes, changes in river connectivity, and impacts due to channelling, bank modifications and river bed modifications. The RBMP does not, however, report the specific values for significance. North-Rhine Westphalia performed an additional assessment of continuity interruptions and their impact on upstream/downstream fish migration regarding passability for fish, correct operation of bypass channels and fish damage in turbines when migrating downstream. In Lower Saxony, Eider RBD, Schlei/Trave RBD and Warnow/Peene RBD continuity interruptions with a vertical drop > 30cm are considered as significant pressure. For the RBDs of Weser, Elbe and Odra not only was a classification of 6 and 7 according to the LAWA morphological classification scheme assessed as a significant pressure but also a class 5 assessment. When it comes to ecological assessment, all RBDs used the Biological Quality Elements fish, macroinvertebartes and macrophytes as monitoring indicators for flow regulation and morphological alteration.

Other pressures (besides the ones addressed above) have been partly reported in the RBMPs for almost all DE RBDs. No other pressures are mentioned for the Weser RBD and it is reported in the Warnow/Peene RBMP that no other pressures have been identified. Other pressures in DE RBDs include for example invasive species, scarcity and drought, climate changes, sediments transport and quality and thermal load[29]. The definition of significance was based on expert judgement for all RBDs and most of the respective approaches were based on a case-by-case approach (e.g. Ems, Elbe, Odra, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave).

The sectors listed as contributing significantly to chemical pollution include: industrial emissions (directs and indirect discharges), households (including through sewage treatment plants), atmospheric deposition as well as several other sectors including contaminated lands comprising mining, acid-mine-drainage, corrosion of metallic surfaces as well as roofs and paved areas.

4.5 Protected areas

The below table provides an over view on identified protected areas in the German RBDs.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

DE1000 || 78 || 345 || 59 || 10 || || 376 || || || 26 || ||

DE2000 || 732 || 516 || 210 || 98 || || 1219 || || || 32 || ||

DE3000 || 44 || 90 || 24 || 16 || || 107 || || || 11 || ||

DE4000 || 157 || 207 || 149 || 71 || || 620 || || || 26 || ||

DE5000 || 272 || 551 || 401 || 76 || || 1818 || || || 29 || ||

DE6000 || 21 || 70 || 111 || 1 || || 384 || || || 9 || ||

DE7000 || 35 || 13 || 1 || 8 || || 45 || || || 2 || ||

DE9500 || 12 || 61 || 7 || 9 || || 61 || || || 1 || ||

DE9610 || 17 || 211 || 27 || 4 || || 135 || || || 2 || ||

DE9650 || 50 || 207 || 33 || 2 || || 113 || || || 1 || ||

Total || 1418 || 2271 || 1022 || 295 || || 4878 || || || 139 || ||

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[30]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring 5.1 Introduction

Figure 5.1.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The German surface and groundwater monitoring network had already been organised by 2006 and integrated the WFD monitoring requirements. The design incorporates EU wide, national, RBD and Länder specific and historic considerations (in the sense that historic time series may contain information, relevant for the WFD implementation and should not be interrupted). Since 2006 it has undergone further modifications for different reasons and due to new legal requirements. Experience with the design and the results of the measurement programmes have led to changes in the programme and since 1.3.2010 there is a new German federal water act[31]. The federal water act has been developed as a consequence of the German federalism reform (2006).

The concurrent legislative competence for water management is with the German federal authorities while in the new water act the execution remains the responsibility of the Länder. Therefore, the Länder are responsible for the performing the measurements and monitoring programmes while the federal authorities (UBA, BfG for instance) are responsible for data compilation, reporting (EU, EEA) and harmonisation at the state level. Further changes with relevance for monitoring concern the transposition of Directive 2008/105/EC into national law (further details on this topic are contained in Chapter 9 Assessment of chemical status).

In order to ensure a harmonised approach to monitoring for the entire German territory and all German RBDs the Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA) has issued a number of papers, defining the framework and modalities of surface and groundwater monitoring. Several aspects and further details of monitoring are also covered in guidance published by the Länder authorities. This top down approach will guarantee consistency across different legal and territorial units.

Due to the multidimensionality of monitoring networks (water categories, objectives, programmes, locations, parameters and frequencies) and the complexity of German administrative structures (Federal, RBD specific and Länder structures), requirements for WFD compliant monitoring are addressed in numerous ways, that can only be assessed in detail on a case-by-case basis.

The most significant change since the 2009 EC report on monitoring is the increase of the number of operational monitoring sites for rivers.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

DE1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE 2000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE3000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE4000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE5000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE6000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE7000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE9500 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE9610 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE9650 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

DE1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE 2000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE3000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE4000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE5000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE6000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE7000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE9500 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE9610 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE9650 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

DE1000 || 54 || 948 || 12 || 37 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 499 || 67 || 179

DE2000 || 102 || 3388 || 5 || 35 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1552 || 1088 || 1315

DE3000 || 9 || 137 || 0 || 8 || 1 || 10 || 3 || 17 || 344 || 359 || 489

DE4000 || 43 || 880 || 2 || 25 || 1 || 6 || 2 || 19 || 1180 || 698 || 903

DE5000 || 48 || 2321 || 28 || 246 || 2 || 4 || 5 || 5 || 1475 || 1208 || 4054

DE6000 || 8 || 328 || 6 || 34 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 94 || 108 || 844

DE7000 || 4 || 89 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 116 || 199 || 237

DE9500 || 3 || 62 || 0 || 4 || 1 || 0 || 7 || 8 || 75 || 52 || 200

DE9610 || 9 || 105 || 6 || 33 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 16 || 78 || 28 || 449

DE9650 || 7 || 90 || 8 || 26 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 34 || 59 || 61 || 293

Total by type of site || 287 || 8348 || 67 || 449 || 5 || 20 || 32 || 100 || 5472 || 3868 || 8963

Total number of monitoring sites[32] || 8561 || 516 || 24 || 117 || 13088

Table 5.1.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.2 Monitoring of surface waters

In Germany, roughly 400 surveillance monitoring stations have been established for surface water monitoring. For surveillance monitoring the WFD requires the assessment of all quality elements which are relevant for the respective water category. In Germany all the relevant QEs are monitored for the majority of the surveillance sites. In those cases where quality elements have not been assessed, the selection of quality elements depends upon the RBDs and Länder and the reasoning behind these selections is made transparent.

With regard to biological quality elements, all BQEs are monitored at river surveillance sites for 210 (out of 247[33]) sites across the entire German territory. This number results in an average area of 1700km2 per river surveillance site with a full BQE programme the WFD requires one site per 2500km2). Certain selected biological quality elements have not been monitored where no meaningful results were expected. In all these cases, justifications are provided. These justifications refer to, for example, the validity of an assessment method with respect to the specific character of individual water bodies or types. In Germany this concerns:

· QE 1-4 fish in extremely steep rivers (Danube/BY);

· QE 1-1 phytoplankton in transitional water bodies (Rhine RBD). 

Whether phytobenthos is covered cannot be assessed in detail as it is summarised under the aggregated category QE1-2 and thus not distinguished from macrophytes at this reporting level. This is due to a specific method development based on a combination of QE1-2 parameters in DE[34].

All biological quality elements are monitored at 49 (out of 67) lake surveillance sites. This is also the case in 19 (out of 30) coastal and 1 (out of 3) transitional water bodies.

The situation regarding chemical and physico-chemical parameters (QE3) and hydromorphological parameters (QE2) which are required to be monitored at all surveillance sites depends on the specific Länder, due to the distribution of competences. If Länder-specific approaches are relevant, these are reflected in the RBMPs. Further differences result from (minor) inconsistencies between the exact locations of surveillance sites and those of previously existing monitoring networks. Level 2 reporting refers to aggregated information. Information is aggregated to ‘groups’ of quality elements but in some cases an unambiguous assessment would need to be based on single (level 3) quality elements and not on level 2 ‘groups’ of quality elements. This applies, for instance, to QE 2-1 Hydrological regime – rivers where two level 3 parameters are differentiated; or to QE 1-2 where different water types need to be assessed for different level 3 elements of QE 1-2.

However, there is a common and WFD-compliant understanding of the role of QE 3-1 general parameters, which are a subgroup of QE 3 chemical and physico-chemical parameters. This common understanding is represented by a national guidance paper (RAKON II paper[35]) which was, according to the German authorities, duly implemented. The German approach covers the requirements of the WFD and the relevant CIS guidance to support biological assessment with the assessment of QE 3-1 (general physico-chemical parameters). This approach is described in detail in the RAKON II paper and can be summarised as follows. Type-specific ‘background’ values are defined to separate high from good status and orientation standards (‘Orientierungswerte’) are applied to differentiate good from moderate status. The interpretation of these quality elements is done systematically and jointly with the biological quality elements. The process and reasoning behind this methodology is extensively described in the RAKON II paper.

An indicator for the completeness of the surveillance monitoring is that the number of reported measurement results (for the relevant parameters) is equal to the number of surveillance sites. In the information reported by Germany and explained in the RBMPs, cases are described where there is a mismatch between the reported number of sites and relevant parameters/measurement and/or classification results. These include:

· Amalgamation of surveillance and operational monitoring (Elbe). The WFD allows for the simultaneous attribution of the same monitoring site to different monitoring programmes. Differences are possible in frequencies of monitoring and parameters monitored. For example, operational monitoring may consist of a subset of surveillance parameters but these are measured with a higher frequency. This way a site may produce surveillance and/or operational results depending on the year or monitoring cycle. In addition, the WFD allows, under certain circumstances, for reduced surveillance frequencies. Therefore, merely counting the number of results and comparing these with the number of surveillance sites may be ambiguous or even misleading. However, it is an indicator for the completeness of surveillance and better information is currently not available.

· There are cases where existing/traditional hydromorphological sites may not coincide with the exact location of surveillance sites, but may still be representative of them (Elbe). Two sites may be representative of different properties of the same water body but they may have different names/locations. There is no commonly accepted methodology to decide on representativity: expert judgement is often the only option.

· Different frequencies for different QEs at the same site (sometimes all e.g. every 6 years). Different (minimum) frequencies for different QEs are described in Annex V 1.3.4 of the WFD (from 3 months to 6 years). Different frequencies are allowed if minimum frequencies are maintained and the necessary level of confidence and precision requires an assessment with higher frequencies.

· For non-priority specific pollutants (QE3-3) and other national pollutants (QE3-4) in the Danube, Rhine and Elbe it is explicitly said that different programmes (i.e. different parameter selections) are due to heterogeneous pollution situations. For the other RBDs this topic is not explicitly mentioned. The Directive allows for such selections if pollutants are released in ‘significant quantities’ in the respective (sub)river basin. However, harmonisation within RBDs between the Länder, and nationwide, is considered as an on-going task as indicated by the German authorities.

Operational programmes have been established for all RBDs in Germany. Complementary to the generic nature of surveillance monitoring, operational monitoring relates to pressures. Therefore a crucial aspect of operational monitoring concerns the selection of the biological quality element(s) considered to be most sensitive to a pressure. This selection of the most sensitive BQE is complicated by the fact that most water bodies are subject to more than one pressure. In Germany the selection of the most sensitive BQE differentiates single pressures and pressure combinations. The information regarding significance for single pressures is compiled and made transparent in the assessment templates. It is not homogeneous across all Länder or Germany. There are different understandings concerning the selection of which BQE is most sensitive to a certain pressure. Reporting shows which BQEs have been selected for certain pressures but the differences in this selection process between the Länder and/or RBDs cannot be described in detail because the reporting does not provide the reasons for the selection. The reporting on this topic needs to cover 3 variables: 1) pressures, 2) water type (river, lake, transitional, coastal), and 3) location (RBD/Länder). For Germany this results in 248 possible situations (representing combinations of pressure, water type and RBD/ Länder). In 56 occurrences, information on the most sensitive BQEs for the respective situation is provided. For the remaining 190, theoretically possible combinations of information on the most sensitive BQEs are not available. Most of these combinations are irrelevant because they do not occur in reality. However, from the available sources it cannot be said whether the selection of the most sensitive BQE has been made for all practical situations.

An investigative monitoring programme has been established, comprising 375 river monitoring sites.

Concerning the assessment of chemical status[36], it has been reported for all German RBDs that all pollutant groups as listed in the WFD that discharged (in significant quantities) into the (sub)basin are monitored. The respective questionnaire and compliance assessment used the abbreviations QE 3-2, 3-3, 3-4 for these substance groups. The methodology for substance selection is summarised under section 9 Assessment of chemical status.

Priority substances (QE3-2) and other specific pollutants (QE3-3) are monitored in all German RBDs. Other nationally regulated pollutants (QE3-4) are reported to be monitored in 6 out of 10 RBDs (Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Oder, Meuse) in the frame of surveillance monitoring for rivers.

The approach to compile a list of RBD-specific substances[37] and the determination of corresponding EQS was initially based on a common list of 110 substances and co-ordinated by LAWA (2003-2006). For the selection of other specific pollutants (QE3-3) and other national pollutants (QE3-4) different approaches are reported for the Länder and the RBDs. Essentially this selection is based on past monitoring or screening results as an emission-oriented criterion, or on emission data and/or on modelling approaches (e.g. HE). As a general rule a substance is integrated into the monitoring programmes if past measurements showed that 50% of the EQS was exceeded. This 50% threshold value is a translation of the WFD term ’significant quantities’[38] into practical technical terms. Different parameter selections between Länder within an RBD are generally justified with spatially differentiated pressure situations (Danube, Rhine, Elbe). The transposition of the Directive 2008/105/EC (which was not legally binding at the time of designing and starting the monitoring programmes) into national law (notification to the EC under MNE(2011)55568) has led to harmonisations in the selection process. Although the process of selecting chemical parameters in a WFD-compliant way is transparent and well-developed, there is still an ambition for further harmonisation and streamlining of the selection methodologies. This harmonisation should lead to a further refinement of substance lists across RBDs and Länder. It is explicitly said to be desired and an on-going process for the Rhine and Elbe under the LAWA, the FGGs and/or the international River Basin Commissions.

For priority substances MS are required to monitor those that are ‘discharged’ into a river basin. In Germany the chemical monitoring is done at the Länder level and the subsequent reporting is done for RBDs at the federal level. A selection of priority substances has not been made but in a precautionary approach all priority substances have been measured. The reporting in this case is available at a detailed Länder-level for single parameters/substances. A compilation of all 33 priority substances across all 16 Länder provided by the federal authorities shows that only 5% of the substances were not monitored, either because of insufficient analytical tools or because they are not discharged (further details see under section 9 Assessment of chemical status). What is not evident from the above mentioned compilation is whether the priority substances are monitored within surveillance and/or operational monitoring with a WFD-compliant frequency. This means that the compilation mentioned above provides a good overview but it does not cover all important aspects.

Monitoring of sediments and biota for priority substances (according to the option described in Directive 2008/105/EC) has started without concrete results being reported. The preliminary programme entails sediments in the Rhine, Danube, Weser and Warnow/Peene RBD and biota only in the Danube RBD[39]. Monitored parameters include priority substances (QE3-2) but also some other relevant pollutants (QE3-3). The corresponding EQS determination, substance selection, method development and other specifications are only in only in an early phase and a complete and consistent picture cannot be given from the available sources.

Grouping of water bodies is mentioned in the RBMPs and the methodology is largely described in a consistent way. It either refers to the logic of the CIS guidance and allows for grouping according to similar/same type and pressure, or to a North Rhine-Westphalian (NRW) regional guidance document (Leitfaden Oberflächengewässer Teil B (2008)). This NRW guidance on monitoring goes beyond the usual approach to grouping by introducing a proposal for a validation of grouping. It is proposed in the NRW guidance to rotate monitoring sites and assess whether results are equivalent. There are remaining differences in the understanding and application of grouping of water bodies. Examples for different understandings and approaches to grouping are:

· Some Länder use the term ‘grouping’ if the result of the BQE assessment in one water body is considered to be valid for other neighbouring or similar water bodies, while other Länder (BW) state explicitly that this is not ‘grouping’.  

· In the Danube RBD grouping is mentioned as a tool in the RBMP but almost all water bodies are monitored, thus no extensive application of grouping has been made, while in other cases there is no reference to grouping in the RBMP but the monitoring results show that a significant share of status classification is based on grouping (Elbe, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene, Odra, Elbe, Weser). The results mentioned above result from a comparison of the number of monitored water bodies with the number of classified water bodies.

Apart from the methodological approach, described above, the practical application of grouping is assessed at the RBD level, based on an evaluation of German reports on monitoring and status classification. These have been provided for all German RBDs. The evaluation shows that the importance of grouping is very different between the RBDs. For example, 95% of the water bodies in the Danube RBD have been monitored but only 18% of the water bodies in the Warnow/Peene RBD. The interpretation of these results needs to take the different water body sizes into account (mean size from 31 km (Danube) to 9 km (Warnow/Peene) for river water bodies).

There was no grouping of transitional water bodies. 82% of all coastal water bodies have been monitored.

For the Danube (IKSD), Rhine (IKSR), Elbe (ICPER), Odra (ICPO) and Meuse (IMC) international monitoring is covered in the national/international RBMP and/or reported to WISE. The approaches to international monitoring are, however, different between the RBDs and information is provided at different levels of detail. For example: 1) Rhine mentions IKSR and provides a link while 2) Elbe considers all national monitoring as part of international efforts and gives details about shared stations; 3) neither the RBMP for the Ems nor the information reported to WISE refers to international monitoring co-ordination.[40]

The following papers are of relevance for monitoring and they are mentioned in reporting (even when they are named as drafts, they are duly implemented and taken into account by the ‘Länder’):

· RAKON B - Arbeitspapier I_Entwurf_21-11-06.

· RAKON B - Arbeitspapier II_Stand_07_03_2007 (English version available)

· RAKON B - Arbeitspapier III_Entwurf_22-11-2006[41]

In addition there is a regional monitoring guidance for NRW, entitled:

· Leitfaden Oberflächengewässer Teil B (2008)  

5.3 Monitoring of groundwater

The required groundwater monitoring programmes (quantitative, chemical surveillance/ operational) have been established. The table below compiles the reported basic summary and generic data for all German RBDs.

Reporting includes evidence collected at parameter level. Other pollutants (QE3) are reported in an aggregated way as a group.

As for all other topics the selection of parameters and the programme design for groundwater monitoring highlights the differences between the RBDs and Länder. The descriptions of design considerations are qualitative and they reflect the Directive and guidance. The design considerations emphasise that the selection of chemical parameters/other pollutants (apart from those that are compulsory) depend on the pressure situation/risks (Article 5), land use, trends and on past measurement results. It is also mentioned that threshold values for GWD Annex II pollutants have been applied and that the monitoring often goes beyond these substances.

In all plans trend detection is mentioned and since 2008 there is a LAWA[42] method for trend detection (most plans make an explicit reference to this method developed prior to the transposition of the GWD).

In some RBMPs trend (and trend reversal) detection is mentioned in the context of operational monitoring and in others as a design consideration for surveillance (depending on programme, RBD and Länder). This may pose some difficulties in establishing the link between long term trend detection and the assessment of the effect of measures. The sensitivity and performance of trend detection depends on the existence of long term time series and historical datasets. Due to missing time series (over at least the period of 6 years as required by the Directive) trend analysis could not be performed for all groundwater bodies/all substances of concern.

There is only one international groundwater body in the Danube catchment shared between DE and AT. There is a bilateral agreement for the management of the groundwater body.

References:

The LAWA document: FACHLICHE UMSETZUNG DER RICHTLINIE ZUM SCHUTZ DES GRUNDWASSERS VOR VERSCHMUTZUNG UND VERSCHLECHTERUNG (2006/118/EG) is mentioned regarding the topic of trend detection.

5.4 Monitoring of protected areas

In the case of surface water abstractions specific programmes have been established, mentioned and described in the RBMPs (with references to the DWD and Article 7 WFD). In other cases it was stated explicitly that no drinking water abstractions exist (Odra, Eider, Schlei/Trave, BW). For groundwater the general statement across all RBDs is that no additional monitoring arises in terms of station numbers, locations or parameters. The total number of groundwater monitoring sites associated with drinking water abstractions is reported to be 1338 (no stations in Eider, Schlei/Trave RBDs).

For the other protected areas the following numbers of surface water monitoring sites have been reported:

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

DE1000 || 52 || 52 || 35 || 111 || 225 || 318 || 263 || 0 || 804 || 244

DE2000 || 429 || 429 || 21 || 403 || 391 || 890 || 3291 || 0 || 3520 || 510

DE3000 || 7 || 7 || 0 || 32 || 53 || 52 || 185 || 3 || 185 || 77

DE4000 || 119 || 119 || 7 || 144 || 156 || 223 || 978 || 1 || 978 || 408

DE5000 || 154 || 154 || 113 || 505 || 91 || 949 || 1954 || 2 || 1993 || 42

DE6000 || 3 || 3 || 16 || 186 || 0 || 245 || 340 || 0 || 340 || 12

DE7000 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 5 || 65 || 19 || 94 || 0 || 94 || 40

DE9500 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 15 || 2 || 14 || 66 || 9 || 67 || 0

DE9610 || 1 || 1 || 26 || 30 || 6 || 30 || 153 || 3 || 149 || 0

DE9650 || 42 || 42 || 41 || 64 || 7 || 81 || 169 || 0 || 169 || 5

Total || 809 || 809 || 261 || 1495 || 996 || 2821 || 7493 || 18 || 8299 || 1338

Table 5.4.1: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas[43]

Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

The following information regarding the assessment of ecological status in Germany has been reported.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

DE1000 || 549 || 4 || 0.7 || 126 || 23.0 || 221 || 40.3 || 134 || 24.4 || 34 || 6.2 || 30 || 5.5

DE2000 || 1320 || 6 || 0.5 || 228 || 17.3 || 417 || 31.6 || 301 || 22.8 || 188 || 14.2 || 180 || 13.6

DE3000 || 95 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 11.6 || 19 || 20.0 || 32 || 33.7 || 31 || 32.6 || 2 || 2.1

DE4000 || 544 || 4 || 0.7 || 88 || 16.2 || 191 || 35.1 || 158 || 29.0 || 102 || 18.8 || 1 || 0.2

DE5000 || 1450 || 37 || 2.6 || 123 || 8.5 || 439 || 30.3 || 513 || 35.4 || 336 || 23.2 || 2 || 0.1

DE6000 || 230 || 5 || 2.2 || 15 || 6.5 || 70 || 30.4 || 88 || 38.3 || 52 || 22.6 || 0 || 0

DE7000 || 70 || 0 || 0 || 17 || 24.3 || 17 || 24.3 || 19 || 27.1 || 17 || 24.3 || 0 || 0

DE9500 || 27 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 12 || 44.4 || 9 || 33.3 || 5 || 18.5 || 1 || 3.7

DE9610 || 189 || 0 || 0 || 15 || 7.9 || 61 || 32.3 || 89 || 47.1 || 23 || 12.2 || 1 || 0.5

DE9650 || 258 || 20 || 7.8 || 33 || 12.8 || 90 || 34.9 || 100 || 38.8 || 14 || 5.4 || 1 || 0.4

Total || 4732 || 76 || 1.6 || 656 || 13.9 || 1537 || 32.5 || 1443 || 30.5 || 802 || 16.9 || 218 || 4.6

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

DE1000 || 122 || 0 || 0 || 27 || 22.1 || 58 || 47.5 || 26 || 21.3 || 4 || 3.3 || 7 || 5.7

DE2000 || 959 || 0 || 0 || 77 || 8.0 || 214 || 22.3 || 275 || 28.7 || 335 || 34.9 || 58 || 6.0

DE3000 || 421 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 1.7 || 80 || 19.0 || 167 || 39.7 || 167 || 39.7 || 0 || 0

DE4000 || 870 || 0 || 0 || 18 || 2.1 || 204 || 23.4 || 324 || 37.2 || 317 || 36.4 || 7 || 0.8

DE5000 || 1688 || 0 || 0 || 93 || 5.5 || 561 || 33.2 || 672 || 39.8 || 359 || 21.3 || 3 || 0.2

DE6000 || 273 || 0 || 0 || 19 || 7.0 || 50 || 18.3 || 108 || 39.6 || 96 || 35.2 || 0 || 0

DE7000 || 158 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 5.7 || 24 || 15.2 || 43 || 27.2 || 81 || 51.3 || 1 || 0.6

DE9500 || 136 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 4.4 || 82 || 60.3 || 48 || 35.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9610 || 161 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 94 || 58.4 || 67 || 41.6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9650 || 343 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 42 || 12.2 || 220 || 64.1 || 81 || 23.6 || 0 || 0

Total || 5131 || 0 || 0 || 256 || 5.0 || 1409 || 27.5 || 1950 || 38.0 || 1440 || 28.1 || 76 || 1.5

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

DE1000 || 549 || 541 || 98.5 || 8 || 1.5 || 0 || 0

DE2000 || 1320 || 1003 || 76.0 || 142 || 10.8 || 175 || 13.3

DE3000 || 95 || 80 || 84.2 || 15 || 15.8 || 0 || 0

DE4000 || 544 || 375 || 68.9 || 40 || 7.4 || 129 || 23.7

DE5000 || 1450 || 1310 || 90.3 || 140 || 9.7 || 0 || 0

DE6000 || 230 || 225 || 97.8 || 5 || 2.2 || 0 || 0

DE7000 || 70 || 52 || 74.3 || 18 || 25.7 || 0 || 0

DE9500 || 27 || 27 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9610 || 189 || 188 || 99.5 || 1 || 0.5 || 0 || 0

DE9650 || 258 || 258 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 4732 || 4059 || 85.8 || 369 || 7.8 || 304 || 6.4

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

DE1000 || 122 || 115 || 94.3 || 1 || 0.8 || 6 || 4.9

DE2000 || 959 || 751 || 78.3 || 174 || 18.1 || 34 || 3.5

DE3000 || 421 || 384 || 91.2 || 37 || 8.8 || 0 || 0

DE4000 || 870 || 805 || 92.5 || 52 || 6.0 || 13 || 1.5

DE5000 || 1688 || 1558 || 92.3 || 130 || 7.7 || 0 || 0

DE6000 || 273 || 269 || 98.5 || 4 || 1.5 || 0 || 0

DE7000 || 158 || 114 || 72.2 || 44 || 27.8 || 0 || 0

DE9500 || 136 || 136 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9610 || 161 || 161 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9650 || 343 || 343 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5131 || 4636 || 90.4 || 442 || 8.6 || 53 || 1.0

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

DE1000 || 46 || 32 || 69.6 || 14 || 30.4 || 0 || 0

DE2000 || 399 || 256 || 64.2 || 141 || 35.3 || 2 || 0.5

DE3000 || 40 || 26 || 65 || 14 || 35 || 0 || 0

DE4000 || 144 || 105 || 72.9 || 39 || 27.1 || 0 || 0

DE5000 || 224 || 124 || 55.4 || 100 || 44.6 || 0 || 0

DE6000 || 23 || 9 || 39.1 || 14 || 60.9 || 0 || 0

DE7000 || 32 || 14 || 43.8 || 18 || 56.2 || 0 || 0

DE9500 || 23 || 13 || 56.5 || 10 || 43.5 || 0 || 0

DE9610 || 19 || 16 || 84.2 || 3 || 15.8 || 0 || 0

DE9650 || 39 || 25 || 64.1 || 14 || 35.9 || 0 || 0

Total || 989 || 620 || 62.7 || 367 || 37.1 || 2 || 0.2

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

DE1000 || 46 || 46 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE2000 || 399 || 389 || 97.5 || 10 || 2.5 || 0 || 0

DE3000 || 40 || 40 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE4000 || 144 || 143 || 99.3 || 1 || 0.7 || 0 || 0

DE5000 || 224 || 216 || 96.4 || 8 || 3.6 || 0 || 0

DE6000 || 23 || 17 || 73.9 || 6 || 26.1 || 0 || 0

DE7000 || 32 || 22 || 68.8 || 10 || 31.2 || 0 || 0

DE9500 || 23 || 23 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9610 || 19 || 19 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9650 || 39 || 36 || 92.3 || 3 || 7.7 || 0 || 0

Total || 989 || 951 || 96.2 || 38 || 3.8 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DE1000 || 671 || 157 || 23.4 || 275 || 41 || 17.6 || || || || || || || || || 58 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE2000 || 2279 || 293 || 12.9 || 571 || 25.1 || 12.2 || || || || || || || || || 67 || 1 || 0 || 0

DE3000 || 516 || 18 || 3.5 || 22 || 4.3 || 0.8 || || || || || || || || || 95 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE4000 || 1414 || 88 || 6.2 || 134 || 9.5 || 3.3 || || || || || || || || || 87 || 4 || 0 || 0

DE5000 || 3138 || 242 || 7.7 || 453 || 14.4 || 6.7 || || || || || || || || || 86 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE6000 || 503 || 39 || 7.8 || 51 || 10.1 || 2.4 || || || || || || || || || 90 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE7000 || 228 || 23 || 10.1 || 25 || 11 || 0.9 || || || || || || || || || 87 || 3 || 0 || 0

DE9500 || 163 || 6 || 3.7 || 86 || 52.8 || 49.1 || || || || || || || || || 47 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9610 || 350 || 15 || 4.3 || 123 || 35.1 || 30.9 || || || || || || || || || 65 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9650 || 601 || 53 || 8.8 || 53 || 8.8 || 0 || || || || || || || || || 91 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 9863 || 934 || 9.5 || 1793 || 18.2 || 8.7 || || || || || || || || || 79 || 1 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[44]

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DE1000 || 549 || 130 || 23.7 || 235 || 42.8 || 19.1 || || || || || 55.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE2000 || 1320 || 234 || 17.7 || 460 || 34.8 || 17.1 || || || || || 56.7 || 0.8 || 0 || 0

DE3000 || 95 || 11 || 11.6 || 11 || 11.6 || 0 || || || || || 86.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE4000 || 544 || 92 || 16.9 || 150 || 27.6 || 10.7 || || || || || 71.9 || 0.4 || 0 || 0

DE5000 || 1450 || 160 || 11.0 || 247 || 17.0 || 6.0 || || || || || 83.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE6000 || 230 || 20 || 8.7 || 30 || 13.0 || 4.3 || || || || || 87.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE7000 || 70 || 17 || 24.3 || 18 || 25.7 || 1.4 || || || || || 71.4 || 2.9 || 0 || 0

DE9500 || 27 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 14.8 || 14.8 || || || || || 81.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9610 || 189 || 15 || 7.9 || 41 || 21.7 || 13.8 || || || || || 78.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9650 || 258 || 53 || 20.5 || 53 || 20.5 || 0 || || || || || 79.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 4732 || 732 || 15.5 || 1249 || 26.4 || 10.9 || || || || || 70.9 || 0.3 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[45]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

BD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DE1000 || 549 || 541 || 98.5 || 549 || 100 || 1.5 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE2000 || 1320 || 1003 || 76.0 || 1045 || 79.2 || 3.2 || || || || || 6.7 || 1.0 || 0 || 0

DE3000 || 95 || 80 || 84.2 || 84 || 88.4 || 4.2 || || || || || 11.6 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE4000 || 544 || 375 || 68.9 || 379 || 69.7 || 0.7 || || || || || 5.1 || 1.5 || 0 || 0

DE5000 || 1450 || 1310 || 90.3 || 1379 || 95.1 || 4.8 || || || || || 5.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE6000 || 230 || 225 || 97.8 || 225 || 97.8 || 0 || || || || || 2.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE7000 || 70 || 52 || 74.3 || 53 || 75.7 || 1.4 || || || || || 17.1 || 7.1 || 0 || 0

DE9500 || 27 || 27 || 100 || 27 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9610 || 189 || 188 || 99.5 || 188 || 99.5 || 0 || || || || || 0.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9650 || 258 || 258 || 100 || 258 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 4732 || 4059 || 85.8 || 4187 || 88.5 || 2.7 || || || || || 4.7 || 0.5 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[46]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DE1000 || 46 || 32 || 69.6 || 42 || 91.3 || 21.7 || || || || || 9 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE2000 || 399 || 256 || 64.2 || 271 || 67.9 || 3.8 || || || || || 31 || 1 || 0 || 0

DE3000 || 40 || 26 || 65.0 || 26 || 65.0 || 0 || || || || || 35 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE4000 || 144 || 105 || 72.9 || 105 || 72.9 || 0 || || || || || 27 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE5000 || 224 || 124 || 55.4 || 142 || 63.4 || 8.0 || || || || || 37 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE6000 || 23 || 9 || 39.1 || 17 || 73.9 || 34.8 || || || || || 26 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE7000 || 32 || 14 || 43.8 || 14 || 43.8 || 0 || || || || || 50 || 6 || 0 || 0

DE9500 || 23 || 13 || 56.5 || 13 || 56.5 || 0 || || || || || 43 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9610 || 19 || 16 || 84.2 || 16 || 84.2 || 0 || || || || || 16 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9650 || 39 || 25 || 64.1 || 25 || 64.1 || 0 || || || || || 36 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 989 || 620 || 62.7 || 671 || 67.8 || 5.2 || || || || || 31 || 1 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[47]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DE1000 || 46 || 46 || 100 || 46 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE2000 || 399 || 389 || 97.5 || 390 || 97.7 || 0.2 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE3000 || 40 || 40 || 100 || 40 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE4000 || 144 || 143 || 99.3 || 143 || 99.3 || 0 || || || || || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE5000 || 224 || 216 || 96.4 || 216 || 96.4 || 0 || || || || || 2 || 1 || 0 || 0

DE6000 || 23 || 17 || 73.9 || 17 || 73.9 || 0 || || || || || 22 || 4 || 0 || 0

DE7000 || 32 || 22 || 68.8 || 22 || 68.8 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 31 || 0 || 0

DE9500 || 23 || 23 || 100 || 23 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9610 || 19 || 19 || 100 || 19 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9650 || 39 || 36 || 92.3 || 36 || 92.3 || 0 || || || || || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 989 || 951 || 96.2 || 952 || 96.3 || 0.1 || || || || || 2 || 2 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[48]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DE1000 || 122 || 27 || 22.1 || 40 || 32.8 || 10.7 || || || || || 61.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE2000 || 959 || 77 || 8.0 || 151 || 15.7 || 7.7 || || || || || 77.7 || 0.7 || 0 || 0

DE3000 || 421 || 7 || 1.7 || 11 || 2.6 || 1.0 || || || || || 97.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE4000 || 870 || 18 || 2.1 || 29 || 3.3 || 1.3 || || || || || 95.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE5000 || 1688 || 93 || 5.5 || 217 || 12.9 || 7.3 || || || || || 87.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE6000 || 273 || 19 || 7.0 || 21 || 7.7 || 0.7 || || || || || 92.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE7000 || 158 || 9 || 5.7 || 12 || 7.6 || 1.9 || || || || || 91.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9500 || 136 || 6 || 4.4 || 82 || 60.3 || 55.9 || || || || || 39.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9610 || 161 || 0 || 0 || 82 || 50.9 || 50.9 || || || || || 49.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9650 || 343 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 99.7 || 0.3 || 0 || 0

Total || 5131 || 256 || 5.0 || 645 || 12.6 || 7.6 || || || || || 85.8 || 0.2 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[49]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

DE1000 || 122 || 115 || 94.3% || 116 || 95.1% || 0.8% || || || || || 0.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE2000 || 959 || 751 || 78.3% || 813 || 84.8% || 6.5% || || || || || 11.4 || 0.3 || 0 || 0

DE3000 || 421 || 384 || 91.2% || 390 || 92.6% || 1.4% || || || || || 7.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE4000 || 870 || 805 || 92.5% || 810 || 93.1% || 0.6% || || || || || 0.5 || 4.9 || 0 || 0

DE5000 || 1688 || 1558 || 92.3% || 1618 || 95.9% || 3.6% || || || || || 4.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE6000 || 273 || 269 || 98.5% || 271 || 99.3% || 0.7% || || || || || 0.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE7000 || 158 || 114 || 72.2% || 130 || 82.3% || 10.1% || || || || || 17.1 || 1.3 || 0 || 0

DE9500 || 136 || 136 || 100.0% || 136 || 100.0% || 0.0% || || || || || 0.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9610 || 161 || 161 || 100.0% || 161 || 100.0% || 0.0% || || || || || 0.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

DE9650 || 343 || 343 || 100.0% || 343 || 100.0% || 0.0% || || || || || 0.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5131 || 4636 || 90.4 || 4788 || 93.3 || 2.9 || || || || || 4.8 || 0.9 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[50]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

In general, national methodological approaches for ecological status assessment follow the LAWA guidelines (Bund Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser) for all RBDs and for all four water categories (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters) in Germany. These guidelines are:

· RAKON B - Arbeitspapier I, Entwurf 21-11-06;

· RAKON B - Arbeitspapier II, Stand 07-03-2007;

· RAKON B - Arbeitspapier III, Entwurf 22-11-2006.

There was noticeable improvement when the situation on ecological assessment methods available for Germany in 2007 was compared to the assessment methods reported in all available DE RBMPs. Ecological assessment methods that were lacking for all BQEs and for all water categories in the RBDS Elbe, Weser, Ems and Odra in 2007 are now in place. Analysis and assessment methodologies were further refined. As per the end of 2009, across all water body categories and biological quality elements, a total of 12 out of 15 assessment methods required under the WFD had been nationally agreed and were ready to use- as pointed by the German authorities.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

EU WFD compliant assessment methods for ecological status in Germany are reported to be

· fully developed in all RBDs for the water category rivers and for all biological quality elements,

· partly developed for the water category lakes in all RBDs as methods for BQEs macroinvertebrates and fish are lacking;

· partly developed for transitional waters in the relevant RBDs of Eider, Elbe, Weser and  Ems;

· fully developed in coastal waters in the relevant RBDs of Eider, Elbe, Odra, Weser, Ems, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene.

Although assessment methods for ecological status are reported to be in place as outlined above, for some water categories and biological quality elements they are still missing. These are:

· Lakes in all RBDs: BQEs macroinvertebartes and fish.

· Transitional waters (RBDs Eider, Elbe, Weser and Ems): BQE phytoplankton.

For all RBDs it is reported in the plans that methods for the assessment on ecological status regarding fish and macroinvertebrates are under development. Various RBMPs state that some results still await the outcomes of the intercalibration exercises to ensure final confidence and precision of methods. Details are provided in the following paragraphs. In general, all RBMPs refer to the national RAKON method for ecological assessment and also report them in specific national documents.

Also as outlined in Chapter 5 of this report (operational monitoring), the RBMPs report that specific sensitive biological quality elements are used to assess ecological status in relation to certain key pressures and impacts (eutrophication, organic enrichment, acidification, hydromorphological alterations, specific chemical pollutant).

Standards have been developed for the general physico-chemical parameters (QE 3-1), which are assessed in support of the biological quality elements. A guidance document, issued by the Bund/Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA) describes the approach that has been implemented (RAKON B - Arbeitspapier II, Stand 07-03-2007). This guidance differentiates ‘background’ values which distinguishes high from good status. ‘Orientation’ values indicate boundaries between good and moderate as well as worse status.

The German methodological approach to deal with the supporting role of general physico-chemical parameters could be considered reasonable and in line with the meaning and the wording of the legal pieces[51].

Hydromorphological classification was undertaken in Germany to identify the significance of pressures for the water categories. However, specific standards or methods regarding hydromorphological quality elements for ecological status assessment are not reported in the RBMPs for all RBDs and all “Länder”. In addition, no class boundaries for hydromorphology are yet reported to support biological elements in ecological status assessment. All of this is valid for rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters.

Specifically, for the water category of rivers all German RBMPs report that hydromorphological assessments support the BQEs in overall ecological status assessment but respective methods have not been reported[52]. In case a BQE is close to a class boundary, information for supporting elements is used to upgrade or downgrade the assessment class. It is outlined that a comprehensive method to determine and assess hydromorphological quality elements in rivers is not yet in place. A respective development will be undertaken in the second WFD implementation cycle. For lakes, no detailed methods on hydromorphological assessments are reported in the RBMPs for all the DE RBDs, neither for hydrological regime nor morphological condition. Transitional waters are relevant for the RBDs of Elbe, Ems, Weser and Eider. Although, it has been reported for all of these RBDs that hydromorphology supports the assessment on ecological status, the specific method has not been reported.  Coastal waters are relevant for the RBDs of Elbe, Ems, Weser, Odra and Eider and in the RBMPs no specific method is reported on how hydromorphology supports the assessment on ecological status. For the RBDs of Ems, Weser, Elbe, Odra and Eider the hydromorphological quality element ‘tidal regime’ is mentioned in the context that the element needs ‘yet to be measured’. No further specification is given.

Ecological Quality Standards have been set and applied for other specific pollutants (QE 3-3) and other national pollutants (QE 3-4) at the time of developing the RBMPs. This process was undertaken separately on the German “Länder” level but overall coordination at the federal level was done initially through the LAWA (2003-2006). For the selection of relevant pollutants a common list of substances was the starting point. The selection of relevant substances from this initial list was done at the “Länder” level and justified with regionally different pressure and in-stream situations. The selection was done based on data sources such as monitoring results, screening exercises, modelling and emission data, depending on availability of information. As a common rule, it was established that a substance is considered relevant if the concentration in past monitoring exercises exceeded 50% of the environmental quality standard. This is a technically sound approach to deal with the term ‘discharged in significant quantities’ from the WFD.

Ordinances on substance selection and EQS have been developed at the “Länder” level and the RBMPs of BY, MV, SH, RP also refer to these ordinances. Further references are made to the RAKON and LAWA guidances (without further details). In 2010, however, a draft ordinance for the German federal level was developed[53] that integrates and complements the “Länder” specific ordinances. This initiative shall lead to a harmonisation of the lists of relevant pollutants and the corresponding EQS. EQS are based on EU chemicals assessment and according to Annex V, 1.2.6 WFD. From valid long-term toxicity tests at different species levels the most sensitive value is selected for further processing. Many EQS are set for suspended matter/sediments due to analytical difficulties with very low concentration levels in the whole water sample.

The assessment of the ecological status for water bodies in relation to the different biological quality elements is clearly based on the ‘one-out-all-out’ principle for all water categories and RBDs in Germany.

Concerning confidence, precision and uncertainties for biological assessments, in all German RBMPs reference is made to the RAKON III guidance paper, which exhibits a short section on quality assurance of biological data. This chapter only provides very general advice on how a quality assurance could be introduced, how it should look like and what should be included but it does not provide concrete advice, data or procedures. RBMPs of BY, NRW and others clearly state that the BQE methods are newly developed and not much experience exist to address the issue of uncertainty and its different sources. Although only some RBMPs state this fact of uncertainty explicitly, it applies to all RBDs. Longer time series or more assessments over the years and improved reference values are said to be the major factors to reduce uncertainty. However, different levels are differentiated in the Rhine, Danube and Elbe RBMPs and these levels are linked to the application of standardised methods. Level 1) low: the assessment is carried out by experts, 2) medium: LAWA and WFD compliant assessment methods have been used but not all assessment results for all QEs are ready, 3) high: The assessment has been fully performed with LAWA and WFD compliant assessment methods.

For temporal and spatial variability - as a general remark – the need to increase sampling number is mentioned, but no systematic approach is outlined. Temporal variability is said to be specifically an issue for Phytoplankton. The RAKON guidance paper on EQS for general physico-chemical parameters mentions the role of these parameters in case of highly variable BQE assessment results. Another aspect in the context of confidence/precision/uncertainty concerns the validity of grouping of water bodies. The NRW regional guidance document (Leitfaden Oberflächengewässer Teil B (2008)) proposes in this concern to validate the grouping approach. It is proposed to move the sampling site that is considered to be representative for the whole group of water bodies, from one water body to the next and to evaluate the differences found.

Regarding type specific ecological assessment for all water categories, the available German RBMPs report that ecological assessment methods address all types identified for rivers in the German RBDs and class boundaries are reported except for the Eider RBD. Lake types are addressed with ecological assessment and class boundaries are in place for most cases except for the Eider, Ems and Weser RBDs. For transitional and coastal waters the picture in how far different types are addressed with ecological assessment in the RBDs is not reported in full transparency as part of the respective RBMPs. Gaps can be identified but are not reported in specific in the RBMPs.

Comparing intercalibration class boundaries of the national German classification guidance (RAKON documents) with the boundaries of the EC Intercalibration Decision[54]certain issues remain open and are listed in the paragraph below. For rivers in the RBDs Danube, Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Odra, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave, and Warnow/Peene class boundaries given for macroinvertebrates are aligned with those in the EC Intercalibration Decision (2008/915/EC).

The boundaries given for other aquatic flora indicate different sets of boundaries for same type and same metric. Only a few values are aligned to the boundaries of the EC Intercalibration Decision (2008/915/EC). However, the RBMPs refer to this inconsistency and report respectively for inconsistent boundaries that intercalibration is not yet completed. No further details are reported.

For lakes and the BQE phytoplankton in the RBDs Danube, Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Eider, Schlei/Trave, and Warnow/Peene class boundaries are consistent or even more stringent (0.8 for HG and 0.6 for GM) than boundaries in the official IC decision given for Chlorophyll-a (0.55 for HG and 0.32 for GM). The boundaries for other aquatic flora (macrophytes) are consistent with or slightly more stringent than those given for lake macrophytes in the EC Intercalibration Decision(2008/915/EC). Class boundaries reported for Chlorophyll-a in lakes of the Odra RBD are fully matching with the values of the EC Intercalibration Decision (2008/915/EC). No information on class boundaries for the reported lake in the Meuse RBD (also see Chapter 4 of this Annex) is reported.

For coastal waters of the Odra, Schlei/Trave and Warnow/Peene RBDs the reported class boundaries for both angiosperms and phytoplankton match the values of the EC Intercalibration Decision (2008/915/EC). For the RBDs Ems and Weser the reported class boundaries are partly aligned to the values of the EC Intercalibration Decision. For the Eider RBD the values are consistent. However, for angiosperms two sets of boundaries are reported for the same national type and only one of them has the consistent boundaries (0.9 for HG and 0.7 for GM), whereas the other set has less stringent boundaries (0.8 for HG and 0.6 for GM) than the ones of the EC Intercalibration Decision.

Some open issues remain when it comes to the translation of intercalibration results to the national German surface water types. This is in particular the case for rivers, lakes and coastal waters in the RBDs of the Ems, Weser, Odra, Meuse and Eider. However, referring to the above paragraphs, class boundary values regarding macroinvertebrates for rivers are aligned with the values of the EC Intercalibration Decision for all RBDs. For lakes the intercalibration results are fully translated to national types in the Elbe, Schlei/Trave and Warnow/Peene RBDs and partly for the Danube RBD. Regarding coastal waters full translation of IC values to national types is given in the RBDs of Schlei/Trave and Warnow/Peene and partly in the Elbe RBD.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

DE1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

DE2000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

DE3000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE4000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE5000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE6000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

DE7000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

DE9500 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE9610 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

DE9650 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

The German RAKON guidance states clearly that all quality elements need to be monitored at surveillance sites. There is evidence about coverage of biological quality elements at surveillance sites. All biological quality elements have been reported for 210 surveillance sites at rivers, for 49 surveillance sites at lakes, 19 surveillance sites in coastal waters and 1 surveillance site in a transitional water body. Based on these numbers, a number of surveillance sites are not addressed and not all biological quality elements have been assessed. Justifications are reported that a BQE was not included in the monitoring programme if no meaningful result could be expected. For instance, this is the case for the BQE fish in rivers with extremely high slopes or in high mountainous altitude where the natural species composition is too poor for an assessment. Also the BQE phytoplakton in the plankton phase-out zone of transitional waters may result in implausible classifications. Further explanations for missing results of biological assessments were not found in the available RBMPs and sources.

All general physico-chemical parameters were assessed for all surveillance sites across the entire national territory. The same is true for other specific pollutants, which were measured at all 287 rivers, 36 lakes, 32 coastal and 5 transitional German surveillance sites. For hydromorphology the situation is very heterogenous and remains unclear for the different parameters and regional aspects. After the German RBMPs were officially reported, the German authorities indicated that a harmonised assessment method (“Strukturkartierung”) was used and that the assessment of hydromorphology at surveillance sites was made by integrating elements of a distinct water stretch. The authorities concluded that an assessment at the site itself does not give useful results. This approach may result in slightly different site selections and hydromorphological parameters may therefore not be present for the exact location of a surveillance site, but still be transferable and valid for this site.

In general the most sensitive biological quality elements have been selected to detect key pressures and impacts and this is therefore reflected in the design of operational monitoring networks. Different understanding can be analysed concerning the decision, which BQE is most sensitive to a certain pressure/impact. For rivers of all RBDs Danube, Weser, Elbe, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave, and Warnow/Peene the operational monitoring clearly uses the most sensitive BQE for ecological status assessment regarding specific pressures/impacts. The operational monitoring of the Odra RBD applies all BQEs for status assessment. Furthermore, it appears that for rivers in the Rhine, Ems and Weser RBDs that all BQEs are monitored for ecological status assessment.

Operational monitoring for lakes, transitional and coastal waters in the RBDs of Danube, Weser, Elbe, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave, and Warnow/Peene uses the most sensitive BQE to investigate on specific pressures and impacts. Again for the Odra RBD, all BQEs are used for pressure related assessment of ecological status in the lakes and for coastal waters only the BQE of macroinvertebrates is applied plus an undefined supportive general quality element. For the Rhine RBD the most sensitive BQE is used for status assessment in lakes but it is not reported which ones. For the RBDs Ems and Weser it is reported that for lakes all BQEs except some elements like ‘other species’ and fish are included. Supporting quality elements are part of operational monitoring except elements like hydromorphology and other national pollutants. For the mentioned RBD’s transitional waters, the BQEs phytoplankton, priority substances, non-priority specific pollutants, and other national pollutants[55] are not addressed but all other BQEs and supporting QE are monitored. For related coastal waters all BQEs except elements like other species and hydromorphological quality elements are monitored.

When it comes to confidence, precision and uncertainty of monitoring results information is limited. It is reported for all RBDs and water categories that certain methods are applied without indicating in detail which ones. One indicated reason for many RBDs is that assessment methods have only recently been developed. Uncertainties in assessment relate to seasonal and inter-annual variability and sampling in certain times of the year increases the confidence (benthic and macrophytes, fish). Also several years of sampling will likely reduce uncertainty.

Improvement on the situation of uncertainties is reported to be planned in all RBMPs for all German RBDs. This includes the need to fill gaps in relation to missing reference sites and incomplete databases through the further development of assessment procedures/methods, the finalisation of the incomplete intercalibration processes and the increase data exchange.

7.3 River basin specific pollutants

RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)

DE1000 || || Bentazon ||

DE1000 || || Chloridazon ||

DE1000 || || Copper || Surface Water Body in Bavaria (Illerkanal)

DE1000 || || Dibutylzinn || 1 Surface Water Body in Bavaria (Lech)

DE1000 || || Dichlorprob           ||

DE1000 || || MCPA ||

DE1000 || || MCPA || BW: 1 WB (Stehebach)

DE1000 || || Mecoprob ||

DE1000 || || Metolachlor  ||

DE2000 || || Bentazon || Bavaria - 'some' agricultural areas

DE2000 || || Bentazon, Chloridazon,  linuron, Dimethoat, Dichlorprop, MCPa, Mecoprop, Parathionethyl || R-P RBMP, 61 WBs faling GES due to these substances - no dissagregation

DE2000 || || Heavy metals (Arsen, Chrome, Copper, Zinc) || Hessen RBMP, approx. 9 WBs

DE2000 || || MCPA || BW, Neckar, 2 WBs

DE2000 || || Mecoprop (MCPP) || BW, Neckar, 2 WBs

DE2000 || || Mecoprop, MCPA, Dichlorprop,  Chloridazon, Bentazon || BW, Alpenrhine-Bodensee, agricultural areas; in 2 WBs GES is 'at risk', but not failing GES

DE2000 || || Non-priority heavy metals || NRW RBMP, 19,8% of the NRW Federal State area facing a 'signficant pressure' from these substances

DE2000 || || Non-priority PSMs || NRW RBMP, 3% of the NRW Federal State WBs failing the EQS

DE2000 || || Parathion-Ethyl || BW, Neckar, 1 WB

DE2000 || || PCB || Hessen RBMP, 11 WBs

DE2000 || || PCB 153 || R-P RBMP, no number of WBs

DE2000 || || polychloriertes Biphenylen (PCB) 138 || R-P RBMP, no number of WBs

DE2000 || || PSM (pesticides) || Hessen RBMP, approx. 51 WBs

DE2000 || || PSM (pesticides) overall || BW, Main: 2 WBs, Oberrhein: 4 WBs failing GES

DE2000 || || Pyrazon (Chloridazon) || BW, Neckar, 1 WB

DE2000 || || Zinc || R-P RBMP, 3 SWBs

DE3000 || || Arsenic || 4,1% of surface water bodies

DE3000 || || Copper ||

DE3000 || || Nitrogen ||

DE3000 || || PCB 52 ||

DE3000 || || Phosphorus ||

DE3000 || || Zinc ||

DE4000 || || Chloride || Werra and Weser

DE4000 || || Kalium || Werra and Weser

DE4000 || || Magnesium || Werra and Weser

DE5000 || || ||

DE6000 || || ||

DE7000 || || Arsenic ||

DE7000 || || Chrome || 0,1% of surface water bodies

DE7000 || || Copper ||

DE7000 || || Dichlorvos ||

DE7000 || || Fenthion ||

DE7000 || || Hexazinon ||

DE7000 || || MCPA ||

DE7000 || || Mecoprop ||

DE7000 || || Nitrogen ||

DE7000 || || PCB 52 ||

DE7000 || || Phosphorsäuretributylester ||

DE7000 || || Phosphorus ||

DE7000 || || Zinc ||

DE9500 || || Nitrogen ||

DE9500 || || Phosphorus ||

DE9610 || || Bentazon || 7 WB

DE9610 || || Malathion || 1 WB

DE9610 || || Mecoprop || 1 WB

DE9610 || || Nitrogen ||

DE9610 || || Phosphorus ||

DE9650 || || Nitrogen ||

DE9650 || || Phosphorus ||

Table 7.3.1: River basin specific pollutants causing failure of status

Source: RBMPs

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (HMWB) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

In Germany, the designation of the number of rivers as heavily modified ranges greatly among the RBDs: the Danube designated 11.59% of its rivers as HMWBs, whereas 62.56% of the river water bodies in the Meuse were designated as HMWB. The German wide average is 38.92%. For lakes the values range between 0% in the RBDs of the Odra, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave and 50% in the Ems. The German average is 12.92%. Transitional water bodies are 100% HMWB and coastal water bodies (German average) to the extent of 6.76%.

In the case of AWB, designation ranges between 5.31% (Danube) and 36.64% (Odra) of the river water bodies; values for each RBD are presented in the figure below The German wide average is 15.29%. For lakes the values range between 0% in the RBDs of the Warrnow/Peene, Schlei/Trave and 100% in the Meuse. The German average is 15.59%.

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

The main water uses that have led to the designation are navigation, recreation, water supply, power generation, irrigation, water regulation, flood protection, land drainage and other human activities such as urban settlements and conservation of ancient monuments.

To enable the water uses mentioned above, different types of physical modifications to water bodies are needed, such as dams, weirs, polders, channelization, etc. The link between these physical modifications and a water body being designated as a HMWB or AWD was only reported in the Odra, the Warnow/Peenne, the Danube and the Weser. All basins mention weirs as leading to a water body being designated as a HMWB or AWD. The Warnow/Peenne RBMP also mentions channelization, bank reinforcement and land reclamation. The Weser RBMP mentions that agricultural land (including drainage) use has led to morphological changes in waters.

The overall designation process of HMWB water bodies followed the CIS Guidance nº4, either completely (Odra, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave, Ems, Weser) or some but not all steps were carried out (Warnow/Peene, Danube, Elbe). For the Rhine the “Länder” also followed the CIS Guidance nº4 but not all “Länder” performed all steps as laid out in the guidance. The RBMPs did not report which uncertainties were considered in the designation process. A specific guidance document for Germany was developed “LAWA-ArbeitshilfezurUmsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie (2003)” which is mentioned in WISE and some of the plans but has not been officially reported.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

All German river basins have defined GEP. When doing so to both approaches (the reference-based approach (according to the CIS Guidance), and the mitigation measures approach (Prague approach)) can be found. The reference-based approach was reported for the Eider, Schlei/Trave and the Danube. The Prague approach has been reported for Odra, Meuse, Warnow/Peene, Ems, Weser and Elbe. In the Rhine both approaches have been used, depending on the “Länder” involved. In the case of NRW both approaches are described but the Prague approach was applied. In BW and TH the RBMPs clearly state that the Prague approach was used. For HE it is not fully clear which approach has been followed but it is most likely the Prague approach. There is a statement that the GEP is defined as 70% of all measures that would be needed to achieve the Maximum Ecological Potential. No further details are provided. While the RP RBMP for the Rhine defines GEP, it does not report any information regarding the approach taken. The SL RBMP for the Rhine refers to a specific methodological handbook (Annex VI) for the methodology for HMWB designation. This handbook has not been submitted and found on the web. Therefore, in SL it remains unclear which approach has been used. In BY there is no clear mention of the CIS approach but the approach described refers to the fact that the GEP is based on the ‘reference-based approach’ (or ‘CIS approach’). In other words, the GEP was assessed based on the definition and assessment of GES. In BY an additional check was performed if a use leads to a change in typology (e.g. from a river to a lake due to a dam). In cases where there is no change in typology a change in the 'class' was performed.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

In all German RBDs the chemical status has been assessed against EQS. Almost all priority substances have been measured and assessed. Exemptions concern missing analytical tools e.g. Brominated diphenylether in BY, C1-13 chloroalkanes in BW and BY, Tributyltin compounds (BY). The table below shows priority substances that have not been assessed in certain Länder. It becomes evident, that missing standards are the most important reason, no information for the missing analysis in SL was found. For PAH (polyaromatic hydrocarbons, substance 28 in Annex I of Directive 2008/105) the single substances falling under the group ‘PAH’ have been assessed in all Länder. This is sufficient to assess compliance with EQS (for the group parameter PAH there is no EQS in 2008/105).

CAS Number || Name of substance || Länder

32534-81-9 || Brominated diphenylether* || BE, BW, BY, S,TH

85535-84-8 || C10-13 Chloroalkane* || BE, BW, BY, HE, NW, SH, SL, TH

117-81-7 || Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate (DEHP) || SL

115-29-7 || Endosulfan || SL

118-74-1 || Hexachlorobenzene || SL

87-68-3 || Hexachlorobutadiene || SL

608-73-1 || gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane || SL

84852-15-3 || Nonylphenol || SL

140-66-9 || 4-(2,4,4-trimethylpentan-2-yl)phenol || SL

608-93-5 || Pentachlorobenzene || SL

|| Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)** || HH, NI, NW, RP, SL

36643-28-4 || Tributyltin compounds || BE, SL

12002-48-1 || Trichlorobenzene || SL

Table 9.1.1: Substances that could not be monitored in the “Länder” for the assessment of chemical status

Source: RBMPs

Concerning EQS, in general (exemptions are described below) the Directive 2008/105/EC Annex I[56] has been applied although it was at the time not transposed to national law.  Deviations concerned at the time of reporting single or few substances in some “Länder”, but a case to case description would go beyond the scope of this summary. Depending on the substance, national standards at that time were sometimes equal to, higher or lower than the EU wide EQS. The Weser Plan and Lower Saxony (Ems) refer to the legally binding national regulations at the time only. For the Weser Plan this concerns national EQS for 3 substances.  Mostly, both national and EU-wide EQS are reported separately and as a general approach, in most cases, national EQS and substances have been applied in parallel to the EU-wide substances and EQS.

For the international harmonisation of EQS, in some plans (e.g. Elbe) the differences in EQS (that occurred due to missing EU-wide threshold values at the time of reporting) between the riparian countries are made transparent.

For the entire German territory no evidence about the application of mixing zones is found. There is one indirect reference to the topic. Germany does not use mixing zones, but uses the concept of a monitoring station representative for the status of the whole water body. Only NRW refers to mixing zones as a criterion for the selection of monitoring sites.

The measurement frequencies and cycles for priority substances are not the same at all surveillance and operational sites (see table provided under the ‘Monitoring of surface and groundwater’ chapter). This results in different levels of confidence and precision of calculated annual average values and also of detected maxima. No information was found in the existing reporting whether and how different levels of confidence and precision have been taken into account in assessing the compliance with EQS.

In compliance with Annex I Part B of the Directive 2008/105/EC, the assessment of chemical quality concerned the (filtered/whole) water sample. Assessment of hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene and mercury for biota has not been reported in SL because of missing analytical tools/methods. For the same reason no assessments of priority substances in sediment have been reported in all RBDs. These assessments will be introduced as soon as the methods are available.

Bioavailability (according to Annex I Part B Point 3.b) has been mentioned for Cadmium in combination with water hardness in some RBDs. Whether the approach is applied across all RBDs/ “Länder” in a harmonised manner remains unclear.

Background concentrations have not been considered in the assessment (due to missing guidance on the setting of background levels). NRW addresses the future plans in this concern by starting to plan the introduction of background concentrations as soon as there are common standards.

Substances causing exceedances, affected water body (types).

A total of 811 water bodies (8%) of 9860 total number of water bodies in Germany fail to achieve good chemical status. Another 350 or 3.5% of the water bodies (mainly 300 natural river water bodies) are categorised as unknown/no information.

The following table[57] splits this total number according to RBD and aggregated substance groups (heavy metals, pesticides, industrial and other pollutants). Single substances cannot be assessed based on the available sources due to different structures of the RBMPs and reporting formats (% of river length, numbers of WBs). Other pollutants and heavy metals (mainly Pb-, Cd- and compounds) substance groups caused the major part of the failures to achieve good chemical status, followed by pesticides.

RBD || Heavy metals -aggregated || Pesticides - aggregated || Industrial pollutants - aggregated || Other pollutants - aggregated

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

DE1000 || 2 || 0.3 || 6 || 0.89 || || || 1 || 0.45

DE2000 || 103 || 4.52 || 106 || 4.65 || 14 || 0.61 || 125 || 5.48

DE3000 || 14 || 2.71 || 8 || 1.55 || || || 22 || 4.26

DE4000 || 52 || 3.68 || 24 || 1.7 || || || 14 || 0.99

DE5000 || 37 || 1.18 || 4 || 0.13 || 13 || 0.41 || 107 || 3.41

DE6000 || 2 || 0.4 || || || || || 5 || 0.99

DE7000 || 18 || 7.89 || 23 || 10.09 || 4 || 1.75 || 4 || 1.75

DE9500 || || || || || || || ||

DE9610 || || || 1 || 0.29 || || || ||

DE9650 || || || || || || || ||

Total || 228 || 2.51 || 172 || 1.89 || 31 || 0.34 || 278 || 3.06

Table 9.1.2: Number and percentage of water bodies that fail to achieve good chemical status, differentiated according to RBDs

Source: WISE

10. Assessment of groundwater status

At the time when the RBMPs were established, the Groundwater Directive (GWD) was not yet implemented into German legislation - as it is now - and the assessment was based on the requirements of the WFD and a guidance document about the technical implementation of the GWD; which was developed by the LAWA and is in compliance with the Water Framework Directive and the Groundwater Directive.

For Germany as a whole, for 2009 about 62 % (609) of the 989 groundwater bodies (GWBs) (representing 63% in terms of area) were reported to be both of good chemical and quantitative status which is expected to increase by 5% in 2015 (in terms of number of groundwater bodies and area). At the level of RBDs, the percentage of GWBs of good status in 2009 ranges between 26–84% (28–86% in terms of area) and is about to increase to 38–91% (28–96% in terms of area) in 2015. An improvement of good status between 2009 and 2015 was only reported to be expected in 4 of 10 RBDs (RBD Danube, Rhine, Elbe and Oder).

As the sizes of German groundwater bodies cover a broad range from 0.014 km² up to 5,577 km², the percentage of groundwater bodies of good status can considerably deviate from the percentage of represented area, e.g. in the RBD Oder about 26% of the groundwater bodies are of good status in 2009, but representing about 69% in terms of the total area of groundwater bodies in the RBD.

10.1 Groundwater chemical status

All RBMPs and sub-RBMPs reported that the groundwater chemical status was not only assessed on the basis of whether the extent of exceedance of groundwater quality standards and threshold values whether it presents a significant environmental risk, but also considering the impact of groundwater on associated aquatic and dependent terrestrial ecosystems and considering saline intrusion and the impairment of human uses of groundwater.

Regarding groundwater chemical status 620 (about 63 % in terms of number and area) of the 989 groundwater bodies were reported to be of good chemical status in 2009, with a range of 39–84% at RBD level (32–86% in terms of area). For two groundwater bodies in the Rhine the status is unknown. In total 365 groundwater bodies were identified of failing good status due to exceedances of quality standards or threshold values and in 4 groundwater bodies saline intrusions were causing poor status. Neither failure to meet environmental objectives in associated surface water bodies or significant diminution of the ecological or chemical status of such bodies, nor significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend directly on the groundwater body was reported to cause poor status at any groundwater body.

Information on the number of groundwater bodies or groups of bodies characterised as being at risk, and on the pollutants and indicators of pollution which contribute to this classification, was rarely reported. Baden-Wuertemberg and Bavaria are the only two Länder (covering the Danube and Rhine parts of their territory) that reported such information. This information had been updated by the results of the surveillance monitoring and presented in the RBMPs in the form of maps. Regarding the consideration of ecosystems, although they were considered in the assessment, neither further detail was provided about the definition of significant diminution of aquatic ecosystems and significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems, nor about the procedure of the assessment.

In all German RBMPs, the assessment of the extent of exceedance of quality standards and threshold values followed a unified national approach which is clearly described in a guidance document of the LAWA and summarised in WISE. No information was reported regarding groundwater bodies which are considered of good chemical status although quality standards or threshold values were exceeded. Recent information from the German authorities provided a general list of the occurrence of exceedances of substances at ‘Länder’ level was provided but not at the level of RBDs or groundwater bodies.

Germany established groundwater threshold values at the national level, which were uniformly considered in all RBDs and reported to WISE. All values are laid down in a well-documented guidance document of the LAWA (Geringfügigkeitsschwellenwerte). It includes values for all Annex II substances except for ammonium, for which a threshold value was established later by the LAWA. The guidance document lists threshold values for in total 71  substances or groups of substances including those listed in Annex II, which are identified relevant of posing a threat to groundwater in Germany, not only in connection with the implementation of the WFD. The values are derived from eco-toxicological (aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems) and human-toxicological (drinking water standards) criteria values in accordance with the requirements laid down in Annex II of the Groundwater Directive. For naturally occurring substances, German-wide natural background concentrations were considered within the threshold values. The procedure for the derivation of the German-wide natural background concentrations is clearly explained in a separate document. In case a groundwater body exhibits natural background concentrations higher than the threshold values (e.g. in the RBD Elbe), then the natural background level is taken as threshold value for this particular case, following a procedure outlined in the guidance document. These individual threshold values deviating from the national TVs were not reported in the RBMPs.

Not all of the national threshold values laid down in the LAWA guidance document (Geringfügigkeitsschwellenwerte) were considered for status assessment in each RBMP. Only those which were identified relevant within the risk assessment were considered.

All RBMPs reported of having considered the uniform procedure for trend and trend reversal assessment laid down in a LAWA guidance document in detail. Trend assessment was performed for all groundwater bodies identified at risk and for the substances contributing to this assessment. Due to the lack of sufficiently long time series (6 years) trend assessment could not be performed in all RBDs for this first RBMP. The starting point for trend reversal of 75% of the threshold values was only established after the RBMPs were prepared.

10.2 Groundwater quantitative status

Regarding groundwater quantitative status 38 (about 4 % in terms of number and 3 % in terms of area) of the 989 groundwater bodies were reported to fail good quantitative status in 2009, with a range of up to about 30% at RBD level (in terms of number groundwater bodies and area). Main reason for poor groundwater quantitative status is that groundwater abstraction exceeds the available groundwater resource at 35 groundwater bodies, for 2 groundwater bodies groundwater abstraction leads to significant diminution of the status of surface waters and for one groundwater body good status failed due to saline or other intrusion.

In the RBD Danube, Ems, Eider and Schlei/Trave all groundwater bodies are of good quantitative status.

The assessment of groundwater quantitative status is in all RBMPs based on the comparison between long-term average abstractions and long-term average rates of recharge and the analysis of temporal developments of groundwater levels (as far as appropriate time series are available). Indications of impacts of groundwater quantity on the health of associated aquatic and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems and saline intrusion were considered as far as relevant. The assessment methodology is described in WISE but not in the individual RBMPs.

10.3 Protected areas

In total 870 drinking water protected areas are connected to groundwater bodies. Each protected area is associated to only one groundwater body and each groundwater body is associated to exactly one protected area. All drinking water protected areas are in good status.

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

DE1000 || 45 || ||

DE2000 || 325 || ||

DE3000 || 34 || ||

DE4000 || 143 || ||

DE5000 || 208 || ||

DE6000 || 21 || ||

DE7000 || 26 || ||

DE9500 || 12 || ||

DE9610 || 17 || ||

DE9650 || 39 || ||

Total || 870 || 0 || 0

Table 10.3.1: Number and status of groundwater drinking water protected areas.

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

In Germany 9.5% of all surface water bodies are currently in good or better status. The percentage of the share varies widely among the RBDs with the lowest values in the Ems (3.5%) and the highest values in the Danube (23.4%). The situation is expected to improve until 2015, where 18.2% of the German water bodies are foreseen to be in good or better status. The biggest improvements are expected to happen in the Eider (49.1% of improvement). For further details see table below.

RBD || Category || Total || Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2009 (%) || Good or better in 2015 || Good or better in 2015 (%)

All RBDs || All categories || 9863 || 934 || 9.5 || 1793 || 18.2

Danube || All categories || 671 || 157 || 23.4 || 275 || 41

River || 621 || 128 || 20.6 || 246 || 39,6

Lake || 50 || 29 || 58 || 29 || 58

Rhine || All categories || 2279 || 293 || 12.9 || 571 || 25.1

River || 2208 || 276 || 12.5 || 543 || 24.6

Lake || 71 || 17 || 23.9 || 28 || 39.4

Ems || All categories || 516 || 18 || 3.5 || 22 || 4.3

River || 502 || 17 || 3.4 || 21 || 4.2

Lake || 6 || 1 || 16.7 || 1 || 16.7

Transitional water || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Coastal Water || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Weser || All categories || 1414 || 88 || 6.2 || 134 || 9.5

River || 1380 || 78 || 5.7 || 120 || 8.7

Lake || 27 || 10 || 37 || 14 || 51.9

Transitional water || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Coastal Water || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Elbe || All categories || 3138 || 242 || 7.7 || 453 || 14.4

River || 2773 || 114 || 4.1 || 284 || 10.2

Lake || 359 || 128 || 35.7 || 168 || 46.8

Transitional water || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100

Coastal Water || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Odra || All categories || 503 || 39 || 7.8 || 51 || 10.1

River || 453 || 25 || 5.5 || 29 || 6.4

Lake || 49 || 14 || 28.6 || 22 || 44.9

Coastal Water || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Meuse || All categories || 228 || 23 || 10.1 || 25 || 11

River || 227 || 23 || 10.1 || 25 || 11

Lake || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Eider || All categories || 163 || 6 || 3.7 || 86 || 52.8

River || 135 || 0 || 0 || 75 || 55.6

Lake || 16 || 6 || 37.5 || 11 || 68.8

Transitional water || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Coastal Water || 11 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Schlei/Trave || All categories || 350 || 15 || 4.3 || 123 || 35.1

River || 274 || 7 || 2,6 || 113 || 41.2

Lake || 51 || 7 || 13.7 || 8 || 15.7

Coastal Water || 25 || 1 || 4 || 2 || 8

Warnow/Penne || All categories || 601 || 53 || 8.8 || 53 || 8,8

River || 499 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Lake || 82 || 53 || 64.6 || 53 || 64.6

Coastal Water || 20 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 11.1: Surface water bodies per water type that are at good status and how the situation might involve until 2015.

Source: WISE

For groundwater 61.6% of all groundwater bodies are in good status, with a variation of 26.1% in the Odra to 84.2% in the Schlei/Trave. As for surface waters, the status is also expected to be improved to 66.5% in 2015. The biggest improvements are expected to happen in the Odra basin where an improvement of 30.4% is expected.

Within the seven international German basins, transboundary cooperation on the establishment of the environmental objectives has taken place. For the Danube, Rhine, Ems, Elbe and Odra, this has been done in the context of an international river basin commission. In the Schlei/Trave, where no such Commission exists, coordination was based on the existing cooperation with DK. None of the RBMPs in international basins reported whether coordination took place regarding the methodologies or criteria to apply exemptions. Within Germany the LAWA developed a common position paper on how to apply and justify exemptions according to Article 4.5 and Article 4.5[58]. However, its application within the Länder remains unclear as information has not been reported in the plans.

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

The protected areas found in Germany include drinking water protected areas, shellfish waters (only in the Rhine, Weser, Elbe, Eider and Schlei/Trave), bathing waters, and Natura 2000 sites. Most of the German plans do not make any explicit statement on the establishment of additional objectives in protected areas. The Eider RBMP states for bathing water areas there is a transition period until 2011 to implement the new bathing water Directive. For E-Coli and Enterokokken lower thresholds (Maßnahmenwerte) have been set. If these thresholds are exceeded more controls and bathing restrictions will be set. Regarding the objectives from the Shellfish Directive, the aim is to achieve all relevant objectives by 2015, except in two RBDs (Eider and Schlei-Trave), for which it is stated that the shellfish water quality objectives have already been achieved.

Regarding the objectives from the Shellfish Directive, all RBDs with Shellfish PAs include the requirement to comply with the Directive (transposed into Federal State regulations, where appropriate, e.g. Lower Saxony). The aim is to achieve all relevant objectives by 2015. In two RBDs however (Eider and Schlei-Trave), shellfish water quality objectives have already been achieved and thus don't need additional measures.

There is no mention of EU Hygiene Regulations or the three different levels (A, B, C) of designated shellfish production areas, nor is there any specific indication whether all Shellfish PAs correspond to Shellfish production areas.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

The application of exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5) varies widely across the German RBDs. In total 80% of the German water bodies are subject to an exemption with 79% being subject to an extended deadline. Only for 1% of the water bodies lower objectives will be applied. The basin with the lowest exemptions applied is the Eider (47%), the one with the highest is the Ems (95%). The main reasons for applying exemptions according to Art 4.4 are technical feasibility and natural conditions. Disproportional costs are less often used as a justification.

RBD || Global[59]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

DE1000 || 146 || 0 || 160 || 0 || 282 || -

DE2000 || 1246 || 18 || 277 || 5 || 215 || -

DE3000 || 479 || 0 || 14 || 0 || 273 || -

DE4000 || 1204 || 52 || 29 || 0 || 912 || -

DE5000 || 2023 || 0 || 103 || 0 || 2461 || -

DE6000 || 307 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 452 || -

DE7000 || 143 || 7 || 61 || 0 || 16 || -

DE9500 || 65 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 22 || -

DE9610 || 146 || 0 || 45 || 0 || 173 || -

DE9650 || 47 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 546 || -

Total || 5806 || 78 || 692 || 6 || 5352 || -

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Technical infeasibility can be further explained by mainly: i) the lack of technical solutions (Danube, Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Meuse, Warnow/Peene), ii) the fact that it takes longer to fix the problem (all basins) and iii) no information on the cause of the problem (Danube, Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Meuse, Schlei/Trave). In the case of natural conditions, the main, more detailed reasons are the ecological recovery time of surface (all basins) and ground water (Danube, Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Meuse, Warnow/Peene).

In case where disproportional costs have been argued (all basins except Odra and Warnow/Peene) the reported methodologies/arguments behind the judgements are not very obvious. Only a few “Länder” reported some hints.BY (Danube, Rhine) makes a brief reference to taking into account the financial impact on the entity paying for the measure. NRW (Rhine, Ems, Weser, Meuse) reported that affordability was considered as well as cost benefit ratio of bundles of measures; however, the details remain unclear as too little information was reported in the NRW RBMP. TH (Rhine) mentions comparing costs and benefits. Reference is made to financial burden on water users and the public budget. RP (Rhine) makes a reference to LAWA criteria, such as financial burden on waters and public budget, cost-benefit analysis, uncertainties about effectiveness of measures. In the Schlei/Trave a check of the ability to pay from the state budget was carried out. The exclusion of basic measures from the judgment of disproportional costs is only clearly reported in the case of the Ems, Meuse, Elbe and the NRW part of the Rhine and the Weser. In all other cases no information was reported. However, the common position paper on exemptions by the LAWA clearly states the exclusion of basic measures from the judgment of disproportional costs is not possible.

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

In all German RBDs Art 4.6 has not been applied so far. In the future, the NRW plan covering parts of the Rhine, Weser, Ems and Mosel states that the application of Art 4.6 will be further developed in the next planning cycles. In the Eider and Schlei/Trave future potential reasons for the Art 4.6 and prevention measures are reported in WISE. Potential reasons for applying Article 4.6 mentioned it includes exceptional natural causes such as extreme floods or extreme weather conditions. Unforeseen accidents include fires, accidents, technical failure or operator error in industrial enterprises, sewage treatment plants or pipelines, and shipping accidents and accidents with discharge of pollutants in coastal waters or in navigable inland waters. Prevention measures include: technical protection measures at facilities for storage and transfer of water polluting substances; safety inspections and monitoring of water-polluting substances; and establishment of early warning systems for chemical water pollution. During extreme natural events or unforeseeable accidents, fire trucks, technical assistance and central commands will be in a constant state of readiness to act if necessary. Coastal federal states and federal government keep combat ships and other equipment on hand to deal with oil or chemical spills in coastal waters including equipment to clean up contaminated beaches. There is also the possibility of using the Federal Army and private companies to help deal with big ship accidents and catastrophes on the ocean. In all other basins no further information on Art 4.6 is reported.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

The RBDs Eider, Ems, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene, Elbe, Odra, Weser, clearly state that there is no application of Art 4.7. In the Danube the BY plan specifically mentions that Article 4.7 is not being applied at this time. BW does not mention article 4.7 in its chapter on exemptions. Until now, in the Rhine less stringent environmental objectives pursuant to Article 4.7 of the WFD have only been applied in the NRW part of the Rhine RBD in a few exceptional cases for groundwater and for surface waters. The exemption clause pursuant to Article 4, paragraph (7) of the WFD has not otherwise been used in the German part of the Rhine RBD. The NRW RBMP explicitly states that use has been made of Article 4, paragraph (7) in conjunction with lignite mining in NRW. This concerns the catchment areas of both the Rhine and the Maas. Unlike the consequences of open-cast lignite mining, exemptions from the “non-deterioration principle” on the basis of Article 4, paragraph (7) of the WFD are not envisaged.

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

None of the German RBDs has reported on an inventory of exemptions from measures required to prevent or limit inputs into groundwater.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[60] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

The selection of measures was most importantly based on the status assessments in combination with significant pressures and the respective environmental objectives. Additional criteria were also taken into account such as impact of the measure; synergies with other directives and initiatives; cost-efficiency; implications of non-action; certainty/uncertainty of measures (“no-regret-measures”); measures that can be implemented in a short time span; urgency of the problem to be solved by the measure; financing; and public acceptability.

With the exception of the Schlei/Trave RB, all other German river basins coordinated with their international counterparts to draw up international RBMPs; this work was largely carried out under the auspices of international river basin organisations. Within the Elbe, Danube, Rhine, and Ems, the PoMs have been coordinated to different degrees (see section 1 for detailed information on coordination). For the other basins the information regarding international coordination in the development of PoMs was not reported in the plans. At international level a cost-effectiveness analysis was not reported in any of the basins.

The RBMPs do not provide information about the percentage between basic and supplementary measures or the ratio of measures based on sector/pressure. WISE lists the supplementary measures, but instead of indicating the type of measure, a number code is provided that refers to the German federal LAWA catalogue of measures[61].

Measures are to be implemented on a number of levels; the geographic scope for implementation varies from the national level, the RBD level and the sub-basin or water body level. National and local authorities as well as private stakeholders (enterprises, farmers and individuals) will share responsibility for measure implementation, depending on the type or measure and sector in which it applies. Information regarding energy-related measures is not clear as they are not listed separately. Regional authorities are not involved in navigation related measures in Schlei-Trave. Local authorities cover all sectors except navigation and energy (except in the Elbe).

There is no information on the costs of the PoM reported at river basin level. A total cost estimate of the planned measures has been provided for the Federal Republic of Germany. The budget needed to finance the measures where regional agencies are concerned are included in the respective budget plans of the Federal Government, “Länder” and local authorities. Non-public agents are also involved in the implementation of measures. These measures may be funded by private sources or with the help of funding programmes of the EU, Federal Government or “Länder”. Some “Länder” provide cost information at state scale (e.g. BW, NRW) but this is not disaggregated according to the river basins. With the exception of the Danube and Rhine (where information was either unclear or not reported), the other river basins reported carrying out a cost-effectiveness analysis of measures. All measures listed in the LAWA catalogue of measures are deemed to be cost-efficient; therefore, to a certain degree, in all RBDs in Germany the cost-efficiency of measures has been considered.

All the RBMPs stated that the PoMs will become operational in 2012, with the exception of the Elbe where no information was found to this effect.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

The pressures on water from agriculture include pressures on water quality from diffuse sources of pollutants such as nutrients (and its associated eutrophication) and pesticides, as well as morphological modifications. Water abstraction is only mentioned in the Odra but without a clear link to agriculture; no other RBDs mention water abstraction as a pressure.

Technical measures selected to address agricultural pressures include: fertilizer and pesticide reduction (e.g. restrictions on applications), low input farming (e.g. organic farming), and hydromorphological measures like floodplain restoration and re-meandering measures. Soil measures were found in half of the basins and water savings measures were only found in the Danube river basin. Economic measures include: compensation for land cover and cooperative agreements. Non-technical measures include codes of good practice, training, and to some extent awareness and knowledge raising. Detailed information on non-technical measures is not provided, as only general categories are reported. A more detailed list of the agricultural measures mentioned is presented in the table below. There was an extensive public participation programme put in place for the development of the first RBMP in the different Federal States (see section 3 for more details). Public participation of the agricultural sector has been considered through participation of agriculture stakeholders in Advisory boards. Nevertheless, the NRW river basin management plan refers in detail the specific approach taken with regard to agriculture[62].

The geographic extent of the application of measures is provided in all river basins except Warnow/Peene. A mix of sub-basin and water body level is used. In terms of the timing of the implementation of measures, information provided by the river basins and “Länder” vary. Some indicate that measures will be operational in the period 2009-2015, while some river basins (Elbe, Weser) and “Länder” (LS in the Ems) did not report information to this effect. Information was not reported on how gaps, if any, will be addressed in the future.

General information is provided regarding funding of agricultural measures, e.g. through EU, national and communal level funds. Within the same basins, some “Länder” indicated general sources of funds while others do not report information to this effect. For example, in the Ems, NRW mentions user fees and multi-level government funding, while LS does not provide any information to this effect. In the Rhine, the Federal States, with the exception of TH and SR, mention various financing sources; HE indicates a working group on funding at “Länder” level but its RBMP does not report any details. Funding information is provided by both German “Länder” (BV and BW) separately for the Danube. General funding information was stated in the plans of the river basins where only one RBMP was developed (i.e. Weser, Elbe, Eider, Warnow/Peene and Schlei/Trave). With the exception of the Weser, all the PoMs mention that the river basin will take advantage of Rural Development Regulation (RDR) financing, although Art. 38 is not referenced by any of the plans.

Measures || DE1000 || DE2000 || DE3000 || DE4000 || DE5000 || DE6000 || DE7000 || DE9500 || DE9610 || DE9650

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Measures against soil erosion || ü || || || || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || || || || || || || || || ||

Technical measures for water saving || ü || || || || || || || || ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Co-operative agreements || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || || || || || || || || ||

Nutrient trading || || || || || || || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || || || || || || || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || || || || || || || || || ||

Institutional changes || || || || || || || || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Farm advice and training || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü || ü || || ü || || || || || ||

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || || || ü || ü || || || ü || || ü || ü

Certification schemes || || || || || || || || || || ü

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || || || || || || || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || || || || || || || || || ||

Land use planning || || || || || || || || || ||

Technical standards || || || || || || || || || ||

Specific projects related to agriculture || || || || || || || || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

All of the German plans link hydromorphological pressures to uses to varying extent (e.g.  connectivity and dams, lack of flood protection due to hydropower, and cross profile construction for navigation). In the Ems the link between measures and pressures or measures and uses was not specified in the plan. In the Rhine the different “Länder” provide different levels of information regarding the links between pressures, uses and measures: for example, in NRW, BW, BY and RP measures are linked to overarching categories of pressures (i.e. water abstraction, morphology). In SL and TH no information on the link between measures and pressures was reported.

With the exception of the Ems and Warnow/Peene, measure to address hydromorphological pressures will be implemented in all water body types, also including HMWBs and AWBs. In the Ems and Warnow/Peene RBMPs, the information provided is not detailed enough to determine whether hydro-morphological measures will only be implemented in natural water bodies or in HMWBs as well. The measures included in the plans are listed in the table below:

Measures || DE1000 || DE2000 || DE3000 || DE4000 || DE5000 || DE6000 || DE7000 || DE9500 || DE9610 || DE9650

Fish ladders || ü || ü || || || || || || || ||

Bypass channels || ü || || || || || || || || ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Sediment/debris management || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || || || ü

Lowering of river banks || || || || || || || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || || || || || ü || || || ü || ü || ü

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ü || ü || || ü || ü || ü || ü || || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || ü || || || || || ü || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || ü || ü || || || || || || || ||

Construction of retention basins || || ü || || || || || || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || ü || || || ü || ü || || || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || ü || || ü || ü || ü || || || ü ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

Although most of the RBs do not mention whether there are guidelines on defining ecologically based flow regimes, all of the PoMs include specific measures to achieve such flows. Some measures are very explicit – for example “Measures to guarantee minimum ecological flow” found in the Danube, Rhine, Weser, Elbe, Odra, Meuse and Warnow/Peene – while other measures will lead to improved flow regimes (e.g. natural retention or natural hydromorphological dynamic of the river, etc.). With respect to guidelines, the BV Danube plans briefly references a proposal for guidelines to determine an ecologically and economically balanced minimum flow proposal for existing small hydropower plants. In the BW Danube plans, reference is made to guidelines establishing minimum flow 'Gemeinsames Amtsblatt 2007, p.105 ff) but no details are provided.

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

Groundwater quantitative status

According to the information on the strategic concepts of the programmes of measures which was provided to WISE, basic measures are implemented in all RBMPs, for surface waters and for groundwater independently of the status of groundwater bodies. They cover controls of water abstraction and recharge, measures to promote efficient and sustained water use and measures for the recovery of costs for water services. The basic measures mostly already existed, mainly in the form of federal legislation and individual “Länder” laws and by-laws regulating permits, authorisations, registers etc. This means that in RBDs shared by several “Länder”, the operative measures vary from one ‘Land’ to another.

Supplementary measures tackling over abstraction were reported to be needed and established in the RBDs Rhine, Elbe, Oder and Maas regarding the reduction of water abstractions (mainly from mining), and in the RBD Warnow/Peene.

Groundwater chemical status

All RBMPs reported the implementation of measures to prevent inputs of hazardous pollutants and to limit inputs of non-hazardous pollutants into groundwater. A main national measure is the general prohibition of any discharge to groundwater with adverse effects on groundwater and requirements regarding the storage of such substances established in the federal law. In addition, further laws and by-laws tackle point and diffuse source pollution, like preventing significant losses of pollutants from technical installations and preventing and/or reducing the impact of accidental pollution. Compliance is checked by water inspection authorities.

Supplementary measures were established in all RBDs, mainly supplementary to the Nitrates Directive, tackling agricultural activities, both from diffuse pollution and point sources of pollution from fertilizers and pesticides. Further supplementary measures tackle point source pollution from contaminated sites and diffuse pollution from mining activities, leaking sewers and the implementation of specific measures in safeguard zones.

Further frequently reported and supplementary measures cover the establishment or adaption of support programmes, advisory programmes, further investigations, voluntary co-operations, information and education programmes.

No RBMP reported specific measures being established in that part of groundwater bodies where quality standards or threshold values were exceeded, although the groundwater body is of good status.

During the international coordination in the Danube RBD the effect of national measures on the Danube basin-wide scale is estimated and presented. The Elbe RBMP shows only limited coordination regarding the PoMs. In Rhine RBD there are linkages between national PoMs and Rhine level activities, but their effect on each other are not clear.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

In the WFD, chemical pollution is regulated through Art.10 (stating the combined approach principle for the control of both point and diffuse sources of discharges); Art. 11 on programmes of measures and Art.16, which requires the establishment of a list of priority substances (Annex X). As there is no reporting requirement, no inventory of sources of chemical pollution is mentioned in any of the German RBMPs. Bavaria refers to the webpage of the German Federal Environment Agencies´ Pollutant register in its plans for the Rhine and Danube; no other plan or “Land” does the same. Most of the RBMPs mention chemical pollution and its source in the chapters on anthropogenic pressures. Significant pressures can be found in relation to DOC, N, chloride, fluoride as well as lead, copper, zinc, cadmium and nickel (mentioned in the RBMPs of the Odra, Elbe, Rhine and Danube (no heavy metals). Some RBMPs (e.g. Weser (NRW), Elbe, Odra, Eider, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene) mention point sources only and some also describe diffuse pollution from nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus).

General measures do not target a specific chemical substance but focus on industrial and household emissions. Additionally, the Danube and the Rhine include emissions from agriculture and the Weser includes emissions from potash mining. In the Danube and the Rhine, there was no common approach among the “Länder” in developing and reporting on general measures to address chemical pollution. For all the RBDs, WISE mentions basic and supplementary measures. The basic measures cover regulations/laws/by-laws that regulate permitting/emission standards (combined approach) aiming at industrial point sources and waste water treatment plants. Examples of supplementary measures from WISE (from a list of many) are: 'measures for the reduction of pesticide pollution from agriculture'; 'realization and continuation of specific water protection measures in drinking water areas'; 'conceptual measure: development of concepts / studies / expert reports'; 'conceptual measure: conducting R&D and demonstration projects'; 'conceptual measure: information and training measures'.

Information pertaining to substance specific measures was not found in the RBMPs of the Rhine and Danube due to a lack of a common approach[63] among the “Länder”). However, some information on substance-specific measures is given in most RBMPs.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

“Water services” have been narrowly defined in Germany based on a legal interpretation of the legal definition[64]; it is explicitly stated that only water supply and sanitation (waste water collection and treatment) are considered as water services for the purposes of Art. 9. Only Baden-Wuerttemberg mentions also industrial self-supply, agricultural water supply (irrigation) and direct discharges from industry qualifying as water services but without analysing their cost recovery further. Certain activities are explicitly mentioned as not being water services such as impoundments for navigation, flood protection and hydropower generation.

In all RBD/Federal States, at least households, industry and agriculture are defined as water uses.

The cost recovery is calculated for both water services identified, that is water supply and sanitation. The obligation to cover the cost of water supply and wastewater disposal is anchored in all community charges legislation in the Federal States, and is supplemented in individual cases by measures within the framework of the enforcing authorities’ managerial discretion.

Within cost recovery calculation operational costs are included. It is not clear whether other financial costs such as investment costs, maintenance costs, and administrative costs were taken into account.

Subsidies are included in cost recovery calculation. It is stated that cross-subsidization between different user groups of water services is largely avoided by a differentiated charging; selected analysis suggests that, overall, at an aggregate level no cross-subsidization between user groups (households, industry, agriculture) and between the water services (water supply, sanitation) is taking place. It is planned to extend the calculation of cost recovery regarding operational costs and subsidies in more transparent way in the second implementation cycle of the WFD.

Environmental and resource costs were not explicitly quantified for the cost recovery calculation, with the explanation that a practicable method is not available for this and in view of a lack of data, whose rectification would have necessitated a disproportionately high input of time and financial resources. Environmental and resource costs are reported to be kept as low as possible/as not existent via licensing conditions and retrospective charges, and at a national level, internalisation of those by the originators through waste water charges and water abstraction fees and administrative laws. German authorities reported that efforts are underway to improve the data situation for the second management cycle.

The polluter-pays-principle is mentioned in most RBMP as a basic principle of German water pricing policy and as being reflected in the contributions of the different water users to cost recovery. At the same time, calculations of the contributions of the different water users to the cost recovery have not been done, only limited water services were taken into account and ERC were not calculated what put into question implementation of polluter pays principle.

Regarding if adequate incentives are provided by the water pricing policy for users to use water resources efficiently, only general statements can be found, but no precise information given on how this was done. It is stated that the incentive effects of the water pricing system is evidenced through the continuous decrease in water consumption and water body contamination in Germany.

The provisions of Art 9(4) and flexibility provisions of Art 9 have not been used in Germany.

Overall, a predominantly national approach to Art 9 implementation has been taken in Germany. Thus, significant efforts were done in coordinating the work done on Art 9 in the different Federal States. Efforts were reported regarding international cooperation on Art 9 issues, focussing mainly on exchanges of experiences on Art 9 implementation.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

None of the RBDs clearly identified water bodies and protected areas in need of additional measures. Also, none of the RBMPs mentioned included additional measures to reach the more stringent objectives of other EU environmental objectives (Birds, Habitats, Shellfish, etc.).

For Shellfish protected areas, for example, details of additional measures have either not been provided or have not even been set as the objectives had already been reached and it was therefore deemed unnecessary to establish them. Measures to comply with the WFD status seem sufficient (Elbe). In one RBDs however the additional measures aim to comply with regional regulation transposing Directives 2006/113/EC and 2006/44/EC, i.e. Lower Saxony.[65]

With respect to the need for additional measures in protected areas, the general concept is that improving the status of water bodies within the meaning of the WFD supports the area-specific protection targets. The planning of specific measures always entails a comparison between the objectives of the WFD and those of the respective protected areas. Because the implementation of the Natura 2000 Directives was delayed, however, the conservation targets were often not yet defined at the time PoMs under the WFD were prepared. Synergies are taken into account with the selection of measures (e.g. creation of passability, habitat improvements in the shore and water body zone).

In the process of establishing the Rhine PoMs, it was checked if the WFD-measures are in correspondence with protected area measures. In the seldom cases where there was a contradiction between objectives, the relevant authorities cooperated to find solutions or to prioritize objectives. In the Danube, the BY RBMP mentions that additional measures could potentially be necessary but states that detailed information is currently not available, while the BW RBMP mentions a general need for additional measures. The Elbe and Odra RBMPs mention that by improving the ecological status of water bodies 'usually' specific objectives of other Directives are supported and that “no contradicting goals exist”. These RBMPs also state that the analysis of the effects of the WFD and other directive´s measures on each other will be conducted within the individual “Länder”. The RBMPs of the Weser and Warnow/Peene do not provide information to this effect. The Meuse and Ems RBMPs only state that additional measures are not necessary.

In all German river basins with the exception of the Danube safeguard zones are reported to have been established for water bodies supplying drinking water; these are corresponding to the protection zones according to Art. VII (3) WFD. Three river basins – the Ems, Weser, and Meuse - mention the implementation of an additional measure to protect surface and groundwater bodies in drinking water protection areas. However, none of the plans provide information regarding the scope of the measure or the water body/bodies affected. In the Ems, while NRW mentions establishing zones and implementing additional measures, LS did not submit information to this effect.

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts and flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity and droughts are not significant problems in the German river basins with only a few exceptions. In the Elbe and the Danube RBDs there are local/sub-basin drought occurrences but these are not considered to be significant. Empirical analyses of the overall water availability in the Elbe river basin suggest that water scarcity is of no concern in the basin as a whole, although locally (especially in mining areas) surface and groundwater bodies seem to be negatively affected. The Elbe RBMP concludes that in the near future (until 2015) droughts will be of no relevance in the river basin; in the long-term, however, it could become relevant. Although in the Odra and Meuse RBDs several groundwater bodies are reported to have bad quantitative status in WISE, this is not the result of water scarcity or drought; rather, lignite mining in the region is responsible for the large-scale lowering of the groundwater level due to over-abstraction.

Also rare extreme meteorological events such as the heat wave in summer 2003, which temporarily caused low water levels in some regions, did not have any significant consequences for the general public or industry. There were no serious, lasting limitations on the water supply for industry and households; only the cooling water supply to some power plants was temporarily restricted. Quite contrary to this topic, the trend in Germany is moving towards an increase in water availability due to the decrease in consumption by industry and households.

According to the information in the plans, water scarcity and drought might become relevant in 5 river basins due to climate change after 2015 (Rhine, Ems, Weser, Odra and Meuse). Current and future drivers of water scarcity and drought issues are linked to irregular rainfall patterns in the Danube, Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Odra and Meuse. The RBMP Rhine of Saarland, Rhinland-Palatinate and Hessen do not report information on future drivers of WS&D. Although most of the German basins do not consider WS&D a significant issue, the RBMPs acknowledge that changing future hydrological regimes should be taken in account in long-term planning.

To determine the future water scarcity potential of basin, water demand and availability trends were reported in the RBMs with varying approaches:

· All the basins provide water demand trend scenarios itemised by water use.

· In the German part of the Danube, future water demand is projected using low - medium - high consumption scenarios and descriptions in qualitative terms.

· In the Rhine, the approaches per federal state is as follows: In North Rhine-Westphalia demand scenarios are based on assumptions of the future economic growth; in Rhineland-Palatine, Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria, future water demand is projected using low - medium - high consumption scenarios and descriptions in qualitative terms; in Thuringia and Saarland future water demand scenarios, are provided for agriculture and the domestic sector; and in Hessen, future water demand is provided via three different scenarios, but not itemized by water use.

· In the North Rhine-Westphalia part of the Ems and the Meuse, future water demand scenarios are based on assumptions of the future economic growth; water consumption scenarios are provided for the whole federal state are not aggregated by river basin. Lower Saxony did not report any details to this effect.

· In the Elbe, future water demand is described qualitatively, using aggregated data on population and economic growth, as well as assumptions on more efficient technologies being used.

· In the Odra, demand trend scenarios are provided itemized by sector until 2015.

· In the Eider, Schlei/Trave and Warnow, Peene, future water demand scenarios for the domestic sector and industry, without stating concrete numbers assume that water demand will be lower in the future (i.e. 2015).

· With respect to water availability trends, the Rhine, Ems, Weser, Odra, Meuse and Warnow/Peene basins provide water availability trend scenarios (not itemised by water use). No data on future water availability trend scenarios are provided in the Ems, Elbe, Eider and Schlei/Trave RBMPs as existing data are deemed too inconclusive to draw conclusions.

As all German plans indicate a low importance of water scarcity and droughts, WS&D measures have for the most part not been included in the RBMPs. The Rhine, Weser, Elbe, Eider, Schlei/Trave and Warnow/Peene river basins reported these measures as not relevant given the low pressure. In the Danube, Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg mention additional research is needed to develop concrete actions. No information was reported on the existence or not of WS&D measures in the Ems, Odra and the Meuse.

Although water scarcity and drought problems in Germany are only found at the local level, nevertheless international cooperation took place in the Danube, Rhine, Elbe and Meuse with respect to future challenges arising from climate change; coordination did not take place in the Ems as WS&D have not been identified as basin-wide problems.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods are mentioned in a number of places in the RBMP. Flood risk management is considerable concern across much of Germany in the context of climate change. Measures to reduce flood risk were identified in all the river basins with the exception of the Elbe although no explicit climate change adaptation measures are mentioned. Examples include: renaturation of wetlands, increasing water retention and the reallocation of dykes.

Flooding has been used a reason for HMWB designation in the Odra, Meuse, Danube, Rhine, Weser and Elbe. Germany is not applying article 4(6) or 4(7) at this time (except NRW, see chapter 11).

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

For the first management period up until 2015, current findings suggest that no significant impacts from climate change are anticipated, however climate change as well as adaptation is addressed in all the river basins. The following issues are mentioned in relation to adaptation to climate change:

· Climate change scenarios focusing on change in temperature and precipitation were reported in all river basins; Uncertainties related to climate change (e.g. with respect to status assessment or effects of measures) were at the same time reported.

· Impacts on water status due to climate change (Water quality and biodiversity in aquatic systems) were reported in all river basins with the exception of the Elbe.

· Impacts on coastal zones were reported in the Ems and Eider RBMPs.

· Water availability and water demand issues were reported by all the river basins with the exception of Schlei/Trave RBD.

· Water Scarcity and drought risks were reported by the Danube, the Rhine, Weser, Elbe, and Meuse (droughts only) river basin disctricts.

· Flood risks were reported with the exception of the Eider, Schlei/Trave and Warnow/Peene RBMPs.

· Vulnerability of certain sectors/water uses were reported in the Danube, Rhine, Ems, Weser, Odra, Meuse and Eider RBDs.

In addition, concrete adaptation measures were reported in all the basins with the exception of the Ems RBD. The focus is mostly on flood risks with measures included such as water retention, reallocation of dykes, revitalization of wetlands, and river restauration. Additional measures include more efficient use of water (Odra) and control of ground water abstraction (Rhine).

A climate check of the Programmes of Measures was carried out by the majority of river basins to better align the setting of objectives (with the exception of the Weser and the Meuse) and in the selection of measures (with the exception of the Danube and Weser RBDs). However the details of the methodologies to do so have not been presented. In the Danube climate change was not included due to continued uncertainties surrounding the impacts of climate change. Given the lack of clarity regarding the impacts of climate change, the comprehensive progress in scientific findings and the short monitoring period of the management plans until 2015, the German river basins intend to update the climate change related information for the next management cycle. Targeted analyses are planned for subsequent management cycles, including in particular RBD-wide analyses. The International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine against Pollution and the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube against Pollution are working on this, with Germany's active involvement.

14. recommendations

Despite some shortcomings of the RBMPs, the German plans show that considerable efforts have been made and the plans already indicate that issues will become clearer in the 2nd cycle.

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, the following recommendations are made:

· Better address each RBD individually when providing relevant information via the 'electronic' WISE templates. In addition the information in WISE and the plans should be more streamlined.

· Ensure the coordinated implementation of the Directive both at international level, as well as for the national parts of each of the RBDs. The implementation of the Directive would be coordinated across the RBDs, to ensure the achievement of the environmental objectives established under Article 4. In particular all PoMs are to be coordinated for the whole of the river basin district, including within a Member State.

· Fill existing gaps regarding lacking reference conditions.

· Provide more transparent information regarding how waters were classified in order to avoid gaps (e.g. why no transitional water bodies have been identified).

· The ecological status assessment should be completed in a coherent way for all water categories and quality elements, providing a fully transparent picture on the selection of most sensitive BQEs for pressure/impact assessment and aligning the assessment results to the intercalibration class boundaries of the EC Intercalibration Commission Decision in a transparent way.

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· Groundwater trend assessment should be carried out as soon as long (sufficiently reliable) time series are available.

· In groundwater bodies shared by different Länder, coordinated methodologies and measures should be applied. The way national guidance is used should be explained in the different RBMPs.

· Report about groundwater bodies at risk (and the related parameters) as this is an important element in the status assessment and in the programme of measures.

· The frequency of chemical monitoring should be harmonised across the "Länder"/RBMPs according to the requirements of the WFD.

· Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are indeed not the only priority substances for which monitoring in a non-water matrix (biota in these three instances) is appropriate. The requirement for trend monitoring in sediment or biota as specified for several substances in Directive 2008/105/EC Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.

· Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so that the approach to achieve the objectives is clear. All the relevant information on basic and supplementary measures should be included in the summary of the PoM to ensure transparency of the planned actions for the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in the WFD.

· A significant number of exemptions have been applied in the first cycle of RBMPs. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

· Concerning Agriculture, i) a strategy mainly built on voluntary measures will not deliver. A right balance between voluntary actions and a strong baseline of mandatory measures needs to be set up, ii) the baseline for water protection needs to be very clear so that all farmers know the rules and the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· Further harmonisation of several aspects such as methodologies, design of measures considerations, terminology, reporting formats and measurement frequencies would contribute to a more streamlined approach across RBDs and Länder.

[1]     Area includes coastal waters.

[2]     Total size not possible to determine as the Danish section is part of a larger river basin.

[3]     Total size not possible to determine as the Danish section is part of a larger river basin.

[4]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[5]     The German share of the basin is split into sections, of which multiple Länder are covered. Only the % of each section compared to the total % of the basin is mentioned in the plan.

[6]     The German share of the basin is split into sections, of which multiple Länder are covered. Only the % of each section compared to the total % of the basin is mentioned in the plan.

[7]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[8]     Depending on the international commissions and the Länder.

[9]     The federal structure of Germany defines these competencies in the German Constitution.

[10]    This differs from Land to Land.

[11]    Reference to reporting on Art. 3 (8) in 2004 for every RBD, e.g. for Danube:http://www.wasserblick.net/servlet/is/36207/ANLAGE03_DONAU_KOMPLETT.pdf?command=downloadContent&filename=ANLAGE03_DONAU_KOMPLETT.pdf For an overview of reporting see:http://www.wasserblick.net/servlet/is/3477

[12]    The C-Level Plan is available at: http://www.nlwkn.niedersachsen.de/download/25758/nds_Beitrag_zum_Bewirtschaftungsplan_Rhein.pdf

[13]    Several RBMPs explicitly mention the outcomes of public participation (e.g. NI: http://www.nlwkn.niedersachsen.de/wasserwirtschaft/egwasserrahmenrichtlinie/ergebnisse_anhoerung/45590.html; BW: http://www.um.baden-wuerttemberg.de/servlet/is/49918/

[14]    Most feedback took place during WFD advisory boards with participation of all stakeholders, not during the official public participation in accordance with Art. 14

[15]    For the individual impact of public participation see: http://www.flussgebiete.nrw.de/Dokumente/NRW/Bewirtschaftungsplan_2010_2015/Bewirtschaftungsplan/09_BP_Zusammenfassung_des_Ma__nahmenprogramms.pdf , p  9-7 and Chapter 12.

[16]    In all RBDs international commissions existed before; only in case of Meuse there has been a new treaty but a commission existed before.

[17]    No delineation of transitional water bodies was undertaken.

[18]    http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/ogewv/gesamt.pdf

[19]    After reporting the RBMPs, German authorities have provided more information about the reason for not delineating some of the transitional waters. On the basis of a common proposal of the Federal coastal States in Germany, the inner coastal waters of the Baltic Sea have uniformly been categorized as coastal waters since they are characterized by wind-driven current dynamics generic for the category coastal waters. Transitional waters are not identified. Transitional waters in terms of article 2 number 6 of Directive 2000/60/EC require an important influence by freshwater currents.

[20]    As informed by the German authorities after the RBMPs reporting (please see footnote number 19).

[21]    Transitional water bodies have not been designated in RBDs of Odra, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene. All other relevant RBDs have designated transitional water bodies.

[22]    As indicated by the German authorities after the RBMP reporting.

[23]    Water bodies for Germany have been merged since 2009 and figures may differ in comparison to this table.

[24]    http://moneris.igb-berlin.de/index.php/uba_en.html

[25]    Next RBMP cycle.

[26]    This criterion for significance ‘ a minimum flow = less than 2/3 of the mean flow discharge’ is part of the LAWA document. In addition, some Länder also applied the significance criterion ‘10% of average flow abstraction’ (e.g. see next paragraph). Comparable with 2/3 mean annual flow discharge criterion - directly referring to the abstraction.

[27]    This criterion has been frequently used for significance determination. Now many EU MS apply further assessments/habitat effect modelling as a case by case approach (e.g. before granting licences for hydropower).

[28]    If significance is determined according to the mentioned criteria, (operational) monitoring has been undertaken to assess water status (using the most indicative BQE).

[29]    German authorities have informed that significance criteria for temperature change are included in LAWA paper “Significant Pressures (2003)”.

[30]    This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[31]    The new German water act came into force after the deadline for the RBMP.

[32]    The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[33]    Reported number WISE 2009, while 290 is the reported number in a publication of the German environmental agency (2010).

[34]    The German assessment method for macrophytes and phytobenthos (PHYLIB) distinguishes between three different modules: macrophytes, phytobenthos without diatoms and with diatoms. In case one or two of these modules provide no reliable result then only the module(s) with reliable results is/are used for assessment. This specific approach (at level 3) has been handled in reporting by using the aggregated category QE1-2 - other aquatic flora.

[35]    LAWA-AO, Rahmenkonzeption Monitoring, Teil B: Bewertungsgrundlagen und Methodenbeschreibungen; Arbeitspapier II: Hintergrund- und Orientierungswerte für physikalisch-chemische Komponenten.

[36]    The term ‘chemical status’ used in this context is not consistent with the WFD meaning of ‘chemical status’.

[37]    Term used for both, other specific pollutants (QE3-3) and other national pollutants (QE3-4).

[38]    WFD Annex V 1.1.1-1.1.4 and 1.3.1-1.3.3.

[39]    No information is provided on additional ones

[40]    In the information provided to the Commission under the Pressures and Measures project it has been pointed by the German authorities that internationally coordinated monitoring will be in place

[41]  all RAKON papers available under: http://www.wasserblick.net/servlet/is/42489/

[42]    LAWA (UA GWTR), Bundesweit einheitliche Methode zur Ermittlung signifikanter und anhaltend steigender Schadstofftrends nach Artikel 5 und Anhang IV GWTR“ (Teil 3) in LAWA-Ausschuss „Grundwasser und Wasserversorgung“.

[43]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[44]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[45]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[46]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[47]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[48]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[49]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[50]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[51]    The assessment of general physico-chemical parameters cannot overrule the biological quality elements but require joint interpretation. If there are contradictory results from the assessment of biological and physico-chemical QEs, the latter may only lead to a different classification if the BQEs are affected with high uncertainties.

[52]    German authorities have informed after the RBMPs reporting that an overview about these relationships is given in the UBA research report “Further development of biological investigation procedures for consistent implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive” and will be published in the series „UBA-Texte“.

[53]          Oberflächengewässerverordnung OGewV

[54]    2008/915/EC: Commission Decision of 30 October 2008 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise (notified under document number C(2008) 6016).

[55]    Different indications are reported on non-specific pollutants regarding monitoring.

[56]    There is one deviation for Chlopyrifos (AA 0,1 instead of 0,03 and MAC 0,3 instead of 0,1). It is assumed that there is only a reporting but no technical error in the assessment/status classification.

[57]    Double counting is possible in the table if a water body fails good chemical status due to more than one substance group.

[58] See LAWA- Ausschuss Oberirdische Gewässer und Küstengewässer - Ad hoc-Unterausschuss „Wirtschaftliche Analyse“ -Gemeinsames Verständnis von Begründungen zu Fristverlängerungen nach § 25 c WHG (Art. 4 Abs. 4 WRRL)und Ausnahmen nach § 25 d Abs. 1 WHG (Art. 4 Abs. 5WRRL).

[59] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[60]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

[61]    In Germany, the LAWA working group developed a generic catalogue of measures at federal level where each measure is assigned a code. The measures are general in nature, e.g. measures to address water abstraction or measures to address diffuse pollution from agriculture. These general categories were used in the summary chapter regarding PoMs in the RBMP. The PoMs for each RBD, which have not been officially reported, define in more detail sub-measures within each general category.

[62]http://www.flussgebiete.nrw.de/Dokumente/NRW/Bewirtschaftungsplan_2010_2015/Bewirtschaftungsplan/12_BP_Information_Anh__rung_und_Beteiligung_der___ffentlichkeit____ffentlichkeitsbeteiligung.pdf

[63]    E.g. for ubiquitous substances there is none available.

[64]    This issue is the subject of infringement actions by the Commission against a number of Member States, including Germany.

[65] Information extracted from 'EC Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU'.

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin Districts

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The total area of the Czech Republic is 78866 km² and the population is 10.5 million. Manufacturing is still a major economic activity, especially the production of cars, machine tools, and engineering products. Iron and steel industries are important in Moravia in the east of the country. Arable land, other agricultural land and forests cover approximately 39%, 15% and 33% of the country area, respectively. The main crops are maize, sugar beet, potatoes, wheat, barley and rye. The territory of the Czech Republic lies in three international river basin districts (RBDs): Danube River basin, Elbe River basin and Oder River basin.

The information on areas of the national river basin districts including sharing countries is provided in the following table:

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || Countries sharing borders

CZ_1000 || Dunaj (Danube) || 21688 || AT, PL, SK

CZ_5000 || Labe (Elbe) || 49933 || AT, DE, PL

CZ_6000 || Odra (Oder) || 7246 || DE, PL

Table 1.1: Overview of the Czech Republic‘s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[1]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/cz/eu/wfdart13

The share of the CZ republic in the respective RBDs are 2.7% (Danube), 33.7% (Elbe) and 5.9% (Oder).

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing borders || Co-ordination category

1

km² || %

Danube || CZ_1000 || AT, PL, SK || 21688 || 2.7

Elbe || CZ_5000 || AT, DE, PL || 49933 || 33.7

Oder || CZ_6000 || DE, PL || 7278 || 5.9

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in the Czech Republic[2]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River Basin Management Plan reporting and compliance 2.1 Adoption of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs)

RBMPs in the Czech Republic were prepared on three levels:

A Plans – International RBMPs;

B Plans – National RBMPs;

C Plans – Sub-basin RBMPs.

As well as the National RBMPs, International RBMPs and Sub-basin RBMPs were also adopted.

International RBMPs were approved by the heads of delegations of the Danube, Elbe and Oder Commissions (Elbe, 2 October 2009; Danube, 10 December 2009; Oder, 12 March 2010).  Sub-basins plans were approved by the regional authorities (at different times up to 22 December 2009).

2.2 The main strengths and shortcomings

The main strengths of the plans are as follows:

· The content and all methodologies (including those for delineation of water bodies, characterisation, impact and pressures assessment, risk assessment, setting of monitoring programmes and status assessment) for development of RBMPs were co-ordinated at the national level.

· Main national environmental objectives have been co-ordinated within the international RBMPs.

· Public consultation has been carried out for all three levels of RBMPs and relevant comments were adopted[3] in the plans.

· Most of the significant pressures were well identified.

· Methodologies for chemical status assessment of surface waters and groundwater follow CIS Guidance documents and they were clearly explained (surface waters in C Plans only).

· Physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements were assessed for all surface water bodies.

· Lists of assessment results and planned measures for each water body (surface water and groundwater) were prepared in C Plans. All planned measures have a clear link to a specific water body.

The main shortcomings of the plan are as follows:

· Different levels of plans are not well harmonized.

· No type specific reference conditions were established for biological assessment.

· Intercalibration results were not used for assessment of any biological quality element (BQE).

· Ecological potential was not defined for rivers, only for heavily modified lakes (reservoirs).

· Assessment of the ecological status was rather simplified - only BQEs for benthic invertebrates and in some cases fish and chlorophyll-a were used.

· No relationship between BQEs and physico-chemical quality elements was indicated in the RBMPs.

· Many of the measures are only general or they are planned for the next cycle of RBMP.

· There is no clearly responsible body assigned for the implementation of some measures in the RBMPs.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

All RBMPs were reported to the Commission on 22 March 2010 and several of them (e.g. B Plans, surface water body files, protected areas files) re-submitted from April to December 2010.

Consultations according to Article 14 of the WFD were held as follows:

· Timetable and work programme:                       30/11/2006

· Significant water management issues:     30/09/2007

· Draft River basin Management Plans:     22/12/2008

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

Three different levels of plans were prepared in the Czech Republic: (i) international plans for Danube, Elbe and Oder RBDs (A Plans), co-ordinated by the respective International River Basin Commissions, (ii) national plans for the national Danube, Elbe and Oder RBDs (B Plans), co-ordinated by the Ministry of Environment, and (iii) 8 sub-basin plans (C Plans), co-ordinated by the Czech Commission of water planning.

The Czech Republic is situated within three international river basin districts. Due to the state border geography, small parts of basin districts (Danube and Oder RBDs) are located separately from the main catchment area and in the 1st plans they were subjoined to the Elbe RBD, which resulted in preparation of eight sub-basin plans (C Plans). However, the national plans (B Plans) include all relevant parts of RBDs, including these small separate areas. The Czech Republic announced that in the 2nd cycle of RBMPs 10 sub-basin plans will be prepared.

3.3 RBMPs – Structure, completeness, legal status

The structure of all three national RBMPs (B Plans) follows the structure of the international Elbe RBMP and includes mostly a brief summary of results, whereas other information can be found in sub-basin plans (C Plans).

National RBMPs refer to the relevant international plans available at:

· Danube: www.icpdr.org/participate

· Elbe: www.ikse-mkol.org

· Oder: www.mkoo.eu

The Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture are the competent authorities for WFD implementation. Among other government authorities participating in the process are the Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Health and other ministries, which have specific tasks in the field of water management imposed by the WFD and its related directives. Regional authorities are responsible for adoption of sub-basin plans.

The national approach in WFD implementation has been followed on the whole territory of the Czech Republic, no specific differences can be distinguished among RBDs or sub-basins.

The requirements of the WFD have been implemented into Czech legislation by the Act No. 254/2001 Col. on water and Amendments to Some Acts (Water Act) through the Amendment No. 150/2010 Col.

The national level RBMPs (B-level) are adopted by the Government, and the sub-basin RBMPs (C-level) are adopted by the regions.

The legal effect of the existing RBMPs from the first planning cycle was regulated. Both the existing national river basin management plans and the regional sub-basin management plans have been split into a binding part and a non-binding (recommending) part. The binding parts have been approved and published in the form of legislative acts. Specifically, the binding part of the national river basin management plan has been approved and issued in the form of a Governmental Regulation; the binding parts of the regional river basin management plans have been approved and issued in the form of Regulations of the regions´ councils. The binding parts of the aforementioned plans are binding on everybody.

The legal status of the next RBMPs seem to be subject to change, these will be sectoral plans which have the same rank as plans and programmes in other sectors such as transport or trade. They will not have the form of legislation. Thus, they will be subordinate to all types of applicable legislation.

Currently, RBMPs are background documents for the execution of the public administration, especially for land use planning and for water law procedures. Thus, the authorities involved in land use planning or in water law procedures have to take into account the existing RBMPs. The requirement “to take into account” means that the authorities do not have to comply with the RBMPs if they can provide a proper justification for not doing so; on the other hand the requirements of RBMP´s are expressed as binding assessments of water authorities, that have a legal effect on all affected procedures. RBMPs themselves do not create rights and obligations for individuals, but are binding for water and town and country planning authorities. Rights and obligations for individuals are created by individual decisions issued, modified or cancelled on the basis of the RBMPs.

The current RBMPs have a relationship with individual decisions. Existing RBMPs in the first planning cycle, the environmental objectives and PoMs are included in the binding parts of the RBMPs, and thus binding on everyone, including permitting authorities. RBMPs which are being prepared for the second planning cycle will not be formally binding. However, the environmental objectives adopted in them are materially binding on the authorities which have to apply the objectives as a minimum standard to new decisions. Besides that, they are required to review or cancel old decisions which are not in line with those objectives.

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

The strategies to involve the public into the process of development of the RBMPs (especially on sub-basin level) were started in 2005. The public had already been involved in the preparatory phase of those strategies. Consequently, the detailed action plans for the public involvement in 2006, 2007 and 2008 were carried out with the focus on public consultations.

Within the process of developing C Plans the public was consulted in three stages: (i) announcement of the timetable; (ii) announcement of the significant water management issues (SWMIs) and (iii) announcement of proposal of the C Plans. The received comments were assessed and the changes in relevant documents were made. The comments mostly addressed the proposed measures and proposals regarding new areas of surface water accumulation. Regional workshops for public and specific groups of major water users were also organized on a regular basis.

3.5 International cooperation and coordination

The Czech Republic is a signatory of the Danube, Elbe and Oder River Protection Conventions and a Contracting Party to their international commissions. The basin-wide co-operation and transboundary RBM issues are dealt with by the bilateral commissions established with the Slovak Republic, Germany, Austria and Poland. In the process of preparing and drafting the RBMPs, the data for commonly shared water bodies were harmonised (delineation of transboundary water bodies, pressures and impacts analysis results, risks of not achieving good status, economic analysis, water management problems and status of water bodies). The most important international environmental objectives were established at the level of respective international commissions and they were adopted in the national RBMPs.

4. CHARACTERISATION OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS 4.1 Water categories in the RBDs

The Czech Republic is a land-locked country so the only water categories in the basin are rivers and lakes (all lakes are heavily modified reservoirs). There are no transitional or coastal waters.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

CZ_1000 || 54 || 10 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 35 || 22 || 0 || 0

CZ_6000 || 31 || 8 || 0 || 0

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

Surface water typology has been developed for rivers and lakes using abiotic criteria (Systems A and B). According to recent information from the Czech authorities validation with the biological data was not done because there were no reliable reference conditions available at the time of the development of the RBMP. Reference conditions were set only in some cases for rivers by expert judgement and for a limited scope.

A proposal for type-specific reference conditions was developed only after the deadline set by the Commission. The typology was re-researched during the period of development of the first RBMPs and the revision has been accepted in the new Decree No. 49 as of 21 February 2011 “O vymezení útvarů povrchových vod – On designation of surface water bodies”. WFD compliant type-specific reference conditions will be used for the development of the 2nd plans.

No background document was reported or mentioned in the RBMPs except of the title of the new Decree (cf. above); the new typology was not used in the first RBMPs.

4.3 Delineation of surface water and groundwater bodies

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

CZ_1000 || 316 || 16 || 16 || 3 || 54 || 436

CZ_5000 || 615 || 19 || 47 || 4 || 99 || 570

CZ_6000 || 138 || 14 || 8 || 2 || 20 || 406

Total || 1069 || 17 || 71 || 4 || 173 || 509

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

Delineation of surface water bodies was performed for all relevant water bodies (rivers and lakes). Small water bodies (rivers with catchment area less than 10 km2 and reservoirs with area smaller than 0.5 km2) were not delineated separately and were considered to be a part of a water body in the catchment in which they are located. None of the natural lakes exceeds the above threshold of 0.5 km2. All reported lakes belong either to the category of heavily modified water bodies (HMWBs) or artificial water bodies (AWBs).

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

The pressures, which could be the reason for not achieving good status or potential, are considered as ‘provisionally’ significant. The provisionally significant pressures are results of the risk assessment and if they are validated by (i) the final identification of a heavily modified or artificial water body (water flow regulations and hydromorphological alterations) or (ii) by status/ potential assessment results (for all other pressures), they are considered as significant. This concept was applied for all RBDs in a unified manner.

Surface waters:

Review of significant pressures on surface waters in the Czech Republic includes:

· Point sources of pollution;

· Diffuse sources of pollution;

· Abstractions and water transfers;

· Flow regulation and hydromorphological alterations;

· Other pressures.

The most frequent pressures in all RBDs (source: national Plans) were water flow regulation and hydromorphological alterations; diffuse pollution sources and point pollution sources. Abstractions were not identified as a significant pressure for any of the surface water bodies.

The following point sources of pollution were considered as provisionally significant:

· All discharges (communal, industrial, IPPC and others; treated or untreated) with a volume higher than 6000 m3/year or 500 m3/month.

The following diffuse sources of pollution were considered as provisionally significant:

· Nitrogen emission loads from agriculture and atmospheric deposition;

· Phosphorus emission load from erosion;

· Pesticides from agriculture;

· Sulphur emission load from atmospheric deposition.

The nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur emission loads were calculated from statistical information and other[4] data in the model. Emission loads of pesticides were identified by expert judgement.

The following abstractions and water transfers were considered as provisionally significant:

· All abstractions (agriculture, public water supply, manufacturing, electricity cooling and quarries) with a volume higher than 6 000 m3/year or 500 m3/month;

· Water transfers (by expert judgement[5]).

The following water flow regulations and hydromorphological alterations were considered as provisionally significant:

· Reservoirs with capacity higher than 1000000 m3 or other significant reservoirs (by expert judgement);

· Barriers (dams, weirs and others) higher than 1 m;

· Locks, flood defence dams and diversions (numerical tool and expert judgement);

· Physical alterations of channels (numerical tool and expert judgement).

The following other pressures were considered as provisionally significant:

· Thermal conduits, navigations, engineering activities, dredging and others (not specified).

Groundwater:

Review of significant pressures on groundwater in the Czech Republic includes:

· Point sources of pollution;

· Diffuse sources of pollution;

· Abstractions;

· Other pressures (mostly mining).

The most frequent pressures in all RBDs (source: national B Plans) were diffuse pollution sources and point pollution sources. Abstractions were identified as a significant pressure for 26% of groundwater bodies in the Danube and 21% in the Elbe and only 5% in the Oder RBD.

The following point sources of pollution were considered as provisionally significant:

· Old contaminated sites with concentrations of hazardous substances above the limit value;

· Discharges to groundwater (based on expert judgement).

The following diffuse sources of pollution were considered as provisionally significant:

· Nitrogen emission loads from agriculture and atmospheric deposition;

· Pesticides from agriculture;

· Sulphur emission loads from atmospheric deposition;

· Emission loads from urban and industrial areas.

The nitrogen and sulphur emission loads were calculated from statistical and other data in the model. Emission loads of pesticides and emission loads from urban and industrial areas were identified by expert judgement.

The following abstractions were considered as provisionally significant:

· All abstractions (agriculture, public water supply, manufacturing, electricity cooling and quarries) with a volume higher than 6000 m3/year or 500 m3/month.

The following other pressures were considered as provisionally significant:

· Former and existing mining (based on expert judgement).

Industrial emissions (energy, metal industry, food processing industry and chemical industry) were identified in the RBMPs as the main contributing sectors to the chemical pollution by priority and hazardous substances in surface waters.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

CZ_1000 || 17 || 5.12 || 152 || 45.78 || 198 || 59.64 || 0 || 0 || 255 || 76.81 || 72 || 21.69 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 40 || 12.05

CZ_5000 || 34 || 5.14 || 295 || 44.56 || 331 || 50 || 0 || 0 || 409 || 61.78 || 139 || 21 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 116 || 17.52

CZ_6000 || 8 || 5.48 || 58 || 39.73 || 55 || 37.67 || 0 || 0 || 102 || 69.86 || 23 || 15.75 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 26 || 17.81

Total || 59 || 5.18 || 505 || 44.3 || 584 || 51.23 || 0 || 0 || 766 || 67.19 || 234 || 20.53 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 182 || 15.96

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source pollution

3 = Diffuse source pollution

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

4.5 Protected areas

The following protected areas were addressed in the RBMPs:

· Drinking Water Protected Areas;

· Bathing water areas (Directive 76/160/EEC);

· Sensitive areas and vulnerable zones;

· Natura 2000 sites designated under Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats) and Directive 79/409/EEC (Birds);

· National protected areas: small area protected areas (not including in Natura 2000 sites) and sites from Freshwater Fish Directive.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

CZ_1000 || 591 || 40 || 7 || || || 132 || || 210 || 1487 || ||

CZ_5000 || 1878 || 114 || 7 || || || 269 || || 481 || 4375 || ||

CZ_6000 || 204 || 34 || 1 || || || 38 || || 55 || 178 || ||

Total || 2673 || 188 || 15 || || || 439 || || 746 || 6040 || ||

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[6]

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring 5.1 General description of the monitoring network

Figure 5.1.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The information about monitoring networks and programmes in the national RBMPs was based on Article 8 reporting from 2007. Only the list of monitored priority hazardous substances, river basin specific pollutants and assessment referring to a rather limited use of biological monitoring data were updated in the plans.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

CZ_1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CZ_5000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CZ_6000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

CZ_1000 || 32 || 137 || 6 || 22 || 104 || 104 || 156

CZ_5000 || 67 || 528 || 16 || 41 || 38 || 38 || 49

CZ_6000 || 12 || 170 || 5 || 13 || 25 || 25 || 63

Total by type of site || 111 || 835 || 27 || 76 || 167 || 167 || 268

Total number of monitoring sites[7] || 885 || 76 || 275

Table 5.1.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category

Note: Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.2 Monitoring of surface waters

The design of monitoring programmes was carried out in accordance with WFD Article 8 on programmes for monitoring of water status.

The same design approach, methodologies and standards have been applied in all three RBDs.

Specific monitoring programmes for operational, surveillance and investigative monitoring have been set up. These monitoring programmes are based on the WFD objectives as well as on those in the national Water Law.

Surveillance and operational monitoring schemes have two specific sub-programmes – one for rivers and one for lakes (reservoirs). A priority in site selection for both types of sub-programmes is given to the existing monitoring network. The design of surveillance monitoring includes those sites which are meeting at least one of the criteria for selection of monitoring sites required by the WFD. Operational monitoring is a multi-purpose programme addressing the requirements of the WFD, those of the Czech national Water Law and also the international commitments of the Czech Republic towards the international river basin commissions.

All relevant quality elements (QEs) were being monitored within the surveillance monitoring of surface waters. Hydromorphological QEs included barriers, hydrological regime and morphology. The operational monitoring programme included monitoring of protected areas.  There was no information given in the RBMPs on how the BQEs have been selected for the operational monitoring and whether they had been selected based on certain pressures.

All priority substances and a long list of other specific pollutants were being monitored, however, the description of the process of their selection is not available[8]. Sediment and biota were monitored only within the surveillance monitoring network and international monitoring network[9]. The data have been systematically observed only since 2007 and, therefore, they could not be used for the water quality trends assessment in the sub-basin plans.

The methodology for grouping of the water bodies for monitoring has not been developed. Instead of grouping of water bodies, an indirect assessment (based on pressure data) was used in cases when monitoring data were not available.

According to the International Danube River Basin District Management Plan there is an international monitoring network for rivers in place (ICPDR TNMN). Two monitoring sites in the Czech Republic are part of the programme[10].

The international monitoring programme for the Elbe RBD was established for seven monitoring sites in the Czech Republic and two monitoring sites are part of the international monitoring programme for the Oder RBD[11].

No link was provided to background documents or detailed additional information.

5.3 Monitoring of groundwater

The groundwater monitoring network includes both chemical and quantitative monitoring. In 2007 there were 451 sites used for groundwater chemical monitoring and 671 sites for groundwater quantitative monitoring (both surveillance and operational). Surveillance and operational monitoring sites are identical and monitor the same range of parameters. It is not clear if the monitoring network can detect all existing pressures. This is especially the case for point sources of pollution.

The monitoring programme is reported to be able to detect significant and sustained upward trends in pollutants caused by anthropogenic activities.

The international monitoring programmes for the Elbe and Oder RBDs are focused on harmonisation of common monitored pollutants and limits of quantification. In the Danube RBD, as with surface waters, there is an international monitoring network for groundwater in place under the ICPDR.

The monitoring network has been changed during the last few years (new monitoring sites were established), however, no specific information was provided in the plans.

No link was provided to background documents or detailed additional information.

5.4 Monitoring of protected areas

Information was provided on drinking water protected areas.

Monitoring of drinking water protected areas is carried out in line with the Decree 428/2001 by the public water supply management companies. Some of these sites were included in the groundwater chemical monitoring network in 2008.

No data was reported to WISE on the number of monitoring sites in protected areas.

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

CZ_1000 || 212 || 0 || 0 || 37 || 17.5 || 76 || 35.8 || 99 || 46.7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 561 || 0 || 0 || 83 || 14.8 || 60 || 10.7 || 418 || 74.5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_6000 || 113 || 0 || 0 || 55 || 48.7 || 13 || 11.5 || 43 || 38.1 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 1.8

Total || 886 || 0 || 0 || 175 || 19.8 || 149 || 16.8 || 560 || 63.2 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0.2

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

CZ_1000 || 115 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 3.5 || 5 || 4.3 || 106 || 92.2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 101 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 7.9 || 0 || 0 || 89 || 88.1 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 4.0

CZ_6000 || 33 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 18.2 || 1 || 3.0 || 26 || 78.8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 249 || 0 || 0 || 18 || 7.2 || 6 || 2.4 || 221 || 88.8 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 1.6

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

CZ_1000 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 100

Total || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 100

Table 6.3: Ecological status of surface water bodies not specified as being natural, heavily modified ot artificial

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

CZ_1000 || 212 || 148 || 69.8 || 64 || 30.2 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 561 || 405 || 72.2 || 156 || 27.8 || 0 || 0

CZ_6000 || 113 || 84 || 74.3 || 27 || 23.9 || 2 || 1.8

Total || 886 || 637 || 71.9 || 247 || 27.9 || 2 || 0.2

Table 6.4: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

CZ_1000 || 115 || 77 || 67.0 || 38 || 33.0 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 101 || 70 || 69.3 || 31 || 30.7 || 0 || 0

CZ_6000 || 33 || 19 || 57.6 || 14 || 42.4 || 0 || 0

Total || 249 || 166 || 66.7 || 83 || 33.3 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

CZ_1000 || 54 || 10 || 18.5 || 44 || 81.5 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 99 || 21 || 21.2 || 78 || 78.8 || 0 || 0

CZ_6000 || 20 || 6 || 30.0 || 14 || 70.0 || 0 || 0

Total || 173 || 37 || 21.4 || 136 || 78.6 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

CZ_1000 || 54 || 39 || 72.2 || 15 || 27.8 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 99 || 57 || 57.6 || 42 || 42.4 || 0 || 0

CZ_6000 || 20 || 16 || 80 || 4 || 20 || 0 || 0

Total || 173 || 112 || 64.7 || 61 || 35.3 || 0 || 0

Table 6.7: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CZ_1000 || 332 || 28 || 8.4 || 28 || 8.4 || 0 || || || || || || || || || 90 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 662 || 74 || 11.2 || 79 || 11.9 || 0.7 || || || || || || || || || 88 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_6000 || 146 || 54 || 37.0 || 54 || 37.0 || 0 || || || || || || || || || 62 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1140 || 156 || 13.7 || 161 || 14.1 || 0.4 || || || || || || || || || 65 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[12]

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CZ_1000 || 212 || 37 || 17.5 || 37 || 17.5 || 0 || || || || || 88.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 561 || 83 || 14.8 || 88 || 15.7 || 0.9 || || || || || 86.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_6000 || 113 || 55 || 48.7 || 5 || 48.7 || 0 || || || || || 55.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 886 || 175 || 19.8 || 180 || 20.3 || 0.5 || || || || || 83.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[13]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CZ_1000 || 212 || 148 || 69.8 || 148 || 69.8 || 0 || || || || || 30.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 561 || 405 || 72.2 || 405 || 72.2 || 0 || || || || || 27.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_6000 || 113 || 84 || 74.3 || 84 || 74.3 || 0 || || || || || 23.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 886 || 637 || 71.2 || 637 || 71.2 || 0 || || || || || 27.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[14]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CZ_1000 || 54 || 10 || 18.5 || 17 || 31.5 || 13.0 || || || || || 69 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 99 || 21 || 21.2 || 27 || 27.3 || 6.1 || || || || || 74 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_6000 || 20 || 6 || 30.0 || 7 || 35.0 || 5.0 || || || || || 65 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 173 || 37 || 21.4 || 51 || 29.5 || 8.1 || || || || || 71 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[15]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CZ_1000 || 54 || 39 || 72.2 || 39 || 72.2 || 0 || || || || || 28 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 99 || 57 || 57.6 || 59 || 59.6 || 2.0 || || || || || 40 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_6000 || 20 || 16 || 80.0 || 16 || 80.0 || 0 || || || || || 20 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 173 || 112 || 64.7 || 114 || 65.9 || 1.2 || || || || || 34 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[16]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CZ_1000 || 115 || 4 || 3.5 || 4 || 3.5 || 0 || || || || || 96.5 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 101 || 8 || 7.9 || 8 || 7.9 || 0 || || || || || 94.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_6000 || 33 || 6 || 18.2 || 6 || 18.2 || 0 || || || || || 81.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 249 || 18 || 7.2 || 18 || 7.2 || 0 || || || || || 93.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[17]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

CZ_1000 || 115 || 77 || 67.0 || 77 || 67.0 || 0 || || || || || 33.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_5000 || 101 || 70 || 69.3 || 70 || 69.3 || 0 || || || || || 33.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

CZ_6000 || 33 || 19 || 57.6 || 19 || 57.6 || 0 || || || || || 42.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 249 || 166 || 66.7 || 166 || 66.7 || 0 || || || || || 33.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.14: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[18]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters 7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

There is a national approach in the Czech Republic to the ecological status assessment, which was identically applied for all three RBDs. CIS Guidance No. 13 on Classification of Ecological Status was applied for assessing the ecological status.

Biological assessment methods were not developed for the 1st cycle of plans. However, according to the 2009 WFD implementation report the assessment methods for classification of ecological status were fully developed for all BQEs. However, the Czech authorities explained that this was a misunderstanding - the submitted methodologies refer to the sampling procedure including analysis but not to assessment methods for classification of the ecological status. A simplified, non WFD compliant method of assessment of ecological status[19] (e.g. use of the saprobic index instead of benthic invertebrates assessment or chlorophyll-a instead of phytoplankton assessment) was used in the first planning cycle. An implementation of the WFD compliant methodologies is expected in the second planning period based[20] on the new accepted Decree No. 24/2011 Col. “O plánech povodí a plánech pro zvládání povodňových rizik - River Basin Management Planning and Flood Risk Management”. This new methodology is now in its final approval[21] stage.

Standards for all requested physico-chemical quality elements and hydromorphological QEs have been set in accordance with the procedure described in WFD. Because the benthic invertebrate methods for biological assessment were missing and fish monitoring results were available for around 1/10 of water bodies, the assessments of general physico-chemical QEs were used instead of benthic invertebrate results and hydromorphological QEs substituted for missing fish monitoring results.

The EQSs have been established for specific pollutants with regards to their eco-toxicity and were based on scientific research results. The data sources were research databases (Water Research Institute T.G.M. Prague and Czech Hydrometeorological Institute).

The one-out-all-out principle has been applied to derive the overall ecological status.

The required reliability of the above methodologies was not evaluated during their preparation and therefore it was only estimated for the reporting.

Intercalibration results were not used for the ecological status assessment.

Classification systems were type specific and covered all types of general physico-chemical quality elements.

The methodological document was provided by the Czech Republic later.

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

Most of the existing methods for physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements were used in the ecological status assessment. It is not clear if the methods dealing with the hydrological regime were applied (information is missing). Although the methodology document includes more than 100 specific river basin pollutants, only nitrobenzene was mentioned in the national RBMPs as a specific pollutant responsible for failure of achieving good ecological status for 11 surface water bodies (approximately 1%).

Development and use of physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements for ecological status assessment for natural rivers were WFD compliant (no other natural water categories are relevant in the Czech Republic – all lakes are heavily modified reservoirs). Due to missing reference conditions, the biological elements methods used were not WFD compliant and missing biological elements results were substituted by physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements results in most water bodies.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

CZ_1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

CZ_5000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

CZ_6000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Table 7.2.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs

8. Designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB) and assessment of Good Ecological Potential (GEP)

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

The provisional designation of HMWBs in 2007[22] resulted in the designation of 50% of water bodies as HMWBs, and less than 1% as artificial water bodies (AWBs). In the RBMPs, 245 HMWBs and four AWBs have been designated in the Czech Republic, which represent 21% and 0.4% of the total number of water bodies, respectively.

The RBMPs specify the water use for which the water body has been designated as a HMWB (navigation including port facilities, recreation, storage for drinking water supply, storage for power generation, water regulation and flood protection), and describe the kinds of physical modifications that have led to the designation of HMWBs (locks, weirs/dams/reservoirs, channelization/straightening/bed stabilisation, bank reinforcement/embankment, land reclamation/coastal modifications/ports and barriers higher than 1 m).

For designation of HMWBs a national methodological approach has been taken which mainly followed the stepwise approach of the CIS Guidance No. 4[23] (definition of substantial changes in character due to human activity, assessment of significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use or wider environment). The RBMPs do not show the uncertainty in relation to the designation of HMWB.

As informed by the Czech Republic, after the RBMPs were reported to the Commission, the Czech Republic has been working on improving the methodologies for HMWBs designation for the second planning cycle[24].

8.2 Methodology for setting GEP

The methodology is not clear and very preliminary. GEP has been defined using expert judgement but this was done only for lakes. No MEP was defined. Development of a new methodology is planned, but no details were provided. No reference was found to mitigation measures or the expected effects.

The Czech Republic is currently working on development of new methodologies for the second planning cycle[25].

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

172 (97%) out of 178 heavily modified and artificial river water bodies and 58 (82%) out of 71 reservoirs were classified as having poor or moderate ecological potential. For details, see tables in chapter 6.

The Czech methodologies for provisional and final HMWB designation in the first planning cycle are WFD compliant as they were based on CIS principles, although, they were not applied to their full extent. The assessment for good ecological potential for reservoirs was not WFD compliant, because it did not cover all BQEs; assessment of GEP for rivers was missing. These gaps will be addressed in the next planning cycle[26].

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

Good surface water chemical status means the chemical status required to meet the environmental objectives for surface waters established in WFD Article 4(1)(a), that is the chemical status achieved by a body of surface water in which concentrations of pollutants do not exceed the EQSs established in WFD Annex, and under other relevant Community legislation setting environmental quality standards at Community level.

The Directive 2008/105/EC lays down EQSs for priority substances and certain other pollutants as provided for in WFD Article 16 of Directive 2000/60/EC, with the aim of achieving good surface water chemical status.

All EQSs, except brominated diphenylether, laid down in Part A of Annex I of the Directive 2008/105/EC have been applied for the assessment of the chemical status in the Czech Republic. A proposal of the Directive 2008/105/EC as of 21 June 2007 was used for setting up the monitoring parameters, based on annual average and maximum allowable concentration values.

All priority substances pursuant to the draft (at that time) Directive 2008/105/EC were monitored at surveillance monitoring points for the assessment of chemical status of surface water bodies. Analyses of sediments and biota were not included in the chemical status assessment.

Background concentrations for heavy metals have not been set. Mixing zones were not used for chemical status assessment. There was no explanation found on how bioavailability factors of metals were considered in the assessment of compliance with EQS neither in the plans nor background documents.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

The priority substances responsible for exceedances are shown in the table below including the percentage of water bodies failing good chemical status:

CAS Number || Name of substance || % of water bodies failing good chemical status

CZ_1000 || CZ_5000 || CZ_6000

7440-43-9 || Cadmium || 10.8 || 36.0 || 21.9

7439-92-1 || Lead || 6.9 || 23.0 || 2.7

7439-97-6 || Mercury || 25.6 || 85.0 || 5.5

7440-02-0 || Nickel || 9.3 || 31.0 || 6.2

2921-88-2 || Chlorpyriphos || 0.3 || 1.0 || 0.0

34123-59-6 || Isoproturon || 0.3 || 1.0 || 0.0

608-93-5 || Pentachlorobenzene || 0.3 || 1.0 || 0.0

120-12-7 || Anthracene || 0.9 || 3.0 || 0.0

107-06-2 || 1,2-Dichloroethane || 0.6 || 2.0 || 2.1

140-66-9 || Octylphenol || 4.2 || 14.0 || 0.0

18-74-1 || Hexachlorobenzene || 0.3 || 1.0 || 0.0

191-24-2 || Benzo(g,h,i)perylene || 0.3 || 1.0 || 15.8

193-39-5 || Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene || 0.3 || 1.0 || 15.8

36643-28-4 || Tributyltin compounds || 0.9 || 3.0 || 0.0

206-44-0 || Flouranthene || 0.0 || 0.0 || 1.4

104-40-5 || Nonylphenol || 0.0 || 0.0 || 1.4

75-09-2 || Dichloromethane || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.7

Table 9.2.1: Substances causing exceedances

Source: RBMPs

Heavy metals and octylphenol are the most frequent priority substances responsible for not achieving good chemical status of surface water bodies in the Czech Republic.

The chemical status assessment was in principle compliant with the WFD following the provisions of the EQSD but more clarity is needed as to which priority substances were monitored in which water bodies, and, in the event that some substances were not analysed because they were considered as not relevant based on the pressures and impacts analysis, a respective justification should be added. Since biota were not monitored to assess chemical status, a water EQS for mercury, hexachorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene providing a level of protection equivalent to that provided by the biota EQS in the EQSD should have been derived, but there is no mention of this.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

Information on groundwater status was based on the assessment of groundwater chemical and quantitative status and trend assessment.

The groundwater body risk assessment was carried out during the characterisation in accordance with WFD Article 5. Results of the analysis were published in the 2005 Report and reported to WISE.

The RBMPs provide information that groundwater quality standards or threshold values (TVs) for 35 pollutants (e.g. nitrates, chlorides, sulphates, metals, selected pesticides and other specific pollutants) have been exceeded. Most frequently occurring pollutants causing groundwater bodies to fail to reach good chemical status are nitrates, pesticides, ammonium, aluminium and acidity. Pollutants from old contaminated sites are mainly polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), cadmium, lead, mercury, benzene and tetrachlorethylene.

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

For the assessment of groundwater quantitative status, the following WFD required criteria were applied:

· The available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long-term annual average rate of abstraction;

· There is no significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration.

The RBMPs indicate that 'available groundwater resource' has been fully applied in accordance with Article 2.27 of the WFD. A comparison of annual average groundwater abstraction against ‘available groundwater resource’ has been reported to have been calculated for every groundwater body. 33 out of 173 groundwater bodies in all RBDs failed to achieve good quantitative status because of this criterion. Quantitative status was assessed as comparison of groundwater abstraction to natural sources of groundwater in several scenarios with different abstraction demands and availability of groundwater resources. Impacts of abstractions have been considered for quantitative status assessment, for dependent terrestrial ecosystems and associated surface waters. Other possible significant pressures were taken into account as well, especially mining and geothermal boreholes in artesian aquifers.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

The relationship between chemical status of groundwater bodies and status of associated surface waters or groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTE) was taken into account in the risk assessment of groundwater bodies. Diminution of surface water chemistry and ecology and damage to GWDTE due to transfer of pollutants from groundwater body were not identified. It is anticipated that a more detailed assessment will be performed in the second RBM cycle[27].

All substances of Annex II Part B of the Groundwater Directive (GWD) have been taken into account in the establishment of groundwater threshold values. The reference values used for calculation of threshold values were derived from drinking water standards, except metals, where natural background values were used.

Where the monitoring network was not fully representative for identified significant pressures, the groundwater body was assessed as being of potential poor chemical status and the results should be verified. For WFD reporting purposes potential poor chemical status is reported as poor chemical status.

Trend assessment for groundwater pollutants has been performed based on data from 2001-2006. The assessment of the impacts of existing plumes of pollution could not be performed due to the lack of relevant data. Trend reversal (for existing significant and sustained upward trends of pollutants) was not considered in the first RBMPs, because it is planned as a tool to assess the effects of applied measures.

No transboundary groundwater bodies were identified.

10.3 Protected areas

Summary of status of groundwater Article 7 Drinking Water Protected Areas in the Czech Republic:

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

CZ_1000 || 10 || 40 ||

CZ_5000 || 16 || 72 ||

CZ_6000 || 5 || 14 ||

Total || 31 || 126 || 0

Table 10.3.1: Status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

Based on surface water body and groundwater body status assessment Czech programmes of measures were assigned to each water body leading to status improvement, to reach good status by 2015. There are various pressures causing less than good status of surface water bodies or groundwater bodies hence it was necessary to adopt more measures. The risk assessment and the efficiency of measures assessment were affected by high level of uncertainty in the first planning cycle and a lack of data, therefore, a decision was made at the national level that exemptions according to Articles 4(5) and 4(7) would not be applied in the Czech Republic and only deadline extensions according to Article 4(4) would be applied.

Impacts causing the application of exemptions according to the Article 4.4 were not mentioned in the RBMPs, though drivers or pressures were identified for groundwater exemptions, and substances or elements were identified for surface waters.

Methodology for the assessment of disproportionate costs was not relevant for the Czech Republic, because that type of exemption was not used.

A general message provided by the plans reported was that, given the large number of measures required for achieving the environmental objectives, it was not possible to complete them by the deadline set by the WFD. This was either due to a lack of technical capacities or a longer time period need to finalise related complicated legal procedures.

The main reason for exemptions according to the Article 4(4) would be technical feasibility. Natural conditions were identified as a justification of exemptions for groundwater bodies in deep hydrogeological structures.

No exemptions related to preventing or limiting input of pollutants to groundwater were mentioned in the RBMPs. Exemptions of groundwater chemical and quantitative status are extensions of the deadline (Article 4(4)) only and they are justified by the technical infeasibility and/or natural conditions for deep hydrogeological structures with slow groundwater flow and long time of recovery. The substances and pressures responsible for the exemptions are the same as for not achieving good chemical status: nitrates, pesticides (agriculture) and metals and other substances from old contaminated sites. Only the total number of groundwater bodies with exemptions was provided, without any accompanying detailed information on responsible pollutants. Exemptions according to the Article 4(6) were not applied.

National plans stated that no exemptions were applied for drinking water protected areas.

RBD || Global[28]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

CZ_1000 || 299 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

CZ_5000 || 585 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

CZ_6000 || 90 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

Total || 974 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

Table 11.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

Objectives for DWPAs have been established for main pollutants and for untreated water (surface water and groundwater) according to the Czech legislation. These objectives are not more stringent than objectives of good status for groundwater bodies (threshold values for good chemical status are the same or more stringent than drinking water standards). The situation is not clear as regards surface water bodies.

Shellfish protected areas are not relevant for the Czech Republic.

Objectives for bathing water areas have been established according to the Directive 76/160/EEC (BaD). No comparison with status objectives was provided – it is not clear if BaD objectives are more stringent than good status for surface water bodies. No parameters were mentioned in the RBMPs.

Natura 2000 sites were analysed and selection of sites at risk has been performed. Additional objectives were not mentioned in national plans. No detailed information about risk analysis was provided.

The application of exemptions was co-ordinated in a transboundary context in the Danube RBD. In the international Danube River Basin District Management Plan the exemptions applied in the different Danube countries have been put together to provide a basin wide overview.

No reference to the transboundary co-operation on the establishment of exemptions to the environmental objectives was mentioned in the Elbe and Oder RBMPs.

Use of exemptions according to Article 4(4) for surface and groundwater bodies and their justification is in line with the provision of Article 4(4) WFD, however, more details about responsible pressures and pollutants especially for surface water bodies should be provided in the next planning cycle. Also additional objectives for protected areas should be defined more precisely.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of WFD Article 4. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[29] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with WFD Article 18.

12.1 Programmes of measures – general

The programmes of measures were in line with WFD requirements based on the status assessment and identification of relevant pressures. However, if data from monitoring or methodologies for individual BQEs were not available, the measures were based on risk (pressures and impact) analysis only.

All basic measures according to WFD Articles 11.3a) and 11.3b) were reported as implemented; supplementary measures for surface waters were needed for point and diffuse sources of pollution, water flow regulations and morphological alterations of surface water, river management and other pressures. Groundwater supplementary measures were needed for all main types of pressures except artificial recharge and saltwater intrusions.

All measures were established at a water body level and an overview of measures is provided for sub-basins, national level and RBDs. The overview provides, e.g., number of WWTPs, fish by-passes, etc.  Timing of measures was indicated in three categories – short-term, middle term and long-term, mostly without mention of detailed years because of a high level of uncertainty; the timeline was provided in detail only for some measures.

Information about the proposed measures is also provided in the so-called ‘list of measures’, where each measure is described in detail in the sub-basin plans. For water bodies where specific pressures were not known (e.g. pressures responsible for exceedance of a specific pollutant’s EQS), only general measures were proposed and applied (e.g. an investigative monitoring programme).

The ‘measure applicants’, i.e. the provider responsible for the implementation of the measure including its financing, is identified for some specific measures (building and reconstruction of UWWT plants and specific hydromorphology measures), however, other type of measures are not linked to any responsible authority. This could have a negative impact on the proper application of planned measures.

The programmes of measures were co-ordinated among the Member States for all three RBDs as a part of international RBMPs and basin-wide problems were identified as a basis for national measures and adopted in the national plans.

The specific international measures for the Elbe and Oder RBDs were focused on river continuity issues (the Elbe River and its 40 tributaries were selected for river continuity measures for the Elbe International RBMP, whereas the Oder River and Luzicka Nisa River were taken for river continuity measures for the Oder International RBMP). A 24% reduction in nutrient load was settled as an international objective for the Elbe International RBMP; the Czech Republic and Germany agreed on the reduction of emission loads for selected pollutants for several profiles on the main rivers as well. Exceedance of EQS due to transboundary chemical pollution was mentioned in the Oder International RBMP, however without specific measures.

An international Joint Programme of Measures (JPM) was developed for the whole Danube RBD. The JPM is firmly based on the national programmes of measures, which shall be made operational by December 2012, and describes the expected improvements in water status by 2015. Priorities for the effective implementation of national measures on the basin-wide scale are highlighted and provide the basis for further international co-ordination. Some additional joint initiatives and measures on the basin-wide level that show transboundary character and are undertaken through the framework of the ICPDR, are presented in the JPM as well.

Cost of measures

Information on the cost of measures differs significantly between the WISE summary and RBMPs reported to the Commission and it is not possible to say which one is correct. According to recent information from the Czech authorities this can be explained by the fact that the C plans also contain flood protection measures while the costs of measures in the B plans are strictly related to the implementation of measures following from the WFD.

The numbers from national B Plans were used below. The exchange rate of 26.19 (EUR/CZK) was used for recalculation of costs in Euros.

Danube RBMP: Only total cost breakdown by basic measures (17663,4 million CZK = € 674,4 million EUR), Article 11(3)(a) measures (16775,9 million CZK = € 640,5 million) and Article 11(3)(b) and supplementary plus additional measures (117 million CZK = € 3,1 million EUR).

Elbe RBMP: Only total cost breakdown by basic measures (47 064,1 million CZK = € 1 797 million), Article 11(3)(a) measures (18320,3 million CZK = € 699,5 million) and Article 11(3)(b) and supplementary plus additional measures (529 million CZK = € 20,2 million).

Oder RBMP: Only total cost breakdown by basic measures (14899,6 million CZK = € 568,9 million), Article 11(3)(a) (8649,2 million CZK = € 330,2 million) and Article 11(3)(b) and supplementary plus additional measures (50 million CZK = € 1,9 million).

The background document “Plán hlavních povodí České republiky”, approved by the Czech government, includes a strategy on financing for the proposed programme of measures at a general level – e.g., construction of urban waste water treatment plants would be financed from the Ministry of Environment fund programme and state budget.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Diffuse sources of pollution from nitrogen and pesticides were identified as the main significant pressures from agriculture in Czech Republic. Point source pollution, over abstraction and morphological modification were not mentioned as significant pressures from agriculture; eutrophication was mentioned as an issue due to agriculture and households. Soil erosion was identified as significant, but not related to agriculture only, as it is not clear what proportion of erosion is related to the agricultural land.

Information on how the measures have been discussed with the farmers and other stakeholders, economic instruments, non-technical measures and other more detailed information may actually be part of the current Nitrates Directive implementation. This was not mentioned in the RBMPs and/or supporting documents.

Measures || CZ_1000 || CZ_5000 || CZ_6000

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü || ü || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || || ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || ü || ü

Measures against soil erosion || ü || ü || ü

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || || ||

Technical measures for water saving || || ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || ||

Nutrient trading || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü || ü || ü

Institutional changes || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || ü || ü || ü

Farm advice and training || ü || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü || ü || ü

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || || ||

Certification schemes || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || || ||

Land use planning || || ||

Technical standards || || ||

Specific projects related to agriculture || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || || ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

The reduction of fertiliser over-use is a part of the programme of measures though the measure is actually related to the action programmes under the Nitrates Directive implementation. Only general measures (reduction/modification of pesticide application) are part of the programme of measures. Technical measures against soil erosion were mentioned in the RBMPs. A commonly agreed approach for this type of issue would be necessary for the second cycle of the WFD.  It is not clear whether additional measures are planned.

All the measures are related to a specific water body, but the actual area affected by a specific measure is not specified in the PoM.

The cost of the WFD measures for agriculture was not clearly identified. Some measures contributing to the elimination of diffuse pollution were being applied with the support of the Rural Development programmes.

Timing for the implementation of the agriculture measures was not mentioned in the plans in sufficient detail. The Czech Republic provided information that these measures could not be applied at the time because they would affect the level of employment in relevant regions and would lead to high financial compensation.

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

The planned hydromorphological measures are appropriate for the identified pressures (cross profile constructions and interruptions of continuity, longitudinal profile construction and interruptions of lateral continuity, channelisation/straightening, modifications on the substrate of the river, etc.).

The expected improvements due to the hydromorphological measures are described in the RBMPs: fish ladders, habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas, removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement, reconnection of meander bends or side arms, restoration of bank structure and remeandering of formerly straightened water courses.

Hydromorphological measures were planned in some HMWBs, however a significant number of them would be postponed for the next planning cycle. Water bodies affected by hydromorphological pressures were subject to exemption according to Article 4(4) on grounds of technical feasibility due to the present insufficient preparation related, for example, to guaranteed financing and detailed project documentation.

Ecological flow regimes were not applied as a measure because they had already been implemented in current legislation and applied through the legal enforcement.

Measures || CZ_1000 || CZ_5000 || CZ_6000

Fish ladders || ü || ü || ü

Bypass channels || || ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || ü || ü

Sediment/debris management || || ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü || ü || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || ü || ü || ü

Lowering of river banks || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü || ü || ü

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || || ||

Construction of retention basins || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || ü || ü || ü

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

No specific background document has been reported.

In general, the national approach for implementation of hydromorphology measures follows the provisions of WFD Article 11(3) (i), however most of the measures will probably be applied in the next planning cycle. It was not clear, if all relevant specific pressures were identified because of missing assessment methods for BQEs.

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

In general, the national approach to implementation of measures related to groundwater follows the provisions of the WFD and the Groundwater Directive however most of them (except remediation of old contaminated sites) are rather general.

There is a clear link between identified significant pressures (based on risk assessment), status assessment results and planned measures in the RBMPs.  For every groundwater body the specific pollutants or reason of not achieving good status is mentioned with the relevant type of pressure (e.g. diffuse pollution from agriculture) and linked measures. Only for water bodies with unknown specific pressures, was more detailed monitoring or study planned.

Basic and supplementary measures (groundwater abstraction authorisation, groundwater abstraction measurement, reporting of abstracted groundwater volume for abstractions > 6000 m3/year or 500 m3/month, possibility of artificial recharge exploration, possibility to further reduce abstracted groundwater volume because of minimal groundwater level depletion; new hydrogeological exploration for better quantification of available groundwater resources) were established to tackle potential over-exploitation of groundwater.

Prohibition of direct or indirect discharges of hazardous substances and indirect discharges of non-hazardous substances to groundwater are possible only with the appropriate authorisation and remediation of old contaminated sites (especially those releasing metals) as measures to prevent and limit inputs of pollution.  The remediation is being implemented at all groundwater bodies in the vicinity of significant old contaminated sites (including groundwater bodies with good chemical status), which were identified in a need of supplementary measures.

There are no transboundary groundwater bodies in the RBDs. No international co-ordination for measures related to groundwater bodies was necessary.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

An inventory of priority substances and certain other pollutants, non-priority specific pollutants identified at the river basin level, deoxygenating substances and nutrients has been performed by evaluation of monitoring results and/or identification of relevant pressures. It has been found that urban waste waters, industrial waste waters and other point sources are contributing significantly to the chemical pollution. However, there is also a contribution from traffic and non-urban infrastructure.

General measures for industrial emissions prevention or reduction (e.g. authorisation of discharges, use of best available techniques), development or intensification of urban waste water treatment plants and measures against accidental pollution (monitoring, action plans) were included in the programmes of measures.

In any case where a link between the pollution by hazardous substance(s) and their sources is not clear (i.e. the relevant source of pollution was not found), investigative monitoring would take place before defining a specific measure.

No information about measures targeted to specific substances or groups of substances was provided.

The national approach to implementation of measures related to chemical pollution follows the provisions of WFD Article 11 (3) (g,h,k,l), but it lacks information on the specific measures and effectiveness of the planned measures.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

No definition of water services was provided. The term "water services" was used in the national plans for abstractions and discharges only. Agriculture, industry, hydropower and cooling water use were linked either to abstractions only (agriculture, hydropower, cooling) or abstractions and discharges (industry).

Significant water uses were identified as follows:

· households, industry and agriculture were identified concerning water supply and discharges;

· hydropower plants in main dams and small hydropower plants in rivers, gravel extraction from flowing and stagnant waters, navigation, flood protection, cooling water use, irrigation, fish management, fishing and recreation were mentioned as water uses in the sub-basin plans. All mentioned water uses were identified as significant pressures.

In general, the adequate contribution to cost-recovery is stated in the national plans, but it is not properly explained. In the plans, there was only a reference to the impact of water services and water use on the cost of water services identified for drinking water supply and discharges from UWWTPs. In the relation to the above, cost recovery rates were applied for drinking water supply and treatment of waste waters (public supply) only.

The cost recovery calculation includes capital, operating and maintenance costs.

Subsidies are taken into account within the cost recovery calculation.

The environmental and resource costs are not considered due to a lack of data and an appropriate methodology.

According to the RBMPs, the polluter-pays principle has been applied in the Czech Republic since 1975, however for water supply (abstraction) and treatment only[30].

It is reported that current water pricing policies provide adequate incentives for households and industry connected to the public water supply by use of water metering. The drinking water supply and urban waste water treatment fees are the same for all sectors in the Czech Republic. However incentive pricing is not reported to be introduced for other users. No significant changes except possible increasing of water supply and treatment fees are planned in future.

The costs of navigation maintenance and the water use for hydropower are not charged.

Flexibility provisions of Article 9 are applied for households, industry and agriculture. It is stated that no significant increase in fees was possible because of negative social impact to public (affordability for households). Moreover increasing drinking water supply and urban waste water treatment fees would probably lead to difficulties in production, energy industry, services and agriculture as well. Maximum planned fees would be about 2% of the household allowances. No specific information was found about international co-operation in applying Article 9. Some national co-operation concerning implementation of Article 9 among RBDs is recorded.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

All water bodies are linked to the relevant protected areas and the environmental objectives for the protected areas are defined. A risk assessment is mentioned in relation to the Natura 2000 protected areas, for other types of protected areas (except drinking water) there is only a note about requirements of other EU directives. No further explanation about the risk assessment was provided. No specific additional measures are mentioned in the RBMPs.

Measures under the Birds Directive, Habitats Directive and Bathing Water Directive are covered in the RBMPs and programmes of measures. The Shellfish Directive is not relevant in the Czech Republic. The sites from the Freshwater Fish Directive are not considered in the Czech Republic as areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species (focused on sport fishing only). However, sites from the Freshwater Fish Directive are mentioned in the plans as “national” protected areas.

Additional measures are generally mentioned only as a requirement of other directives or WFD Article 7 (Waters used for the abstraction of drinking water). No specific measures linking to good chemical or ecological status were mentioned in the RBMPs.

Safeguard zones to protect drinking water abstractions are mandatory for all public water supplies. Specific management of the safeguard zones and plans for improving of the surface water quality were reported. However, no specific measures for waters used for the abstraction of drinking water were mentioned in the RBMPs except planning of new abstractions.

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts and flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity is not explicitly stated as relevant in the RBMPs. A balance between water demands (e.g. abstraction) and water availability for current situation and the 2015 baseline scenario is included in the RBMPs. The balance results show that water use at the RBD scale is appropriate to the available sources. At a local scale, approximately a quarter (28%) of the groundwater bodies is subject to over-abstraction of water leading to groundwater bodies being in poor quantitative status.

The trend for water abstraction demand is included into the 2015 baseline scenario and itemised by surface and ground water type and households, agriculture, industry and energy/cooling use. Data for present water consumption are based on direct water consumption measurements. Projections of future water demands are based on conceptual documents: “Conception of Water Management Policy of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic for the Period after EU Accession 2004 – 2010” and “State Environmental Policy of the Czech Republic”. Present and future water availability data are represented by long-term hydrological and hydrogeological characteristics and accumulation capacity. The range of expected minimum/maximum increase in water abstraction in 2015 for water use sectors is included into the economic analysis.

RBD-wide or sub-basin/local drought periods and their hydrological characteristics are listed.

RBMPs identify water bodies where it was found appropriate to apply measures in catchment areas focused on retention improvement and accumulation capacity of the area and where the programme of measures in the RBMPs relevant to drought and water scarcity issues is being intensively discussed. Water scarcity and droughts will be part of the RBMPs in the second planning cycle.

The issue of water scarcity and droughts has been addressed in general terms in the international RBMP for the Danube RBD as a future challenge in relation to the impact of climate change.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

The issue of flood risk management was mentioned as a separate significant water management issue and some technical measures against floods (mostly new dykes) were included in the programmes of measures in the sub-basin plans, but they have not been addressed in the national RBMPs.

Flood risk management was not used as a specific reason of HMWB designation and Article 4.6 and Article 4.7 were not used for exemptions in the Czech Republic.

The issue has been addressed in general terms in the international RBMP for the Danube RBD, but without clear relation to the national plans.  Future co-ordination of river basin management with the implementation of the Floods Directive is mentioned in the plans.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

In the national RBMPs the issue of climate change was mentioned in very general terms in connection with economic analysis of water use and the programme of measures. An impact analysis of climate change was not included into the 2015 baseline scenario, detailed analyses are expected in the 2nd and 3rd planning cycles. Preparation for adaptation measures was only generally noticed among the programmes of measures, particularly in connection with flood protection.

At the national level, several studies evaluating the impact of climate change on water availability and water demand have been carried out separately from the RBMPs.

The issue of climate change has been addressed in general terms in the international RBMP for the Danube RBD, but without clear relation to the national plans. The issues referred to in relation to adaptation to climate change were as follows:

· Specific monitoring for climate change impacts;

· Analysis of variability and changes of selected hydrological and climatic elements;

· Impacts on agricultural production;

· Impacts on forest ecosystems;

· Proposal of adaptation measures in water management.

14. recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· Different levels of plans should be better harmonized and cross-referenced in the 2nd RBMP cycle.

· Type-specific reference conditions should be established for biological assessment. Intercalibration results should be used for assessment of any biological quality element (BQE).

· Assessment of the ecological status was rather simplified in the first RBMP, only BQEs for benthic invertebrates and in some cases fish and chlorophyll-a were used, elaboration of biological assessment methods needs to be improved in the 2nd RBMP cycle.

· Relationship between BQEs and physico-chemical quality elements should be established. Ecological potential should be defined for rivers.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status.  It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.  

· Links between status and responsible specific pressures should be made clear.

· The Czech methodologies for provisional and final HMWB designation in the first planning cycle were not applied to their full extent. The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process.

· Assessment of good ecological potential for reservoirs was not WFD compliant, because it did not cover all biological quality elements and GEP for rivers was missing. These gaps should be addressed in the next planning cycle.

· More clarity is needed as to which priority substances were monitored in which water bodies and in the event that some substances were not analysed because they were considered as not relevant, based on the pressures and impacts analysis, a justification should be added.

· Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived. Trend monitoring in sediment or biota for the substances specified in EQSD Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.

· More details about pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions, especially for surface water bodies, should be provided in the next planning cycle. Also additional objectives for protected areas should be elaborated in more detail.

· It is unclear whether there are new physical modifications planned in RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· The Programme of Measures should be made more specific. Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so the approach to achieve the objectives is clear and the ambition in the PoM is transparent. All the relevant information on basic and supplementary measures should be included in the summary of the PoM to ensure transparency on the planned actions for the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in the WFD.

· Responsibilities for the implementation of the measures including its financing, is identified for some specific measures (building and reconstruction of UWWT plants and specific hydromorphology measures). However, other types of measures are not linked to any responsible authority. More transparency is needed in this field.

· Some measures (especially hydromorphological ones) are planned in water bodies in good status without clear explanation.

· Regarding agriculture, the PoM should not only build on the current implementation of the Nitrates Directive but use also additional measures if needed.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resources in the Czech Republic. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farming community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately advised and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-services", for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

[1]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[2]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[3]     As stated by the Czech authorities although no detailed information has been provided.

[4]     No details provided in the information reported to the Commission.

[5]     No details provided in the information reported to the Commission.

[6]     This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[7]     The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.

[8]     This information has been pointed by the national authorities after the reporting.

[9]     This information has been pointed by the national authorities after the reporting.

[10]    No details on parameters monitored or how is complemented with national monitoring are provided.

[11]    No details on parameters monitored or how is complemented with national monitoring are provided.

[12]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[13]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[14]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[15]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[16]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[17]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[18]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[19]    This information has been provided by the national authorities after the reporting.

[20]    This information has been provided by the national authorities after the reporting.

[21]    This information has been provided by the national authorities after the reporting.

[22]    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2007_0362_en.pdf

[23]http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/gds04shmwbspolicyssummar/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[24]    This information has been pointed by the national authorities after the reporting.

[25]    This information has been provided by the national authorities after the reporting.

[26]    This information has been provided by the national authorities after the reporting.

[27]    This information has been provided by the national authorities after the reporting.

[28] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status

[29]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

[30]    No details on criteria and methodologies have been provided.

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Portugal is a republic comprised of a continental part and two autonomous regions. The total area of Portugal is 92072 km², and an economic exclusive zone of 1727408 km². The population is about 10.6 million.

RBD || Name || Size (km2) || Countries sharing RBD

PTRH1 || Minho and Lima || 2442* || ES

PTRH2 || Cavado, Ave and Leca || 3615 || -

PTRH3 || Douro || 19213* || ES

PTRH4 || Vouga, Mondego, Lis and West Rivers || 12633 || -

PTRH5 || Tagus || 30014* || ES

PTRH6 || Sado and Mira || 12147 || -

PTRH7 || Guadiana || 11613* || ES

PTRH8 || Algarve Rivers || 5509 || -

PTRH9 || Azores || 10045 || -

PTRH10 || Madeira || || -

Table 1.1: Overview of Portugal’s River Basin Districts

Note: *Area in Portuguese territory

Source: This information may be found in the general fiches for countries in http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm.

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

2

km² || %

Miño/Minho || PTRH1 (Minho-Lima) || ES || 854 || 5.0

Lima/Limia || PTRH1 (Minho-Lima) || ES || 1180 || 47.1

Duero/Douro || PTRH3 (Duoro) || ES || 18855 || 19.3

Tajo/Tejo || PTRH5 (Tejo) || ES || 15415 || 21.7

Guadiana || PTRH7 (Guadiana) || ES || 11598 || 17.3

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Portugal[1]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

Portugal has not reported RBMPs to the Commission. All the 8 RBMPs of Continental Portugal, and the RBMP of the Azores started Public Consultation in the second semester of 2011. All except Azores RBMP have concluded the consultation period. No information on the RBMP of Madeira could be found. It should be noted that no WFD Art 5 Report has been submitted by Madeira (or by Portugal as MS). However, Portuguese authorities have informed that they are working on the final revisions of the various plans in order to be able to proceed with their approval and publication in the official journal (Diario da Republica).

RBD || Period of consultation || Availability

PTRH1 || From 3 October 2011 to 3 April 2012 || Available at the website of Norte River District Authority (ARH Norte)

PTRH2 || From 3 October 2011 to 3 April 2012 || Available at the website of Norte River District Authority (ARH Norte)

PTRH3 || From 3 October 2011 to 3 April 2012 || Available at the website of Norte River District Authority (ARH Norte)

PTRH4 || From 11 October 2011 to 11 April 2012 || Available at the website of Centro River District Authority (ARH Centro)

PTRH5 || From 8 August 2011 to 8 February 2012 || Available at the website of Tejo River District Authority (ARH Tejo).

PTRH6 || From 15 July 2011 to 15 January 2012 || Available at the website of Alentejo River District Authority (ARH Alentejo)

PTRH7 || From 15 July 2011 to 15 January 2012 || Available at the website of Alentejo River District Authority (ARH Alentejo)

PTRH8 || From 26 September 2011 to 26 March 2012 || Available at the website of Algarve River District Authority (ARH Algarve).

PTRH9 || From 16 January 2012 to 16 July 2012 || Available at the website of Azores River District Authority (SRAM/DRA/AHA)

Table 2.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process.

Source: National websites

In continental Portugal the development of the RBMPs has been coordinated by 5 River Basin Districts Authorities created in 2007 and whose activities started in 2009.

These entities have been integrated under the renewed Portuguese Environment Agency (APA I.P). The organic structure of APA (Decree Law no. 56/2012, of 12 March) establishes that APA is the Portuguese Water Authority and concentrates all the functions of the 5 River Basin Districts Authorities of Continental Portugal.

The competences of the RBDA of Azores autonomous region have been approved by Regional Regulatory Decree 23/2011/A which establishes that the Competent Authority is the Regional Secretariat of Environment and the Sea.

The competences of the RBDA of Madeira autonomous region have been approved by Regional Legislative Decree 33/2008/M which establishes that the Regional Water Authority is the Regional Directorate of Environment, and that the coastal zone and safety issues (floods, safety and security related to dams) are administered by the Regional Secretariat of Social Equipment, except in ports in which the authority is the Port Administration of the Autonomous Region of Madeira.

A court ruling has been issued against Portugal by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the failure to adopt and report River Basin Management Plans for all of their respective River Basin Districts[2].  

[1]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[2] Commission vs. Portugal - C-223/11 (21.6.2012)

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin Districts

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The population of Finland is 5.38 million (ref. Eurostat 2011) and the total surface area is 370807 km2, including coastal waters.

Tornionjoki RBD is the Finnish part of the Torne river, shared with Sweden which forms part of the border between the countries, and to a smaller extent with Norway. The RBD Teno, Naatamojoki, and Paatsjoki has river basins shared both with the Russian Federation and Norway. The other eastern RBDs Kemijoki and Vuoksi share river basins with the Russian Federation.

The Åland islands(FIWDA), is an autonomous region of the Finnish republic with its own legislation related to water. There are also some differences between water management on the Mainland of Finland and Åland.

RBD || Name || Size* (km2) || Countries sharing RBD

FIVHA1 || Vuoksi || 68084 || RU

FIVHA2 || Kymijoki-Gulf of Finland || 57074 ||  -

FIVHA3 || Kokemäenjoki-Archipelago Sea-Bothnian Sea || 83357 ||  -

FIVHA4 || Oulujoki-Iijoki || 68084 || RU

FIVHA5 || Kemijoki || 54850 || RU

FIVHA6 || Tornionjoki (Finnish part) || 14587 || NO, SE

FIVHA7 || Teno-, Näätämö- and Paatsjoki (Finnish part) || 25566 || NO, RU

FIWDA || Åland islands || 9131 || -

Table 1.1: Overview of Finland’s River Basin Districts

Note : * Area includes coastal waters. Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[1]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/fi/eu/wfdart13

Finland and Sweden designated a shared international RBD for the Torne River. The international RBDs shared with Norway and the Russian Federation are not jointly designated. In some RBDs there are more than one transboundary river basin in each RBDs.

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing borders || Co-ordination category

2

km² || %

Munkelelva/Uutanjoki || FIVHA7 || NO, RU || 174 || 73.4

Kem (Viena) || FIVHA4 || RU || 1297 || 4.7

Kemijoki || FIVHA5 || RU || 49467 || 96.8

Naatamo || FIVHA7 || NO, RU || 2354 || 81.0

Oulujoki || FIVHA4 || RU || 22509 || 98.5

Pasvik/Paatsjoki || FIVHA7 || NO, RU || 14492 || 99.9

Teno/Tana || FIVHA7 || NO, RU || 5133 || 31.3

Torneälven/ Tornionjoki || FIVHA6 || NO, SE || 14587 || 36.2

Tuloma/Tuulomajoki ||  FIVHA7 || NO, RU || 3241 || 12.6

Vuoksi ||  FIVHA1 || RU || 52697 || 76.9

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Finland[2]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

All Finnish RBMPs were published on 10.12.2009, and reported to the Commission on 19.03.2010.

2.1 Main strengths

· Fairly good common structure of the RBMP's mostly following the WFD requirements. Programmes of measures give guidance for implementation, enforcement and control, and annual action plans are compiled to complement the planning hierarchy. Some plans have been developed based on smaller parts of the catchments, and in 5 RBDs there are sub-basin scale programmes of measures which are clearly summarised in the main RBMPs.

· Information on pressures and impacts is well presented. The information in corresponding chapters is complementary. Pressures are well identified, and the programme of measures have been presented by pressure and presenting the role of the relevant sectors in relation to measures. The sectorial approach used towards measures is logical. Division between basic and additional and supplementary measures is well presented.

· Public participation has been extensive. A broad group of stakeholders has been involved in the planning process. A Variety of methods have been used for the delivery, distribution and collection of information. Public hearings have been carried out three times during the planning process. The RBMPs have been published in Swedish for the Swedish audience in Finnish counties where it is relevant. In Lapland the main points of the RBMP have been presented in the  Sami languages.

· There is a good approach to considering climate change in the first cycle and a climate check has been carried out.

2.2 Main shortcomings

· When designating water bodies Finland has used system B but with larger minimum size thresholds for both rivers and lakes, that are not compliant with the WFD requirement of equivalence between system A and B. As a result, many waters are excluded from the RBMPs and only 4261 lake water bodies have been identified.

· There are inconsistencies in the information provided between chapters. Data are presented in different ways, and in places data contradict with the data provided in the WISE Summary report. In some areas information is missing, expert assessments are extensively used which lower the quality and reliability of data.

· The reporting of the monitoring activities is very poor. From the information reported there appear to be significant shortcomings in the monitoring networks. In addition to the lack of monitoring of small water bodies (see above), it is also not clear how operational monitoring has been designed to assess impacts of significant human activities and many of the quality elements have not been monitored.

· The ecological status assessments are based primarily on expert judgement rather than using WFD compliant methods, and there is a significant lack of data available for classification.

· The information provided about measures to tackle chemical pollution, in the first cycle is unclear, particularly that related to Member State specific substances which lead to a failure to reach good ecological status.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

Following the reporting of the plans on 19.3.2010, there was some re-submission of information in October and November 2010. All reported plans and information is available in Eionet:  http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/fi/eu/wfdart13

The structure and languages of the reports submitted varies between RBDs:

RBD || Type of documents reported

FIVHA1 || RBMP (FI), 8 sub-district Programmes of measures

FIVHA2 || RBMP (SW + FI versions), 9 sub-district Programmes of measures (FI)

FIVHA3 || RBMP (SW + FI versions), 25 sub-district Programmes of measures (mixed SE/FI)

FIVHA4 || RBMP, Programme of measures in 7 parts. (FI)

FIVHA5 || RBMP(FI), One Programme of measures for surface waters, one for ground waters.

FIVHA6 || RBMP(FI), One Programme of measures for surface waters, one for ground waters.

FIVHA7 || RBMP(FI), One Programme of measures for surface waters, one for ground waters.

FIWDA || RBMP in two parts, and one programme of measures in two parts. (only SW)

Table 3.1.1: RBMP documents reported by RBD

Source: RBMPs

Consultations took place at the same time in all RBDs in Finland.

Consultation stage || Mainland || Åland (end dates unclear)

Timetable, work programme etc. || 22.6.2006 - 22.12.2006 || 2.7.2006 -

Significant water management issues || 21.6.2007 - 21.12.2007 || 2.9.2007 -

Draft RBMP || 31.10.2008 - 30.4.2009 || 22.12.2008– at least to 29.9.2009

Table 3.1.2: Article 14 consultation timetable

Source: WISE

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

The Finnish mainland is divided into 7 River basin districts, of which 4 are international. Finland has a long archipelagic coastal stretch towards the Bothnian Sea and the northern Baltic Sea. No transitional water bodies have been designated. The Åland islands are situated on an island range between the Baltic Sea and the Bothnian Sea, are made up of many small islands.

The main competent authorities for the implementation of the WFD in mainland Finland are one of the Regional Environmental Centres (current name after restructuring of the Finnish environmental administration, the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment) which co-ordinates implementation in each RBD. In the four southern RBDs (FIVHA1-4) other regional centres responsible for different regions are included in their administrative areas of the RBDs, and the respective centres are responsible for the reparation of the RBMPs in their region. On Åland the regional government is the competent authority responsible for the implementation of the WFD, supported by six government departments.

There is a consistent approach taken to implementation in mainland Finland, there is less consistency between the different regions in Åland, although some national guidance documents are used in both areas. Due to the differences in demography and the intensity of economic activity between the south and north, there are significant differences between the northern and southern RBDs, particularly regarding monitoring but also in status assessment.

A reorganisation of the competent authorities took place after the RBMPs were adopted; both names of the authorities are indicated in WISE.

3.3 RBMPs - structure, completeness, legal status

The RBMPs are generally clear and it is in general easy to find information, however water body specific information is not present. All mainland RBMPs are compiled using the same structure, but the Åland RBMP is structured differently. The main differences are in amount and depth of information provided in the separate POM reports which are compiled for administrative areas rather than for the RBDs. The sub-district POM reports therefore cover issues from more than one RBD. Separate POM reports for surface waters and groundwaters are reported for  some RBDs. The approach, and level of detail included in the POMs depends on the complexity of the RBD/administrative area. The more issues and significant pressures there are the more detailed the report.

There are no international RBMPs for the 4 RBDs shared with Sweden, Norway or Finland, however there are transboundary co-operation agreements and there is on-going co-operation. 

Legal status : The Government is the adopting authority of the RBMPs, and for Åland it is the Regional government which adopts the RBMPSs. The RBMPs are adopted by administrative decisions. Such administrative decisions (in this case the decision is not a statute but an administrative decision) of the Government must be respected by public authorities. It was a political decision to make the Government the approving authority, in order to give water-related needs a balanced treatment and evaluation, and a high ranking to the RBMP. State and municipal authorities give due consideration in their operations to the water resources management plans approved by the Government, as appropriate. This means that all authorities, municipalities and other public bodies have to comply with the objectives of the management plan in their own activities (public works and related plans). There is no direct legal effect on other stakeholders.

The Water Act regulating hydromorphological changes in the water bodies and the Environmental Protection Act regulating water pollution states that an application shall indicate that the management plan has been taken into account and that the permit authority “explains” how the plan has been taken into account. According to the Environmental Protection Act when assessing the significance of environmental pollution, the permit shall take account of what is set out in a water resources management plan.  The permit rules of these two acts, however, do not refer to the objectives of the RBMP for instance as grounds for rejection of an application. The relevance of the objectives is indirect. In most cases, it seems that the RBMP serves as a source of information for the interpretation of impacts as these are relevant for the application of binding permit rules.  In practice, the RBMP mainly has an impact on permit conditions in relation to supervision, control, measurements and review of permits. The rejection of a permit has to be based on legal provisions, and never on planning instruments alone but, planning, including the RBMP, may provide information for the interpretation of the legal rules.

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

There has been a common approach towards consultation of interested parties including the public in mainland Finland, with extensive outreach activities using different forms of media.  Consultation has taken place via meetings and the internet.  Some activities have been organised together with the Ministry of Environment. The RBMP provides an overview of the public consultation methods and process used, number of replies and results. The consultations have taken place at the sub-district level which has followed administrative boundaries, so some regions have contributed to consultations for more than one RBD. There has been specific consultation with the same population in the relevant RBDs. Direct mailing has been addressed to stakeholders during the three rounds. A wide range of relevant stakeholders have been consulted.

The impact of the consultation is clearly described in the mainland RBDs, and includes changes to proposed measures or new measures. In Åland, the consultation is clearly described and it is stated that there were few changes following the consultation, changes made include clarifications, for instance, a clearer impact assessment with objectives regarding the number of farms addressed, and some new measures.

Continuous involvement is ensured through planning co-operation groups set up by each regional administration (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment). The co-ordination group is nominated for six years and is composed of a sufficient representation of authorities, business actors, civil organisations, associations and research institutions which are involved in issues dealing with water use, water protection and water quality. Owners of watercourses and private users are also represented. The composition varies to some extent in the different regions but nature conservation and fishery organisations as well as relevant interest groups are usually represented in addition to authorities.

3.5 International co-operation and co-ordination

Finland and Sweden designated an international river basin district (3.10.2003) with an interim agreement that was replaced (1.10.2010) with a more comprehensive new international agreement for the shared river basins. This is at least reflected in the Finnish RBMP.  Finland has in its national legislation designated two of its RBDs as "the Finnish part of the RBD", which has not been the case on the other side of the respective borders in the two countries also obliged to implement the Directive (SE/NO). The Oulujoki, Vuoksi and Kemijoki RBMPs are referred to as national RBMPs, although the respective catchments are shared with the Russian Federation.

Although there are no international RBMPs for any international RBD in Finland, there are international agreements and varying degrees of co-operation with neighbouring countries. There is a co-operation agreement and joint working groups with Russia, but no international RBMPs have been prepared due to the small share ( 2.9%) of the Kemijoki catchment outside Finland.

For the Torne River (Tornionjoki RBD(Finnish Part)) shared with Sweden and Norway  there is an Transboundary River Commission and a secretariat, and the function has been revised since the adoption of the WFD.

For the Teno-Näätämö-Paatsjoki shared with Norway there is also a Transboundary River Commission, The role of the Commission, joint measures, other co-operation as well as a summary of the RBMPs for each country is included in the RBMP.

3.6 Integration with other sectors

There are different national level authorities responsible for key policies and Directives, compared to the main WFD authorities at national level. The overall RBMPs work is supervised by a steering group, in which other sectorial ministries participate.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

Rivers, Lakes and Coastal waters have been designated in Finland; no transitional water bodies have been designated. Two RBDs are landlocked, discharging via the Russian Federation. Åland has also not identified any rivers, due to the small scale of the islands and hence small scale water courses.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

There is a national approach towards the typology for lakes, rivers and coastal waters. System B was used to identify the typologies. In mainland Finland biological data has been taken into consideration for setting typology of waters. The typology for surface water has been developed according to national guidelines and has been tested against physical and chemical factors, although this was not clearly described in the RBMP. The process is described in the national guidance on typology, which has been applied for typology setting and testing.

Reference conditions have been developed for all relevant surface water types on the mainland. A methodology of using a hierarchy of assessment is provided in the national guidance, in principle using all methods, since there has not been enough detailed data available at this stage of RBD planning. It is also confirmed in the report that available intercalibration results have been used in development of reference conditions.  Reference conditions have been established for coastal waters and lakes in Åland, based on guidelines from mainland Finland as well as the equivalent methodologies from Sweden.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

FIVHA1 || 10 || 13 || 0 || 0

FIVHA2 || 10 || 12 || 0 || 4

FIVHA3 || 10 || 12 || 0 || 9

FIVHA4 || 8 || 11 || 0 || 2

FIVHA5 || 10 || 11 || 0 || 2

FIVHA6 || 11 || 9 || 0 || 2

FIVHA7 || 11 || 6 || 0 || 0

FIWDA || 0 || 3 || 0 || 3

Total || 17 || 14 || 0 || 14

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

The following background reports etc. have been referred to by the Finnish authorities:

· Guidance for typology of Finnish surface waters[3];

· Guidance on ecological classification of surface waters in Finland.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

FIVHA1 || 248 || 11 || 1040 || 10 || 0 || || 0 || || 705 || 3

FIVHA2 || 267 || 12 || 850 || 8 || 0 || || 54 || 113 || 961 || 2

FIVHA3 || 281 || 18 || 482 || 7 || 0 || || 134 || 107 || 1093 || 2

FIVHA4 || 274 || 23 || 975 || 4 || 0 || || 19 || 175 || 555 || 4

FIVHA5 || 300 || 23 || 432 || 4 || 0 || || 5 || 183 || 322 || 1

FIVHA6 || 99 || 21 || 166 || 3 || 0 || || 3 || 36 || 110 || 1

FIVHA7 || 133 || 20 || 316 || 6 || 0 || || 0 || || 24 || 3

FIWDA || || || 14 || 1 || || || 61 || 128 || 34 || 0.2

Total || 1602 || 18 || 4275 || 7 || 0 || 0 || 276 || 118 || 3804 || 3

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE

Finland followed system B for setting the size thresholds for the delineation of water bodies, but has set relatively high size thresholds for the delineation of water bodies, excluding a large number of water bodies. Finnish authorities have clarified that areal coverage of waterbodies is 86 % for all Finnish lakes and about 90% for rivers and 100% for coastal waters. The general size limit for water bodies included in mainland Finland is high both for rivers (302 km, catchment area over 200 km²) and lakes (5 km² and catchment of 200 km²), compared to the WFD limits of system A of 0.5 km² for lakes and 10 km² catchments for rivers. It is stated that the size thresholds will be lowered in the next planning cycle. Whilst using system B, there should be "the same level of differentiation" as for system A, and it is not clear if Finland complies with this. It is not clear how the current size thresholds have been set to ensure the fulfilment of the WFD, i.e. if the excluded water bodies are effectively protected and how.

In Åland, water bodies are smaller, as the region is made up of 6757 smaller islands the vast majority being smaller than 0.05 km2. Lower size limits have been applied in Åland compared to the mainland, 0.5 km2 for lakes. Rivers have not been designated as no rivers have catchments larger than 10 km². A few drainage areas to artificial ditches exceeded that threshold, but have not been designated as rivers. Monitoring data for smaller lakes have also been reported to provide a better overview of the status of Ålands waters.

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

Finnish RBMPs clearly describe the impacts from different sectors in a structured way. It is however not clear from the RBMPs how the used tools relate to the specific pressure types, which criteria have been set for the significance thresholds and which the significant pressure types are. Finland has however prepared national guidelines with certain criteria for the identification of significant elements (significant pressures) deteriorating the status of surface waters, and further information on how significance has been determined for  significant pollution loads, significant morphological alterations and significant water abstractions have been provided to the Commission and presented below.

A low number of water bodies are reported to be subject to significant pressures. There is however a significant difference between the RBDs, for point and diffuse sources.

 

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

Single point sources may have been identified as significant in several water bodies. They are identified at the installation level (ID, co-ordinates), if the installation concerned was an industrial installation or urban wastewater treatment facility falling within the scope of application of the IPPC Directive. They can be other industrial installations, mine or fish-farming facilities where the share of which of the load affected by human activity on the water body concerned is considered significant. A load type was considered to be significant, if the load type concerned alone or together with other load types caused a risk that the status of a water body would be evaluated as weaker than good or good achievable status in 2015 (without any additional measures). Where several load types were identified that together caused a significant environmental pressure, all of the load types were included, even if individual load types were not significant. Deterioration in the status of a water body may be caused by more than one load type, e.g. phosphorus and humus loads together. In such cases, both the load types significant for the phosphorus load and the load types significant for the humus load were reviewed.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

FIVHA1 || 1075 || 83.46 || 47 || 3.65 || 190 || 14.75 || 0 || 0 || 41 || 3.18 || 36 || 2.8 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0.08 || 36 || 2.8

FIVHA2 || 754 || 64.39 || 69 || 5.89 || 395 || 33.73 || 0 || 0 || 48 || 4.1 || 67 || 5.72 || 8 || 0.68 || 15 || 1.28 || 157 || 13.41

FIVHA3 || 451 || 50.28 || 160 || 17.84 || 435 || 48.49 || 0 || 0 || 68 || 7.58 || 55 || 6.13 || 8 || 0.89 || 47 || 5.21 || 127 || 14.16

FIVHA4 || 1149 || 90.62 || 26 || 2.05 || 100 || 7.89 || 4 || 0.32 || 39 || 3.08 || 31 || 2.44 || 1 || 0.08 || 12 || 0.95 || 52 || 4.1

FIVHA5 || 718 || 97.42 || 6 || 0.81 || 18 || 2.44 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0.27 || 7 || 0.95 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 1.36

FIVHA6 || 252 || 94.03 || 7 || 2.61 || 16 || 5.97 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0.37 || 6 || 2.24 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 2.99

FIVHA7 || 402 || 89.53 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 47 || 10.47

FIWDA || 1 || 1.33 || 14 || 18.67 || 74 || 98.67 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 74 || 98.67

Total || 4802 || 78.04 || 329 || 5.35 || 1228 || 19.96 || 4 || 0.07 || 199 || 3.23 || 202 || 3.28 || 17 || 0.28 || 75 || 1.22 || 511 || 8.3

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Cases where abstraction of water causes the ecological status of a water body to deteriorate into weaker than good were classified as significant abstraction of water. Such a case could be, for example, a fish-farming facility with land-based ponds through which a significant quantity of the river water is run, causing the ecological status of the flowing water to deteriorate into weaker than good.

The significance of hydromorphological pressures was examined in both heavily modified water bodies and "regular" water bodies with a status evaluated as weaker than good. The determination of the hydromorphological pressures was carried out as an expert evaluation, in which it was possible to apply the criteria for the assessment of changes in the hydromorphological status and scores issued on the basis thereof.

In Åland there are few significant morphological pressures, some pressures from abstractions and a port, but the information provided is not clear regarding operational definitions of significant pressures for point and diffuse sources, water abstraction, morphological alterations and other types of pressures. The Åland authorities have indicated that more information will be provided in the next RBMPs.

Industrial emissions, waste deposition, households, agriculture, forestry and atmospheric sources all contribute to chemical pollution. Significant pressures in FIVHA2 and 3 are for instance organic phosphorus and nitrogen from agricultural and diffuse sources. There are no significant anthropogenic domestic pressures in FIVHA7, however natural causes and atmospheric conditions are mentioned.

4.5 Protected areas

The RBMPs refer to different types of protected areas, but there is an inconsistency between the WISE reporting and the plans, since only drinking water protected areas are reported there and Finland only reported changes since the last report. In some RBDs some types of protected areas were not designated (for example no bathing water or shell fish sites in Teno-, Naatamo- and Paatsjoki RBD). The overview of monitoring sites per water bodies in protected areas shows a more complete picture.

Finland is exempt from designating specific sensitive areas for the Nitrates Directive and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, since it considers the whole territory sensitive or vulnerable respectively.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates* || Shellfish || UWWT**

FIVHA1 || 306 || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA2 || 603 || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA3 || 800 || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA4 || 284 || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA5 || 196 || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA6 || 66 || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA7 || 14 || || || || || || || || || ||

FIWDA || 33 || || || || || || || || || ||

Total || 2302 || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater Notes :  This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives. * Finland has established and applies action programmes in the whole of its territory and therefore, in accordance to article 3.5 of the Nitrates Directive 1991/676/EEC, it is exempted from designation of specific vulnerable zones. ** Finland applies more stringent waste water treatment in the whole of its territory and therefore, in accordance to article 5.8 of the Urban Waste Water Directive 1991/271/EEC, it is exempted from designation of specific sensitive areas.

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

In the 2nd WFD implementation report on monitoring networks, the Commission found that there was a very low number and density of river and lake monitoring stations in Finland (89 river monitoring stations, 104 lake monitoring stations). Whilst the reported number of monitoring stations has increased for rivers and lakes since then, the reported numbers seem very low. The number of coastal monitoring stations has decreased from 118 to 100, but groundwater monitoring stations have increased slightly in number. Altogether 14.5 % of all water bodies have surveillance monitoring stations and 9.3% are subject to operational monitoring.

The following table indicates the quality elements monitored, as reported to WISE.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

FIVHA1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA3 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA4 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA5 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA6 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA7 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIWDA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

FIVHA1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA3 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA4 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA5 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA6 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIVHA7 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FIWDA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.1: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

The information provided in the RBMP on the monitoring of surface and groundwater is very limited. A large percentage of surface water bodies have been reported as having “unknown status”. This percentage is particularly high in some of the RBDs with small water bodies. The origin of this lack of information appears to be weak monitoring programmes. This is recognised in the RBMPs, which state that the monitoring programmes will be reviewed from 2012 onwards. Finnish authorities state that nearly all WFD requirements are monitored, and that in practice all water bodies subject to significant human activity are monitored. The exclusion of small water bodies without pressure (see above) means in practice that not all water bodies expected to be subject to monitoring according to the WFD have been monitored.

Although there is a national approach to monitoring (mainland) Finland the monitoring intensity is higher in the southern more densely populated areas.

The Finnish authorities have clarified a number of points regarding their monitoring networks, including the statement that there are some 5000 monitoring points, and 900 monitoring programmes. These have however not all been reported to the Commission.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

FIVHA1 || 94 || 45 || 274 || 97 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 31 || 18 || 31

FIVHA2 || 61 || 80 || 159 || 90 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 18 || 52 || 61 || 55

FIVHA3 || 29 || 32 || 54 || 40 || 0 || 0 || 28 || 39 || 31 || 110 || 43

FIVHA4 || 26 || 35 || 31 || 30 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 6 || 49 || 11 || 52

FIVHA5 || 25 || 16 || 36 || 12 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 4 || 21 || 0 || 17

FIVHA6 || 16 || 8 || 19 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 3 || 14 || 0 || 9

FIVHA7 || 22 || 4 || 20 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 0 || 3

FIWDA || 0 || 0 || 14 || 14 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 12 || 0 || 3 || 1

Total by type of site || 273 || 220 || 607 || 288 || 0 || 0 || 57 || 82 || 206 || 203 || 211

Total number of monitoring sites[4] || 398 || 771 || - || 100 || 415

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category

Surv = Surveillance  Op = Operational  Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

In surveillance monitoring the Commissions assessment of the RBMPs and the WISE reporting found that these had been designed to take into account the relevant quality elements for coastal, river and lake water bodies, however it was also found that some required quality elements are not monitored for example:

· Rivers : river continuity, morphological conditions, and in some river basin districts not macrophytes and phytobenthos;

· Lakes : morphological conditions, and in some river basin districts priority substances, other pollutants and hydrological regime;

· Coastal waters : other aquatic flora, morphological conditions, priority substances, other pollutants.

Further clarification has been provided by Finnish authorities. The tidal regime is not monitored due to its limited impact in the Baltic Sea. Finland claims that here are limited morphological changes from engineering works due to soil structure, hence no need to monitor morphological conditions. According to the Finnish authorities, operational monitoring is linked to the permitting systems for all activities (e.g. hydraulic structures) causing pressures on the environment. There is said to be extensive hydrological monitoring linked to water body regulations. Whilst phytobenthos is monitored in 291 river monitoring sites, there has been no monitoring of macrophytes. In coastal areas morphological conditions are not monitored due to limited changes (most extreme rise of land in Bothnian Bay of 8 mm/year). Coastal chlorophyll, macrozoobenthos, supportive elements and macrophytes are monitored in coastal waters. However, only one macrophyte species is used for classification, in the absence of reliable classification methods and reference values for other aquatic flora. This information has been provided by the Finnish authorities and was not included in the RBMPs.

There is no information in the RBMPs as to how the operational monitoring programme is designed to respond to the existing pressures. The operational monitoring is linked to the permitting regime. The national monitoring programmes are to be reviewed 2013-2016. This will eventually affect the operational monitoring but this might take some time before it will change the permits. There seems to be no operational monitoring of lakes in some river basin districts, such as Tornionjoki RBD and the Teno-, Naatamo- and Paatsjoki RBD, which according to the Finnish authorities is due to the lack of pressures. The operational monitoring programmes are said to cover a large range of physico-chemical parameters in coastal waters.

It seems that river basin specific pollutants are only monitored in Finland (mainland) in rivers below the discharge points, for instance for plant protection products and industrial and consumer chemicals, however not in lakes and coastal waters, where according to the FI authorities pollutants are not found due to dilution. It is not clear from the RBMPs which substances are monitored and where.

Based on the information provided in the plan, it was not possible to conclude whether all priority substances and other pollutants discharged into surface water bodies (SWBs) are monitored in all relevant water categories in Finland (mainland). As for the 41 substances, the Finnish authorities have clarified that selection for the monitoring was made on the basis of the substances that were known to end up or wash into bodies of water based on the discharge assessment. This conclusion was made based on a risk analysis and verified by water sample surveys. Only the substances identified in the surveys were selected for the monitoring. The risk analysis is said to consider the substance’s characteristics and quantities and methods of usage as well as the risk to end up in a water body (in accordance with the EU technical guidance documents).

Further information has been provided on which substances are not monitored and why (screening methods). The following information is provided for FIVHA2 to illustrate the process. PAH compounds (all substances referred to in Annex I except for volatile benzene), nonylphenols and octyphenols and ethoxylates thereof, phthalates (DEHP, and the nationally selected bhutylbenzyl phthalate and dibutyl phthalate) were monitored on a monthly basis at ten different sites in the outflow channels of large rivers and below cities in 2007–2008. The concentrations of the above substances in water did not exceed the EQS values at any of the sites. In the light of the above, it was not considered necessary to continue the monitoring during the first river basin management period or extend the monitoring to other corresponding sites. The categories of substances for which environmental quality standard level analyses (TBT, PBDE) or a procedure standard or a corresponding reliable procedure (SCCP chloroparaffins) were not available were excluded from the monitoring programme for the moment. In addition, the categories of substances not observed in the survey or pilot monitoring (chlorobenzenes, chlorinated hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons) or in the joint Nordic survey (bronopol, resorcinol), or the use of which is prohibited and the observations insignificant compared to the quality standard (old protection products such as HCH, HCB, HCBD) were also excluded. Monitoring of heavy metals (Hg, Pb, Cd, Ni, Cu, Zn, As and Cr) is performed continuously (12 times a year) at some 20 rivers flowing to the sea. The monitoring of plant protection products (> 150 different products) has been performed at approximately ten rivers every year since 2007. The monitoring frequency is based on an expert judgement: due to the winter conditions, the monitoring is focused on the period from May to October, during which two samples per month are taken in June–August and one sample per month in the other months.

Sediment and biota have not been monitored for the first RBMPs .  However the Finnish authorities have clarified that bioaccumulative substances are monitored at 20 monitoring sites and mercury is monitored in fish in 285 lakes.

There is a difference between the number of water bodies classified and those monitored, and some plans remain unclear as to whether grouping has taken place. Grouping of bodies of water for the status evaluation has been utilised only to a limited extent in surface waters in Finland (mainland). In the first river basin management planning period, the status of 58 bodies of surface water was assessed on the basis of another water body’s monitoring and status information. This is one key reason why the percentage of unclassified bodies of water of all water bodies is so large. The basis for the groupings was that the water bodies are of the same type and that their pressures are similar. This is the case for the effects of diffuse source pollution (i.e. from agriculture and forestry).

In terms of international RBDs, Finland has aimed at developing common water body status international monitoring programmes with the neighbouring countries, although no actual international RBD monitoring programmes have been developed yet.

The Åland RBMP states that the reported monitoring programme is based on a previous monitoring programme, and is not yet fulfilling WFD requirements. An extensive update is also announced to establish a compliant monitoring network. The Åland authorities have provided further information on the plans to revise the programme. Further surveillance monitoring is being carried out before the 2nd RBMPs.

As regards the reported monitoring network for Åland, operational monitoring focuses on impacts from nutrients only, although other pressures are identified as significant, such as some pesticide pollution from agriculture and pollution in the main Port of Mariehamn. There has however been no monitoring or assessment of priority substances or specific pollutants on Åland prior to 2009. No hydro-morphological quality elements are being monitored, due to the lack of a methodology. 14 lakes are stated to be monitored, and no grouping has taken place, however the monitoring is said be more extensive than reported since errors were included in the reporting. Coastal waters are grouped on the basis of the degree of salinity of coastal waters, but there is no clear explanation on how this is done. Åland authorities have clarified that work is on-going to develop a methodology of grouping for the monitoring of coastal waters.

For lakes there are more water bodies classified than monitored for national pollutants, while there are more water bodies monitored than classified for all the other quality elements (QEs). For coastal waters there are more water bodies classified than monitored for general physico-chemical QEs and national pollutants, while there are more water bodies monitored than classified for all biological QEs. Monitoring has according to the Åland authorities since the development of the first RBMP been extended to benthic fauna and macrophytes, and the chemico-physical parameters view depth, total N and total P. Lake surveillance monitoring has since the development of the first RBMP been extended to benthic fauna, macrophytes, fish, bioplankton biomass and priority substances.

Background document or national/regional guidance document : The monitoring of the status of Finnish water resources has previously been described in the document Ympäristön seuranta Suomessa 2009–2012[5].

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

Finland has reported that only 8 % of groundwater bodies are subject to chemical surveillance monitoring and 4% subject to quantitative monitoring.

Operational monitoring is primarily performed in bodies of groundwater in Finland (mainland) that have poor chemical status or for which there is no certainty that the status will remain good. It is not clear from the RBMPs how the parameters in operational groundwater monitoring are selected. The polluting substances monitored in operational monitoring are, according to the Finnish authorities, identified separately for each area on the basis of the activities causing risk for the groundwater quality or on the basis of existing monitoring results, or on the basis of trend assessment. The RBMP however acknowledges that the current monitoring is not sufficient to detect trends and additional monitoring has to be applied.

In the basic monitoring of bodies of groundwater, the possibility allowed by the WFD to group groundwater bodies was used in Finland (mainland). The grouping was based on the hydrogeological conditions of the water bodies by each river basin district separately. No significant pressures caused by human activity affect a large share of the Finnish groundwater bodies, and thus, it has been possible to generalise the results from the representative monitoring points selected within the groups to cover the groundwater status of other groundwater bodies within that group. In terms of high-risk areas and areas categorised as having poor status , grouping has not been applied. The performed grouping has been reported through the WISE system.

Finland (mainland) has implemented Article 6 of the Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC with the Government Decree on Substances Dangerous and Harmful to the Aquatic Environment (1022/2006) such that all direct and indirect inputs into groundwater of substances causing deterioration in the groundwater quality or risk thereof are prohibited. Monitoring is linked to the permits of potentially harmful activities. On the basis of the prohibition/permitting system, and the related monitoring results, it has not been possible to assess the existence of upwards trends in a sufficiently extensive and reliable way for the first RBMPs according to the Finnish authorities.

There is no operational international monitoring programme, however there are only a few transboundary waterbodies with no related significant pressures.

No groundwater operational monitoring was reported in the Åland RBMP. The monitoring is carried out by private companies and it is stated to be limited to monitoring of drinking water quality parameters. The RBMP acknowledges that current monitoring is not sufficient and additional monitoring has to be applied in the future. A new monitoring programme is said to have started in 2009, but the parameter selection for it is not clear. It includes monitoring of general parameters, but involvement of other parameters and improvements are needed to enable trend detection for the next RBMP cycles. Quantitative monitoring is said to take place in one representative point, and chemical monitoring is taking place in one representative natural source.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

There is a specific monitoring programme in place for drinking water protected areas, which covers the necessary requirements. The number of monitoring stations for protected areas have increased since the 2007 reports for Bathing waters, Habitats and Birds Directives, Fish, but has decreased for drinking water abstraction and only one monitoring station each is reported for Nitrates and Urban Waste water protected areas.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

FIVHA1 || 4 || 6 || 17 || 18 || 17 || 38 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 29

FIVHA2 || 7 || 6 || 16 || 20 || 12 || 34 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 56

FIVHA3 || 11 || 6 || 17 || 31 || 12 || 39 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 77

FIVHA4 || 1 || 1 || 10 || 9 || 3 || 18 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 37

FIVHA5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 2 || 18 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 17

FIVHA6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 0 || 25 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11

FIVHA7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 0 || 19 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6

FIWDA || 7 || 1 || 3 || 5 || 0 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3

Total || 30 || 20 || 63 || 108 || 46 || 197 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 236

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring sites in protected areas Note : For the Nitrates Directive or Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, please see table 4.5.1  .

Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level. Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

The ecological status of  natural water bodies is to a relatively large extent unknown, with up to 81.7 % of all waterbodies in a northern RBDs like  Oulujoki_Iijoki (FIVHA4). Ecolgocal potential in heavily modified water bodies are relatively better assessed, but also here the more northern RBD area subject to a higher degree of unknown status.  The chemical status assessment of surface waters is also largely unknown in most RBDs. On the contrary, both the groundwater chemical as well as quantitative status is better known.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

FIVHA1 || 1256 || 210 || 16.7 || 295 || 23.5 || 130 || 10.4 || 19 || 1.5 || 2 || 0.2 || 600 || 47.8

FIVHA2 || 1134 || 209 || 18.4 || 341 || 30.1 || 280 || 24.7 || 65 || 5.7 || 15 || 1.3 || 224 || 19.8

FIVHA3 || 824 || 54 || 6.6 || 218 || 26.5 || 247 || 30.0 || 82 || 10.0 || 29 || 3.5 || 194 || 23.5

FIVHA4 || 1236 || 31 || 2.5 || 119 || 9.6 || 64 || 5.2 || 25 || 2.0 || 2 || 0.2 || 995 || 80.5

FIVHA5 || 717 || 51 || 7.1 || 83 || 11.6 || 19 || 2.6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 564 || 78.7

FIVHA6 || 266 || 27 || 10.2 || 30 || 11.3 || 16 || 6.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 193 || 72.6

FIVHA7 || 449 || 77 || 17.1 || 5 || 1.1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 367 || 81.7

FIWDA || 75 || 8 || 10.7 || 16 || 21.3 || 35 || 46.7 || 4 || 5.3 || 2 || 2.7 || 10 || 13.3

Total || 5957 || 667 || 11.2 || 1107 || 18.6 || 791 || 13.3 || 195 || 3.3 || 50 || 0.8 || 3147 || 52.8

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

FIVHA1 || 28 || 0 || 0 || 15 || 53.6 || 10 || 35.7 || 2 || 7.1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 3.6

FIVHA2 || 17 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 29.4 || 10 || 58.8 || 2 || 11.8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || 56 || 1 || 1.8 || 5 || 8.9 || 23 || 41.1 || 20 || 35.7 || 6 || 10.7 || 1 || 1.8

FIVHA4 || 30 || 0 || 0 || 14 || 46.7 || 5 || 16.7 || 2 || 6.7 || 2 || 6.7 || 7 || 23.3

FIVHA5 || 20 || 0 || 0 || 12 || 60.0 || 1 || 5.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 35.0

FIVHA6 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50.0

FIVHA7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIWDA || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 153 || 1 || 0.7 || 52 || 34.0 || 49 || 32.0 || 26 || 17.0 || 8 || 5.2 || 17 || 11.1

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

FIVHA1 || 4 || 2 || 50.0 || 2 || 50.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA2 || 20 || 7 || 35.0 || 5 || 25.0 || 6 || 30.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 10.0

FIVHA3 || 17 || 4 || 23.5 || 7 || 41.2 || 3 || 17.6 || 1 || 5.9 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 11.8

FIVHA4 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 100

Total || 43 || 13 || 30.2 || 14 || 32.6 || 9 || 20.9 || 1 || 2.3 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 14.0

Table 6.3: Ecological status of ‘unknown’ water bodies not specified as being natural, heavily modified or artificial water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

FIVHA1 || 1256 || 1202 || 95.7 || 2 || 0.2 || 52 || 4.1

FIVHA2 || 1134 || 1060 || 93.5 || 0 || 0 || 74 || 6.5

FIVHA3 || 824 || 801 || 97.2 || 22 || 2.7 || 1 || 0.1

FIVHA4 || 1236 || 261 || 21.1 || 0 || 0 || 975 || 78.9

FIVHA5 || 717 || 160 || 22.3 || 0 || 0 || 557 || 77.7

FIVHA6 || 266 || 77 || 28.9 || 0 || 0 || 189 || 71.1

FIVHA7 || 449 || 124 || 27.6 || 0 || 0 || 325 || 72.4

FIWDA || 75 || 75 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5957 || 3760 || 63.1 || 24 || 0.4 || 2173 || 36.5

Table 6.4: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

FIVHA1 || 28 || 28 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA2 || 17 || 17 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || 56 || 45 || 80.4 || 3 || 5.4 || 8 || 14.3

FIVHA4 || 30 || 28 || 93.3 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 6.7

FIVHA5 || 20 || 17 || 85.0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 15.0

FIVHA6 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIWDA || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 153 || 137 || 89.5 || 3 || 2.0 || 13 || 5.1

Table 6.5: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

FIVHA1 || 705 || 682 || 96.7 || 10 || 1.4 || 13 || 1.8

FIVHA2 || 961 || 863 || 89.8 || 41 || 4.3 || 57 || 5.9

FIVHA3 || 1093 || 988 || 90.4 || 29 || 2.7 || 76 || 7

FIVHA4 || 555 || 484 || 87.2 || 1 || 0.2 || 70 || 12.6

FIVHA5 || 322 || 322 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA6 || 110 || 110 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA7 || 24 || 24 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIWDA || 34 || 34 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3804 || 3507 || 92.2 || 81 || 2.1 || 216 || 5.7

Table 6.6: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

FIVHA1 || 705 || 704 || 99.9 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0.1

FIVHA2 || 961 || 944 || 98.2 || 0 || 0 || 17 || 1.8

FIVHA3 || 1093 || 1043 || 95.4 || 2 || 0.2 || 48 || 4.4

FIVHA4 || 555 || 553 || 99.6 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0.4

FIVHA5 || 322 || 322 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA6 || 110 || 110 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA7 || 24 || 24 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIWDA || 34 || 34 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3804 || 3734 || 98.2 || 2 || 0.1 || 68 || 1.8

Table 6.7: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FIVHA1 || 1288 || 522 || 40.5 || 621 || 48.2 || 7.7 || || 77.8 (RW) 94.1 (LW) || || || || 78.1 (RW) 94.1 (LW) || || || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA2 || 1171 || 565 || 48.2 || 684 || 58.4 || 10.2 || || 73.7 (RW) 94.9 (LW) || || || || 95.0 (RW) 96.4 (LW) 100 (CW) || || || 22 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || 897 || 289 || 32.2 || 371 || 41.4 || 9.1 || || || || || || || || || 37 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA4 || 1268 || 164 || 12.9 || 205 || 16.2 || 3.2 || || 90.2 (RW) 99.7 (LW) 100 (CW) || || || || 100 (RW) 100 (LW) 100 (CW) || || || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA5 || 737 || 146 || 19.8 || 152 || 20.6 || 0.8 || || || || || || || || || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA6 || 268 || 58 || 21.6 || 66 || 24.6 || 3 || || || || || || || || || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA7 || 449 || 82 || 18.3 || 82 || 18.3 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIWDA || 75 || 24 || 32.0 || 24 || 32.0 || 0.0 || 35 || || 75 || || 75 || || 75 || || 68 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 6153 || 1850 || 30.1 || 2205 || 35.8 || 5.8 || || || || || || || || || 13 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.8: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[6] 

RW = river water bodies; LW = Lake water bodies; CW = Coastal water bodies

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FIVHA1 || 1256 || 505 || 40.2 || 595 || 47.4 || 7.2 || || ||   || || 4.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA2 || 1134 || 550 || 48.5 || 662 || 58.4 || 9.9 || || || || || 22.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || 824 || 272 || 33.0 || 350 || 42.5 || 9.5 || || || || || 34.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA4 || 1236 || 150 || 12.1 || 191 || 15.5 || 3.3 || || || || || 4.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA5 || 717 || 134 || 18.7 || 140 || 19.5 || 0.8 || || || || || 1.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA6 || 266 || 57 || 21.4 || 65 || 24.4 || 3.0 || || || || || 3.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA7 || 449 || 82 || 18.3 || 82 || 18.3 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIWDA || 75 || 24 || 32.0 || 24 || 32.0 || 0.0 || 35 || 43 || 75 || 100 || 68.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5957 || 1774 || 29.8 || 2109 || 35.4 || 5.6 || || || || || 12.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[7]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FIVHA1 || 1256 || 1202 || 95.7 || 1203 || 95.8 || 0.1 || || || || || 0.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA2 || 1134 || 1060 || 93.5 || 1060 || 93.5 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || 824 || 801 || 97.2 || 806 || 97.8 || 0.6 || || || || || 2.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA4 || 1236 || 261 || 21.1 || 261 || 21.1 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA5 || 717 || 160 || 22.3 || 160 || 22.3 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA6 || 266 || 77 || 28.9 || 77 || 28.9 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA7 || 449 || 124 || 27.6 || 124 || 27.6 || 0.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIWDA || 75 || 75 || 100.0 || 75 || 100.0 || 0.0 || 75 || || 75 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5957 || 3760 || 63.1 || 3766 || 63.2 || 0.1 || || || || || 0.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[8]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FIVHA1 || 705 || 682 || 96.7 || 683 || 96.9 || 0.2 || 692 || || 692 || || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA2 || 961 || 863 || 89.8 || 886 || 92.2 || 2.4 || || || || || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || 1093 || 988 || 90.4 || 1003 || 91.8 || 1.4 || 1003 || || 1017 || || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA4 || 555 || 484 || 87.2 || 484 || 87.2 || 0 || 485 || || 485 || || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA5 || 322 || 322 || 100 || 322 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA6 || 110 || 110 || 100 || 110 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA7 || 24 || 24 || 100 || 24 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIWDA || 34 || 34 || 100 || 34 || 100 || 0 || 34 || || 34 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3804 || 3507 || 92.2 || 3546 || 93.2 || 1.0 || || || || || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[9]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FIVHA1 || 705 || 704 || 99.9 || 704 || 99.9 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA2 || 961 || 944 || 98.2 || 944 || 98.2 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || 1093 || 1043 || 95.4 || 1045 || 95.6 || 0.2 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA4 || 555 || 553 || 99.6 || 553 || 99.6 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA5 || 322 || 322 || 100 || 322 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA6 || 110 || 110 || 100 || 110 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA7 || 24 || 24 || 100 || 24 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIWDA || 34 || 34 || 100 || 34 || 100 || 0 || || || 100 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3804 || 3734 || 98.2 || 3736 || 98.2 || 0.1 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[10]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FIVHA1 || 28 || 15 || 53.6 || 24 || 85.7 || 32.1 || || || || || 10.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA2 || 17 || 5 || 29.4 || 6 || 35.3 || 5.9 || || || || || 64.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || 56 || 6 || 10.7 || 7 || 12.5 || 1.8 || || || || || 85.7 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA4 || 30 || 14 || 46.7 || 16 || 53.3 || 6.7 || || || || || 23.3 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA5 || 20 || 12 || 60.0 || 12 || 60.0 || 0 || || || || || 5.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA6 || 2 || 1 || 50.0 || 1 || 50.0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIWDA || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 153 || 53 || 34.6 || 66 || 43.1 || 8.5 || || || || || 45.8 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[11]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

FIVHA1 || 28 || 28 || 100 || 28 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA2 || 17 || 17 || 100 || 17 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || 56 || 45 || 80.4 || 45 || 80.4 || 0 || || || || || 5.4 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA4 || 30 || 28 || 93.3 || 28 || 93.3 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA5 || 20 || 17 || 85.0 || 17 || 85.0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA6 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIWDA || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 153 || 137 || 89.5 || 137 || 89.5 || 0 || || || || || 2.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.14: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[12]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

There is a national approach to ecological classification. Åland has chosen to use both Finnish methodologies as well as the Swedish methodologies for the classification of coastal waters, and Finnish methods for classification of inland waters. The 2009 implementation report concluded that there was overall a good availability of methods for the assessment of ecological status. The 2009 RBMPs and WISE reporting provide some further information, but the information is limited in the RBMPs, and it is clear there are shortcomings both for mainland Finland and Åland.

A national guidance document on classification has been issued (Guidance on ecological classification of surface waters, 2009), dealing in detail with the practical aspects of classification, the biological quality elements and supportive related parameters to be assessed.  It is admitted in the RBMP that there were shortcomings and insufficiency of data in the classification for the first RBMP cycle, and that the methodology needs to be developed further for the second cycle. The first ecological classification of surface waters has been compiled in 2008 and finalized in 2009 based on criteria and principles presented in the guidance document, which describes the fundamentals of the ecological classification and its implementation during the first RBM planning cycle. Part I presents type specific criteria and basis for ecological classification in surface waters. All criteria are not ready for all water body types and quality elements, due to the lack of research. In Åland a preliminary classification was undertaken for the first RBMP, and Åland authorities have clarified that in 2011 an extended classification of coastal water was carried out.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

FIVHA1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

FIVHA2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

FIVHA3 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || * || || * || || ||

FIVHA4 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

FIVHA5 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || * || || || || ||

FIVHA6 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || * || || || || ||

FIVHA7 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

FIWDA || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || ||

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Source: RBMPs Updates provided by the Finnish Authorities 2012, are indicated with*.

There are some differences with the aggregated information reported in 2007, in that not all methods are developed for all RBDs coastal waters. The RBMPs do not include any information on assessment methods, however the national guidance document includes   information on some of the methods, which have been developed recently and have therefore not been applied during the first planning cycle.  Work is said to be on-going to develop further criteria for the next planning period. The RBMP and other documents do not indicate when remaining methods will be developed, only that some are in development.

Classification methods are missing for some biological quality elements: in rivers phytoplankton(stated not to be relevant) and macrophytes (in development), in lakes for phytobenthos (in development), in coastal waters for angiosperms (classification for tracheophyte stated not to be possible).

The guidance, provides information on assessment methods for physico-chemical quality elements. From WISE it appears that methods for physico-chemical quality elements seem to be only partially developed. According to the Finnish authorities, class boundaries are set for total nutrient total P and total N in inland and coastal waters, acidity (pH) in rivers and transparency in coastal waters. Other quality elements shall be taken into account according to the national guidance on classification.

For Åland it appears that methods were only available for nutrient and chlorophyll. In the Åland islands RBMP, there is limited information on the development of ecological assessment methods, but it has been clarified by the Åland authorities that both Swedish and Finnish guidelines and methods are applied and that further developments have taken place since the adoption of the plans. The initial classification of coastal waters was done with Chlorophyll a, and total N and total-P for lakes due to the lack of data for other quality elements.

From the RBMPs it is unclear if the biological classification system and is relevant to all pressures. Phytobenthos are said to rapidly detect major pressures (hence monitored at 291 points in rivers). Class boundaries appear to be harmonised between biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological QEs, e.g. the relationship between pressure and impact is established using an assessment matrix. The relationship between different kinds of pressures and the responses of the different quality elements is given in detail in the national guidance.

EQS for specific national pollutants are set in the same legal act as for priority substances, however it is not clear if  and if so how the EQS values for national or river basin specific pollutants have been derived. The Åland RBMP refers to mainland Finland. Surveillance monitoring/screening is on-going (2010-2013) to identify possible pollutants.

It is noted that the overall assessment in mainland Finland does not follow one-out-all-out principle. Finnish Authorities have clarified that they do not find that principle applicable and reliable, and that the following procedure is applied. The water body classification is carried out by calculating EQRs for biological elements. Then always taking account the information of the poorest classification results and following the so-called caution principle, i.e. weighting the parameters indicating the poorest status, if the results are considered reliable. The expert judgement includes the extensive co-ordinated assessment of pressures and effects when finally considering the ecological class of the water body. All the steps are fully documented in the data register. This choice seems to be linked to data shortcomings, great natural variability and the deficiency of classification criteria for the first RBMP. According to the Åland authorities, the one-out-all-out principle is followed.

Some information on the methods for assessing confidence and precision of ecological status is given in the RBMPs. The confidence and precision of the results has primarily been based on criteria, for example, of the monitoring data quality requirements for numbers of samples, sampling times and sampling methods referred to in the guideline. The confidence assessment was based on an expert assessment and national levels determined for the classification, which were as follows: (a) no actual classification decision, but expert assessment is possible, for example, on the basis of good pressure data; (b) classification is only based on water quality monitoring; (c) classification is based on restricted biological data in addition to water quality monitoring; (d) classification is based on extensive water quality and biological data. The importance of spatial variability in water bodies is mentioned in the RBMPs. Spatial variability has been taken into account in the classification in accordance with the guidelines. If there are classification results from more than one observation point within a single body of water, a separate classification has been first performed at each point. Then, the classification of the water body has been performed based on the average of all observation points.

It is unclear if classification methods have been developed for all national surface water body types.

Finland reported all class boundaries as the normalised values (0.8, 0.6, 0.4, 0.2), without giving the adjusted national class boundaries. The intercalibration results have been transposed into the national classification system within the framework of the national type system in terms of the types of which the intercalibrated EU types concern. As for other national types, the intercalibration principles have been studied and applied. The intercalibration principles have been transposed as applicable to these other national types as well. In some cases, the class boundaries of the national classification system have been further developed after the first intercalibration and before drawing up the first EU report by changing them into normalised values. Thus, the normalised class boundary corresponds to an intercalibrated class boundary in the national classification system, i.e. the intercalibration result.  The quality elements have been combined in the national classification system such that the quality element class boundaries are normalised. Where the intercalibration result concerned a sub-element of a biological quality element, the result has been transposed only into the said sub-element.

Background document or national/regional guidance document   : OH3/2009-Pintavesien ekologisen tilan luokittelu /Guidance on ecological classification of surface waters in Finland.[13]

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

Not all relevant quality elements were developed and hence not used for ecological status assessment of the monitoring sites. Expert judgement has been used to a large degree for classification. The guidance document states that the final decision on status class should be based on the integrated consideration of the classification variables, data representativeness and pressures related to human activities.

A methodology for grouping of water bodies has been developed but it is not entirely clear which criteria have been used. The methodology was partially applied for the first RBMP.  Finland has clarified that in the classification, grouping was applied primarily to isolated cases in lake water, coastal water and river water bodies. The grouping was performed such that when there was no monitoring data for a water body but the adjacent (lakes, coastal waters) or upper (rivers) water bodies met the following principles: a) they had an extensive amount of monitoring data, b) they had an obvious hydrological connection to the water body concerned on the basis of an expert assessment, and c) the pressures on the adjacent/upper water bodies were likely to be corresponding as the pressures on the water body concerned; the classification could be performed on the basis of the data concerning the adjacent/upper water bodies. In addition to the principles above, all water bodies in one grouping belonged to the same type.

Only chlorophyll a was used for classification in Åland for lakes and coastal waters. For lakes also total N and total P were used.

It is not clear from the RBMPs which river basin specific pollutants are causing exceedances and where. It appears the specific pollutants were not considered when assessing ecological status. Finnish authorities have clarified that no exceedances of national EQS were observed, and that the only national harmful substances that were observed in surveys were monitored in 2007–2008[14]:

· Phthalates (BBP and DBP):  observed at several observation site more than the observation threshold (> 1 µg/l), but the annual averages did not exceed the quality standard (10 µg/l for both substances).

· Plant protection products:  of the nationally selected the most common was MCPA (approximately in 1/3 of all samples). However, at all observation sites, the MPCA annual averages remained clearly under the quality standard threshold (1.6 µg/l).

The most sensitive biological quality elements have been selected for ecological status assessment relevant to the dominant pressures.

A precautionary approach has been taken towards classification, in view of uncertainty, whereby close to border results are classified in the worse category. While the importance of spatial variability in water bodies is mentioned, it is unclear how this has been taken into account. Expert judgement based on integrated data has been used to a large extent, but no site specific comparisons can be done. WISE reporting states actions are foreseen to reduce uncertainty. It is acknowledged in the RBMP that further work is needed. Expansion of monitoring is mentioned as an example, use of new information sources (scientific, research), remote sensing, modelling and e.g. Experimental monitoring to establish pressure from the agriculture etc.  The RBMP, the WISE summary report, the guidance documents do stress that precision of information shall increase for following planning cycles. Different activities are planned in this respect. As an example the guidance document itself is explaining that not all methods have been fully developed and the development process is continuing. Different documents refer to additional work at the EU level on intercalibration. Among measures clarification of status of the water bodies is addressed.

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential (GEP)

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

In the 2005 article 5 report[15], Finland did not provide data on the percentages of water bodies that are natural, heavily modified or artificial. In the RBMPs relatively percentages of the water bodies (designated) were designated as artificial or heavily modified. Åland has not designated any HMWB.

The RBMPs specify the water uses for which the water bodies have been designated as HMWBs, and specific uses are navigation, including ports, recreation, storage drinking water, storage power production, water regulation, flood protection and land drainage. In Finland, water bodies are primarily designated as heavily modified (90%) due to hydroelectric power production.

The RBMPs also describe the types of physical modifications which are considered in the designation of HMWB, and these are locks, weirs/dams, bed stabilisation/straightening/, dredging/channel maintenance, bank reinforcement/embankments, land reclamation, land drainage.

A national approach has been followed for the designation. The complete stepwise approach described in the HMWB Guidance n°4[16] is said to be followed. The overall approach is however unclear. Finland has not determined national criteria for the identification of significant adverse effects (Article 4(3)(a) of WFD), instead a case-by-case assessment has been carried out.  A long list of mitigation measures without significant adverse effects has been identified in order to assess GEP.

It is also not clear whether the test has been made of whether beneficial objectives served by the modifications of the HMWB can be achieved by “other means”, however the Finnish authorities state that there are no other better environmental options to hydropower, which is the main reason for heavily modified designation.

It is mentioned in the RBMPs that there is uncertainty and lack of data concerned with the designation of HMWB, but no more information is provided. The national guidance mentions that the biological assessments are still incomplete / not sufficiently reliable to assess GEP; e.g. it is mentioned that the fish assessments are distorted due to fish stocking.

In summary, the methodology is quite sound. The weak point is that the biological status assessment methods have not been completed / are not sufficiently robust and therefore expert judgement is needed to complete the assessment of GEP.

In Åland, a possible future designation of the economically very important Mariehamn port was mentioned in the plan.  The Åland authorities have clarified that the concept of HMWB had not been introduced in the legislation by the time of adoption of the RBMPs, however this has been corrected, and the issue is being carried out for the second cycle.

Background document or national/regional guidance document: Two separate reports reported dealing with the issues of HMWB-s and AWBs:

· The Finnish Ministry of Environment, The Finnish Environment 8/2006, 36 pp. The report refers to the Finnish Law on implementation of the WFD (1299/2004) with a list of activities that shall be considered while establishing HMWBs or AWBs.

· Specific issues related to the heavily modified and artificial water bodies and Hydro-morphological evaluation.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

GEP has been defined. The Prague approach (mitigation measures approach) has been used, and that all necessary steps have been applied. The methodology for setting GEP is water body specific, whereby the change in BQEs due to mitigation measures are assessed by waterbody level.  Partly the assessment is based on expert judgement. Maximum ecological potential (MEP) have not been described.

Benthic invertebrate fauna and phytoplankton was used for classification. It appears that the MEP assessment is based mainly on expert judgement but also on modelling, and according to the Finnish authorities a similar method was used as for GEP definition.  The expected improvements for each type of mitigation measure are described but it is not clear in the RBMPs which improvements are expected for each individual heavily modified water body.

RBD || Category || Natural Type || Total Count || High || High (%) || Good || Good (%) || Moderate || Moderate (%) || Poor || Poor (%) || Bad || Bad (%) || Unknown || Unknown (%) || Not applicable || Not applicable (%)

FIVHA1 || R || AWB || 4 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 50 || 2 || 50 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA1 || R || HMWB || 18 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 50 || 7 || 38.9 || 1 || 5.6 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 5.6 || 0 || 0

FIVHA1 || L || AWB || 4 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 75 || 1 || 25 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA1 || L || HMWB || 2 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 50 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA2 || R || HMWB || 14 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 35.7 || 9 || 64.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA2 || C || HMWB || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 33.3 || 2 || 66.7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || R || HMWB || 31 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 12.9 || 11 || 35.5 || 11 || 35.5 || 5 || 16.1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || L || AWB || 13 || 1 || 7.7 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 46.2 || 5 || 38.5 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 7.7 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || L || HMWB || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || C || HMWB || 8 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 12.5 || 2 || 25 || 4 || 50 || 1 || 12.5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA4 || R || HMWB || 10 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 40 || 2 || 20 || 2 || 20 || 2 || 20 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA4 || L || AWB || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 60 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 40 || 0 || 0

FIVHA4 || L || HMWB || 13 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 76.9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 23.1 || 0 || 0

FIVHA4 || C || HMWB || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0

FIVHA5 || R || HMWB || 5 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 60 || 1 || 20 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 20 || 0 || 0

FIVHA5 || L || AWB || 3 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 66.7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 33.3 || 0 || 0

FIVHA5 || L || HMWB || 12 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 58.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 41.7 || 0 || 0

FIVHA6 || R || HMWB || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0

FIVHA6 || L || HMWB || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 8.2.1: Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB

Source: WISE

Finland has designated relatively few or no HMWB or AWB in four of its RBDs.  In some RBDs the percentage of HMWB or AWBs with unknown status is rather high, but numbers are low (lakes in FIVHA6) and coastal waters in FIVHA3).

In the RBDs with the highest percentage of WB classified as heavily modified or artificial ((FIVHA1 and FIVHA3 for rivers, and FIVHA4 and 5 for lakes) the percentage (20-41,7%) of those WB where the status is unknown is relatively high.  Only 1 (7.7%) of the lakes in FIVHA3 are of high status.  34% of the HMWB/AWB are in good status, 32% in moderate status and the rest poor or bad. 11% are unknown.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

Directive 2008/105/EC was not applied in Finland (mainland) to the chemical status assessment of waters in the RBMPs reported in 2010, because under the provisions of the said Directive, it was to be transposed by 13 July 2010. There is no or limited information on chemical status assessment in the RBMPs. There are contradictions between the information reported in WISE (that show a large percentage of water bodies with unknown classification, in particular in some RBDs), and the information presented in the RBMPs (where a large proportion, or even all in several cases, of water bodies are in good status). Finnish authorities have clarified that it has so far not yet assessed the chemical status for 2188 water bodies and has completed the assessment for 3965 water bodies. Furthermore, different approaches have been applied to the assessment of chemical status at different RBDs. RBDs 1–3 have assessed the chemical status of nearly all water bodies within their region. RBDs 4–7 have only assessed the chemical status of those water bodies for which it has also been possible to assess the ecological status. In the second river basin management period, the assessment approaches between the RBDs will be harmonised.

The monitoring measurement results were utilised unofficially by comparing them to the EQS values laid down in Directive 2008/105/EC.  All EQSD substances are said to have been considered and assessed, but a number of substances have been excluded from monitoring (see above).  The chemical monitoring (and classification) in the first river basin management period was in Finland (mainland) solely based on the aqueous phase conditions because all quality standards were set for water.

Biota and sediments were not considered in the chemical status categorisation in the first river basin management period, since no national EQS was set for sediment and biota. However, Finland performs the monitoring of other harmful substances related to biota and sediments in order to identify the long-term effects of bioaccumulable substances. Bioaccumulable substances (such as uPBT: Hg, PBDE, HCB, TBT) are monitored from sediments and fish throughout Finland (some 20 monitoring sites). Survey and monitoring data on the concentration of mercury in northern pike and European perch has been gathered already for 40 years (from 285 lakes)[17]. Finland and Sweden have agreed together to use the European perch (P. fluviatilis, L.) as the indicator of mercury and organic compounds measured from biota (HCB, HCBD) in inland and coastal waters.

No information on background concentrations or bioavailability considerations has been provided.

Also in Åland the basis for the assessment of chemical status is unclear. No information on the classification of chemical status is included in the RBMP, but it is stated that an analysis of priority substance pollution is underway (following Directive 2008/105/EC). All water bodies are reported to WISE as being in good chemical status, but this does not seem to be based on monitoring. The Åland authorities have clarified that classification of chemical status will be carried out for the next cycle.

9.2 Substances causing exceedances

49 SWB (2.24%) are subject to exceedances of the EQS for heavy metals, all but one are situated in FIVH3, in 1 SWB (FIVHA1) other pollutants exceed the EQS.

There is no information reported (WISE/RBMPs) on which substances cause the failures, however Finnish authorities have clarified that the most common exceedance concerns cadmium. These exceedances are mainly in small streams.

CAS Number || Name of substances || % of water bodies failing good chemical status || Number of water bodies failing good chemical status2

36643-28-4 || Tributyltin compounds || unclear || FIVHA1*

7440-02-0 || Nickel and its compounds || unclear || FIVHA1*,  23 (FIVHA3)

7440-43-9 || Cadmium and its compounds || unclear || 25(FIVHA3),

Table 9.2.1: Specific pollutants causing exceedances of EQS

Note : * Number of WB unclear Source: RBMPs

10. Assessment of groundwater status

There is a  difference between the southern more densely populated RBDs (FIVHA1-4), and the northern RBDs (FIVHA5-7), whereby in the northern RBDs 100% of GWB are said to be in good qualitative and quantitative status with no GWB with unknown status, in the southern RBDs between 87-97% of GWBs (2-12% unknown status) are said to be in good chemical status and more than 98% in good quantitative status (0.1-4% unknown status). 

There is very general and limited information on groundwaters in the Åland RBMP. All GWBs are said to be in good status, but no monitoring has been reported.  Åland applies the Finnish methods, class boundaries and reference values for classification of groundwater.

 

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

The RBMP states that surface waters associated to groundwater and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems are considered in the groundwater status assessment linked to the permitting process (quantitative and qualitative), but it is not clear how this is done and which ecosystems are affected as details are not provided. Finnish authorities have clarified that an extensive assessment has not yet taken place due to lack of data. Finland estimates that adverse effects are low due to the conditions in the permitting system for instance for abstractions.

There is no information on the methodology used for assessing quantitative status. The balance between recharge and abstraction is assessed, and the groundwater status is good when the annual average rate of groundwater abstraction does not exceed the available groundwater resource and the groundwater levels do not decrease for permanently due to human activity.

For Åland, over-abstraction and salt water intrusion is   mentioned without any further details. The Åland authorities have provided further clarification on the problems with saltwater intrusion, including the fact that controls over boreholes have been strengthened to prevent the problems.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

Principles of a national methodology for assessing groundwater chemical status (mainland) that considers surface waters and groundwater dependent ecosystems are referred, but not in details.There is a national approach to establish threshold values where all the pollutants of GWD were considered as well as all pollutants posing a risk. In some cases Finnish values are stricter than the EU ones. A detailed list of substances is provided. Substances causing exceedances are only reported for the southern RBD, with excedances are reported for nitrates, pesticides, Annex II pollutants, arsenic, cadmium, lead, ammonium, chloride and sulphate.

For Åland, more information on the establishment of threshold values is provided, based on the Swedish Geological Survey (SGU). A long list of pollutants is considered, but RBMP states that only Nitrates and Pesticides may impact GWBs in Åland. Saltwater intrusion is a risk. Drinking water and surface water quality is considered when establishing TVs.

No groundwater dependent ecosystems exist on the Åland island.

Natural background levels were considered in mainland Finland.  Background levels were taken into consideration for metals but there is no clear information on how this was done in the Åland RBMPs.

Trend assessments were not carried out due to the monitoring time series being too short (since 2007). The Finnish approach to trend reversals is linked to the permits regime. A strict prevent and limit rule apply for operators, and there is no need to assess trends ('no need to determine points for trend reversals'). This is not in line with Article 5 of the Groundwater Directive. There is no methodology for trend assessments in the Åland RBMP, and trend reversals are only briefly mentioned.

10.3 Protected areas

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

FIVHA1 || 705 || ||

FIVHA2 || 961 || ||

FIVHA3 || 1093 || ||

FIVHA4 || 555 || ||

FIVHA5 || 322 || ||

FIVHA6 || 110 || ||

FIVHA7 || 24 || ||

FIWDA || 34 || ||

Total || 3804 || 0 || 0

Table 10.3.1: Number and status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

Source: WISE

All protected drinking water areas for drinking water protection are reported to be in good status.

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

RBD || Total no. of SWBs || Percentage of SWBs at good status || SWB exemptions (percent of all SWBs)

Now || 2015 || 2021 || 2027 || Art. 4.4 || Art. 4.5 || Art. 4.6 || Art. 4.7

FIVHA1 || 1288 || 522 || 621 || 684 || 686 || 64 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA2 || 1171 || 565 || 684 || 812 || 943 || 263 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA3 || 897 || 289 || 371 || 552 || 706 || 329 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA4 || 1268 || 164 || 205 || 249 || 262 || 47 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA5 || 737 || 146 || 152 || 165 || 166 || 14 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA6 || 268 || 58 || 66 || 74 || 74 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIVHA7 || 449 || 82 || 82 || 82 || 82 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

FIWDA || 75 || 24 || 24 || 35 || 65 || 61 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 6153 || 1850 || 2205 || 2653* || 2984* || 786 || 0 || 0 ||

Table 11.1: Objectives and exemptions for surface water bodies

Source: WISE and RBMPs * Excluding those 3170 water bodies where water status is unknown

The information about environmental objectives and exemptions are not always presented in the same way in the RBMPs. The information about environmental objectives and exemptions are not entirely clear in the RBMPs. The exemptions are given for % of lengths and areas of rivers and lakes respectively, and not in the number or Water bodies, although that has been reported to WISE. All River Basin Management Plans contain a water body based map which describes when environmental objectives are achieved (2015, 2021 or 2027).

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

It is not clear from the RBMPs if additional objectives have been set for drinking water protected areas. According to the Finnish authorities, all DW abstraction areas comply with the more stringent standards for drinking water quality without applying treatment, so there is no need for additional objectives. No additional objectives have been set for other types of protected areas. There are no shell fish protected areas designated in Finland, including Åland.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4.4 and 4.5

Article 4.4 is applied for 786 SWB and 42 GWB. There is information on how many water bodies are expected to achieve good status by 2015, 2021 or 2027 excluding 3170 water bodies where the status is unknown. Article 4.5 has not been applied.

As regards the impacts causing the extension of the deadline, the impacts and drivers are described in the RBMPs. For surface waters, high nutrient loads, large hydropower or other large scale modifications and large internal pollution loads are cited. Time lags due to the effects of measures are also mentioned. This information is provided in general terms for areas and lengths of lakes or rivers. For groundwaters, information is provided on a water body level, and the main reason given is chemical status and the time-lag between implementing measures. Drivers such as agriculture, industry, mining and transport are mentioned. In Åland, there is only overall assessment of the main drivers causing the application of exemptions due to Article 4.4. Main impacts are diffuse nutrient pollution from households and agriculture, and the impacts on climate change are considered (increased precipitation, changed ice coverage).

There is very limited information in the river basin management plans and programme of measures on assessment of disproportionate costs. It appears that measures are stated to be too costly or unreasonable without further details. The Finnish authorities have clarified that the cost-benefit analysis necessary to assess disproportionality was not possible in the first cycle due to lack of data, notably regarding benefits. Therefore disproportional costs were only used in the Kymijoki–Gulf of Finland RBD (FIVHA3), the reason of disproportionate costs was applied to the assessment of the restoration measures of polluted sediments. There is hence no information on if basic measures were considered in the calculations.

The use of the justification of "technical feasibility" is also unclear. Justifications such as "pressure is not known", "ensuring the funding of projects will take years" and administrative reasons are a cause for applying the technical feasibility argument (e.g. thorough project-level design needed, permit process will take years) have been used. One reason for the long implementation period is when the measure is linked to a regulation permit, which is permanent in nature and takes a long time to modify. Examples of projects where the solution is not clear are efficient manure processing and fish passes, another example leading to delays is historical pollution.

No further clarification on which steps are taken to ensure progressive action is given for the mainland. In Åland, measures to progressively improve the situation are presented.

In Åland disproportionate costs or technical infeasibility is not thoroughly justified. Costs are also used as arguments to support the technical feasibility exemptions (e.g. large technical infrastructure development with too high costs). One of the arguments for applying technical infeasibility is pollution originating from outside Åland, either though precipitation or due to phosphorus loads in the Baltic sea or from international maritime transport, requiring international measures.

RBD || Global[18]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

FIVHA1 || 29 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 59 || -

FIVHA2 || 225 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 239 || -

FIVHA3 || 169 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 324 || -

FIVHA4 || 46 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 37 || -

FIVHA5 || 11 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || -

FIVHA6 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || -

FIVHA7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

FIWDA || 51 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || -

Total || 539 || 0 || 5 || 0 || 668 || -

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

Article 4.6 exemptions on temporary derogations has not been applied, and there is no information on under which circumstances they would be applied.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4.7

No exemptions according to article 4.7 have been applied. Several RBMPs (FIVHA3-6) refer to new significant projects; however these projects are stated to not have a significant impact on water bodies. Article 4.7 is not applied in Åland.

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

Exemptions of Article 6.3 Groundwater Directive are used in relation to preventing or limiting the input of pollutants into groundwater and to the quantitative status of groundwater.

 

The competent authorities for technical reasons, or due to disproportionate costs, are unable to prevent or limit the input of pollutants into groundwater without increasing the risk to human health or the environment as a whole.

Pollutant || FIVHA1 || FIVHA2 || FIVHA3 || FIVHA4

1.Nitrates || ü || || ||

2. Pesticides || ü || ü || ü ||

3.1 Arsenic || ü || ü || ü ||

3.2 Cadmium || ü || || ü ||

3.3 Lead || ü || ü || ü ||

3.5 Ammonium || || || ü ||

3.6 Chloride || ü || ü || || ü

3.7 Ammonium || || ü || ||

Table 11.5.1: Number of GWBs with exemptions and responsible pollutants

Source: WISE

No information is provided on exemptions applying to drinking water protected areas. 

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11.3[19] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11.3. The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures – general

Measures to achieve chemical status and ecological status are for the mainland RBDs based on status assessment of water bodies. Measures for groundwater quantitative status are partly based on status assessment of water bodies, since some groundwater bodies are not fully assessed and in those cases the measures are based on existing information and include, for instance, measures to evaluate status. It is not clear what the basis is for Åland, however this is partly due to some measures being of international character and that the starting point was to improve the overall status rather than specific water bodies status.

There has been co-ordination with neighbouring countries in FIVHA7 (with Norway and Finland) and FIVHA6 (with Sweden) through a joint river commission. No International RBMPs have been developed. Basin wide significant water management issues were identified, but no measures. In FIVHA7 common measures between Finland and Norway were presented. In FIVHA6 common measures between Finland and Sweden were presented. Co-ordination with neighbouring countries is not considered in the other RBDs shared with Russia (FIVHA1, 4 and 5).

The scope of the application of measures is indicated in the plans, and for the mainland they are either at national, regional, RBD, sub-basin scale or the water body scale. The level is dependent on the nature of the pressures and on which organisation is responsible for the project. Each RBMP includes an extensive section on different measures, including which authority is responsible. For Åland, the measures apply at the RBD scale, and the Regional authority is mainly responsible for all measures.

The costs of the measures have been identified and broken down by sector, but not by pressure or water category. The costs are presented in two ways, as total investment costs in the period, and as annual average costs (operational, maintenance, derived annuity of investment costs). Based on River Basin Management plans, annual cost of basic measures is circa 1147500 000 €. The financial commitment for the mainland is indicated, including the annual budgets linked to “annual action plans” to be approved and when the cost is to be borne by the operators. For Åland the financial commitment is not clear. The proportion of the costs from different contributors is mentioned, but the information is not clear. The cost effectiveness of measures has been analysed partly for some sectors but not calculated for mainland Finland. Also for Åland it has been carried out for some sectors (notably agriculture and households). The documentation of the cost effectiveness for all measures is clear.

The Programme of measures is in principle operational from 2010 in mainland Finland, except for special cases. The deadline for the implementation of the measures in principle is 2015, except for when objectives cannot be reached. It appears from the RBMPs that most of measures in Åland are due to be operational only in 2013, the other in 2021, however these are the intermediate deadlines and measures are to be operational before those dates.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resource in all Finish RBDs. Pollution from nitrogen and phosphorous are mentioned as significant. In Åland, point sources for nitrate pollution are not considered significant. Pesticides from point and diffuse sources are considered significant in FIVHA 1,3,5 and 6. Other significant pressures mentioned are microbiological pollution from manure-microbes from point and diffuse sources (FIVHA2, 4 and 7), discharge of washing liquids and disinfection agents from slaughterhouses (FIVHA 4 and 7). Eutrophication due to agriculture is an issue. Hydromorphological pressures are only mentioned as significant types of pressures in FIVHA1. Abstraction is briefly mentioned as a pressure in FIVHA2.

There has been moderate involvement of farmers and other stakeholders in mainland Finland, and basic in Åland. The RBMP explains that the RBMP has been completed by the Regional Environmental Centres with an assistance of the working groups and for certain topics sub-groups have been formed. The PoMs have in their appendixes lists of those working groups attached by name and by organisation the person has been representing. The agricultural sector has been involved in the process of completion of the PoMs. There has been quite an extensive public involvement in the process of assessment of status of water bodies and discussion over draft RBMPs. It is not obvious from the RBMP and the PoMs, who has responded. There is only the total number of active approaches and responses listed.

Measures || FIVHA1 || FIVHA2 || FIVHA3 || FIVHA4 || FIVHA5 || FIVHA6 || FIVHA7 || FIWDA

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ||

Measures against soil erosion || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Technical measures for water saving || || || || || || || ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ||

Co-operative agreements || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || || || || ü || ü || ||

Nutrient trading || || || || || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || || || || || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Institutional changes || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Codes of agricultural practice || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Farm advice and training || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Certification schemes || || || || || || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Specific action plans/programmes || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Land use planning || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Technical standards || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Specific projects related to agriculture || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü

Environmental permitting and licensing || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

Technical measures have been largely adopted, apart from in FIVHA7 (small area agricultural). No water saving technical measure has been selected in any RBD. Economic instruments have mainly been applied as compensation for land cover and co-operative agreements.

The scope of application of the measures is indicated, notably the geographical scope for all RBDs, and the number of farms or sectors for most others. For a number of RBDs the RBMP information is provided as an example on following measure categories: establishment of buffer zones (hectares), restoring wetlands (number), carrying out information events (number), control of nutrients discharge (hectares), and protection of groundwater (hectares). More detailed information is in the PoMs.

For Finland the main share of the financing into environmental conservation and water management measures comes from the Rural Development Program (2007-2013). The European and National support is assumed to stay at least on the same level from 2014 onwards.  For Åland, the PoM indicates if the cost for the particular measure is 1) already in the budget, or 2) could receive possible support from the Rural Development programme. Compensation payments according to article 38 of the Rural Development Regulation have not been considered in the PoM.

In the Finnish mainland RBMP the timing of implementation of measures is not fully clear. In the case of measures related to agriculture the timing is bound also to the Rural Development Programme up to 2013. There is no measure for which specific deadlines are set.  For Åland the milestones 2013 and 2021 are set.

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

Measures related to hydromorpholgy are presented under different sectors: lake and river restoration, water-level regulation and water construction. There  information in the RBMPs is unclear as to which types of hydromorphological pressures are targeted with specifc hydromorphological(HyMo) measures. It is however indicated which HyMo measures are going to be taken. There has been no assessment on the expected effects of the proposed measures. It is mentioned in a general way that HyMo measures have been envisaged for the RBDs where HMWB are designated. There is no information on whether specific measures have been taken in order to achieve an ecologically based flow regime or a minimum flow that is not ecologically based.

The Finnish authorities (mainland) have clarified that some of the mentioned measures are in the planning phase and will be implemented in the 2nd and 3rd cycle, and not in this cycle. It has also been clarified that the implementation timetables for the measures have been specified after the adoption of the RBMPs, and that more detailed information can be found in the OIVA service (and from the Regional Centres for Economic Development (regional Competent authorities). In Åland there are no significant morphological pressures for the moment, hence no measures are being foreseen.

Measures || FIVHA1 || FIVHA2 || FIVHA3 || FIVHA4 || FIVHA5 || FIVHA6 || FIVHA7 || FIWDA

Fish ladders || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ||

Bypass channels || ü || || ü || ü || ü || || ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Sediment/debris management || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || ü || || ü || ü || || ü || ||

Lowering of river banks || ü || || || || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || ü || || || ü || || ü || ||

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ü || || ü || ü || || ü || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || ü || || ü || ü || || ü || ||

Inundation of flood plains || ü || || ü || ü || || || ||

Construction of retention basins || ü || || ü || ü || || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || ü || || ü || ü || || ü || ü ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || ü || || ü || ü || || || ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

The pressures, the GWBs at risk and the measures are addressed by sectors. In 3 RBDs (FIVHA1-3) requirements from groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems haven been considered in Natura 2000 areas and are taken into account in the definition of the required measures. There is little information on groundwater status and measures in the Åland RBMP, but it is stated that work is underway to improve the knowledge base.

Quantitative status is not an issue in most Finnish RBDs, and basic measures (other than abstractions controlled by permits) are only referred to in FIVHA3 (where 2 GWB are at risk due to abstraction for peat mining) and in the Åland islands, where over abstraction and saltwater intrusion are cited as issues. Permits are however applied all over Finland. No supplementary measures are proposed, however the situation is unclear for Åland. Åland authorities have clarified that controls have been strengthened after the adoption of the RBMP to prevent salt-water intrusion. The exemption in article WFD 11.3.e has not been applied.

Basic and supplementary measures are implemented in all RBDs to prevent inputs of hazardous substances to groundwater. All discharges are controlled via permits. Precautionary and polluter pays principles as well as Best Available Techniques are applied.

Specific measures are implemented where there are exceedances in the southern RBDs (FIVHA1-4), but it is not clear if measures are implemented in RBDs FIVHA 5-6 where there are also exceedances. There are no exceedances in Åland, however the lack of data is noted above.

There is no international co-ordination of measures reported in the RBMPs.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

The key concern in relation to chemical pollution is the shortcoming in relation to classification of chemical and ecological status (see above). For the mainland limited information on specific pollutants causing a failure of ecological status are mentioned, and where they are mentioned it is often stated that here is insufficient information. It does not seem as if any of the non-priority specific pollutants are causing the failure of ecological status although lakes and coastal waters were not monitored for these substances. However, high levels of dioxins and furans have, for instance, been found in sediments in limited areas.

For Åland there is also a concern about classification, as it seems unclear, and hence no measures are proposed as all water bodies in good status. The Åland Authorities have clarified that the work is on-going to improve the knowledge base.

There is an inventory of sources of pollution, covering priority substances and certain other pollutants, specific national pollutants, nutrients, deoxygenating substances such as oil products, heavy metals, arsenic, PAHs, PCBs, chlorphenyls, dioxins and furans and pesticides. The database is addressing releases from different sectors, and contains both point and diffuse sources.  Releases from point sources are registered in the Finnish Environment Institute database on inspections and pressures (VAHTI) which includes records of environmental permits.

The main measure is to control releases via the permitting system.  Examples of measures cited are:

· Industrial emissions: Training, information, more stringent permitting procedures for industries to use hazardous substances; inventory and control over industry and waste installations (including landfills). Increase of knowledge; implementation of 2008/105/EU Directive; need to compile a reduction, and phase out plans to existing installations; risk assessment. Application of BAT, additional wastewater treatment in installations with potential chemical pollution potential.

· Waste deposits/landfills: More stringent control over waste landfills; additional inventory of closed dumpsites and monitoring of releases and status of water.  Additional collection of leachate water and cleaning in the WWTPs.

· Households: Use of POPs has to be reduced in general and in consumer goods particular.

· Others: Roads management: frost fighting using salts instead of hazardous chemicals (use of potassium has decreased); Planning decisions: selection of sites for use of hazardous chemicals, restrictions to developments in the vulnerable areas, etc.; application of EIA; traffic: control over movements of hazardous chemicals, design and construction of protection layers.  Special monitoring regimes of status of waters in regards of Nickel and Arsenic in the ore mine areas. Control over sediments close to old abandoned wood processing industries in regards of Mercury contamination (There is no good mitigation measures developed yet and risk assessment shows that with current methods processing is larger harm than with no action).  Risk assessment and plan for mitigation for TBT pollution in the Varkaus- Huruslahti and Siitinselkä-Vuoriselkä lakes area).

Measures to tackle chemical pollution are rather vague, not targeted to specific pollutants as there is little or unclear information on which are the substances causing problems. Measures do not seem to be related to the source/pressures. The Finnish authorities have clarified that this is because the EQS Directive is not applied for the 1st RBMP cycle. Breaches of standards valid at that time were mainly observed in regions where soil acidity causes problems in the form of high concentrations of cadmium in water when ditching and draining acid sulphate soils. The measures presented in the RBMPs for these areas included regulating the soil draining conditions, land drainage, irrigation of drained wastelands, cultivation of special crops, and counselling of landowner.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

There is a national approach to water pricing and a narrow approach has been taken to on the definition of water services, whereby in practice only services provided by water companies (water supply, wastewater sewerage and treatment) and to certain users, households and in some cases industry and agriculture are covered. Self-services are not considered. Self-abstraction, storage or impoundments for flood protection, energy production or navigation, are not considered as water uses, since, according to the RBMPs, these are not provided by a service providerompanies, neither for agriculture, industry nor households.

A wider range of water uses are identified for general use, however a very  narrow selection has been done for article 9, which means that industry/agriculture are not addressed in all RBMPs, which has been justified by a non-significant water use by these sectors. Households are mentioned in all RBDs.

It is unclear how adequate contribution of identified (at least households, industry and agriculture) water uses to the cost recovery of the water services defined in Finland is assured in practise. According to the Water Services Act the charges for water services must be such that they cover the investments and costs of the water supply plant in the long term. Charges must also be reasonable and equitable for all users. Finish authorities explain that calculation of cost recovery is limited to the water supply plants only. In Finland, water supply plants are responsible for water abstraction and wastewater treatment in terms of urban, food industry, small- and medium-scale industry and service industry uses. The large-scale industry, particularly the process industry, is responsible for its own water supply and treatment.

In the RBMP it is stated that there is full financial cost recovery, but no numbers are provided. In the preparation of the RBMPs a calculation of the cost recovery was made.  In the preparation of the RBMPs a calculation of the cost recovery was made for 20% of all water supply plants which represent 80-90% of the turnover volume of the whole public water supply sector. This does not cover all water services, and neither the self-services mentioned above, since agriculture and industry abstracting and discharging waters are not covered, nor intermediate water suppliers.

Environment and resource costs were not calculated but internalised since they form part of the investments and costs of the water companies that they are obliged to carry out according to the permits under the Water Act or the Environmental Protection Act. Subsidies and cross-subsidies are calculated as revenue cost recovery calculations. Water services may be subsidised by municipal or national funds.

Polluter pays principle is mentioned but it is not clear how it has been implemented especially, that an adequate contribution of different water uses is not assured.

The incentive function of water pricing policy is mentioned, but not fully clear how applied, except above mentioned special charges and penalties for pollutant release.

There is no indication that the provisions of Article 9.4 or flexibility provisions are used in Finland.

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

Water-dependent habitats have been specifically considered in the River Basin management Plans. Many measures to achieve the water quality objectives based on the WFD, such as pollution reduction, hydromorphological measures and restoration of water bodies support the achievement of the objectives of protected areas. The achievement of the WFD objectives support therefore the achievement of the habitat Directives and no additional objectives were set for protected areas (where these exist). As regards some protected bird lakes, achievement of the good water quality based on the WFD can be in conflict with some of the objectives of the Habitats Directive.  An information base for endangered species and habitats will be developed for following RBMPs for finding joint objectives for specially protected areas.

It is not clear from the RBMPs whether additional objectives were set for drinking water (mainland), but there seems to be some measures targeted to protecting areas for abstraction of drinking water, notably additional safeguard zones. The Finnish authorities have clarified that since groundwater standards are more stringent than drinking water quality standards, the latter provides a sufficient level of protection. In combination with the existing permitting regime, there is no need for additional objectives or measures to for drinking water protection areas.  For Åland, it is stated that plans to improve the protection of protected areas (surface and groundwater drinking water abstraction), and for protecting biodiversity are being prepared for Åland, however no further detail is provided in the plan.

13. water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management and Climate change adaptation 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity and droughts is relevant in Finland, however it is not considered a significant pressure in mainland Finland. It is a local problem in mainland Finland.  Droughts and water scarcity is listed among the main issues in several RBDs, as the issue has been considered across the RBMPs, alongside floods,  as part of the climate  change considerations. Although it is mentioned in all RBMPs as an important issue, there is very little factual information presented in the RBMPs although there is background material which shows the scale of the problem. The actual extent of the issue is not thoroughly studied yet, and additional surveys will reveal more aspects of droughts and water scarcity in Finland.

In Åland, local and sub-basin water scarcity is mentioned, but not considered significant, apart from water scarcity caused by groundwater over-abstraction, which leads to sinking groundwater levels, salt-water intrusion and problems with water supply mostly in small islands.

For mainland Finland, water demand trend scenarios are provided by water use, but not by type of water. For Åland, no data sets are available on abstraction from waters used for public supply, limited data on groundwater availability (improved monitoring proposed in PoM). No water demand and availability trend scenarios are provided, and Åland authorities have indicated that trend scenarios will be included in the next plans.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods were addressed in the RBMPs as follows:

· The identification of whether hydromorphological pressures are significant or not, was done by an expert assessment based on nationally determined criteria for evaluation of hydromorphological alterations. Hydromorphological pressures were identified as significant, if a water body was considered to be heavily modified based on these criteria. The process included guidance on how to link or match nationally determined criteria with the EU recommendations on this issue. There is no information on if, and if so how, water from and morphological alterations like flood defence dams, water flow regulation, have been identified as significant in the process of characterisation of significant pressures.

· Flood protection is cited as one of the reasons for designating heavily modified water bodies.

· Exemptions for temporary deteriorations due to extreme floods (according to article 4.6 WFD, has not been considered in the Finnish RBMPs.

· No use was made of article 4.7(exemptions for new modifications), however flood protection measures are mentioned among potential future measures.

· Due to the limited information on hydromorphological measures to be taken in this planning period, it is not possible to assess if flood protection measures are part of the foreseen measures. Existing and potential future flood protection measures included in different flood management programs and plans were identified and properly dealt with in the RBMPs. Flood protection measures will be further addressed in the process of the implementation of the Flood Directive.

· Floods risks have been considered as part of the issues related to climate change and adaptation.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

There is a separate chapter on climate change in the Finnish RBMPs. There is a good overall approach to address climate change in the 1st RBMPs. No specific climate change adaptation measures are included, but the effect of WFD measures in relation to climate change is assessed in a general way. Many measures are presented in the RBMPs, such as development of lake and river flow regulations, construction of wetlands and management of stormwater which are at the same time also adaptation measures.

A climate check has been carried out on the mainland RBMPs, but for some the methodology is not described (FIVHA1,2,7). The climate check has influenced the selection of measures and extent and magnitude of measures.

A National Climate change strategy has been developed, and is referred to in the RBMPs.

Possible future impacts are described generally, and it is indicated that more will be done for the 2nd cycle. It is however not clear from the RBMPs how climate change will be further integrated in the following cycles.

14. Recommendations

Following the steps of river basin planning as set out in the WFD should ensure that water management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures in a river basin and as a result, interventions are cost effective and ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.

To deliver successful water management requires linking these different steps.  Information on pressures and risks should feed into the development of monitoring programmes, information from the monitoring programmes and the economic analysis should lead to the identification of cost effective programmes of measures and justifications for exemptions.  Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver sustainable water management.

To complete the 1st river basin management cycle, and in preparing for the second cycle of the WFD, it is recommended that:

· There is a large proportion of surface water bodies in Finland for which the status is unknown. Some RBDs have a high proportion of water bodies for which status is unknown. Finland therefore needs to increase its efforts in this first cycle to decrease this lack of knowledge and uncertainty.  Some recommendations below are crucial to ensure this improvement.  

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· Finland needs to review its designation of water bodies, since whilst using system B, they have not achieved the same degree of differentiation as required by system A, notably as regards the size of water bodies. Very large minimum size thresholds for both rivers and lakes, that is not in compliance with the WFD requirement have been used. As a result, many waters are excluded from the RBMPs and only 4261 lake water bodies have been identified.

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3).

· Finland needs to clarify the methodology and thresholds better for determining significant pressures in the RBMPs.

· Finland needs to improve the surface water monitoring and the quality of the reporting of monitoring networks, methodologies and results, and to extend the monitoring programmes to cover all water bodies (including smaller water bodes) and all required quality elements.

· Finland needs to base its classification on such extended monitoring results. The ecological status assessments are based primarily on expert judgement but not on WFD compliant methods, and there is a significant shortcoming in the availability of data for classification.

· The chemical status assessment needs to include all the substances in the EQSD, and Finland should specify in all cases which substances are causing failure.

· Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived.

· Groundwater monitoring should be enhanced in Finland and should be made capable of detecting pollution trends. Trend and trend reversal assessments should be carried out in the 2nd RBMP cycle regardless of whether additional preventive measures have been applied.

· A new groundwater monitoring programme for Åland includes monitoring of general parameters, but involvement of other parameters and improvements are needed to enable trend detection for the next RBMP cycles.

· Inconsistencies in information and data presentation between chapters do not allow proper comparison, and there are some contradictions with the data in the WISE Summary report. In some areas information is missing, and expert assessments are extensively relied upon, thus lowering the reliability of the data.

· The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information of how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, and where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status.  It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution from such pollutants and therefore that adequate measures are put in place.

· Finland needs to provide more transparency in the RBMPs on the assessment of environmental objectives and exemptions. This is particularly important given the large number of water bodies that are currently classified as in unknown status.

· The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment on whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· Although the Finnish Programmes of Measures are relatively well presented, meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so the approach to achieve the objectives is clear and the ambition in the PoM is transparent. This is very relevant to improve the first RBMP, and also to improve the drafting of the next RBMP.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resource in all Finish RBDs. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately advised and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· Finland should apply a broad definition of water services including water services such as storage, abstraction, and impoundment for the purpose of article 9 implementation, to ensure also self-services are included and water uses such as navigation are considered. Finland should present the calculation for the contribution of different water uses disaggregated at least into households, industry and agriculture to cost recovery of water services (broad definition). The cost recovery calculation should include environmental and resource costs valuated on the basis on a robust methodology, with a transparent approach to subsidies and cross-subsidies.  Finland should provide precise information concerning incentive function of pricing policy, especially in the respect of application of metering, volumetric charging or efficiency promoting tariffs within different water uses.

· International co-ordination with Sweden and Norway as well as the Russian Federation need to be extended.

[1]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[2]     EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

[3] see  esienhoidon_suunnittelun_materiaalia_linkki.pdf (Link to material used (in Finnish)àwww.ymparisto.fi/vesienhoitoà Vesienhoidon suunnittelun materiaaliaà Vesienhoidon suunnittelun materiaalia 2005 - 2010à Pintavesien tyypittely ja luokitteluàTyypittely_ohje.pdf

[4]     Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[5] http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=100718&lan=fi) and its English summary Environmental monitoring in Finland 2009–2012 (http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=100725&lan=en)

[6]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[7]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[8]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[9]     Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[10]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[11]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[12]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[13] http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=116967&lan=fi   Part I: “Reference conditions and classification criteria,” Part II: “Environmental Impact Assessment” (about classification). Environmental Administration Guidelines 3/2009; Finnish Environment Institute/120pp

[14] Reference documents :

Londesborough, 2003. Proposal for a Selection of National Priority Substances – Fulfilling the requirements set by the Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC) and Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). The Finnish Environment, Environmental Protection. No. 622. Helsinki, Finnish Environment Institute.  Londesborough, S. 2005. Proposal for Environmental Water Quality Standards in Finland, The Finnish Environment 749, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 177.

[15]    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2007_0362_en.pdf

[16] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2007_0362_en.pdf

[17] Munthe et al. 2007

[18] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[19] These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other  Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management

1. general information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin Districts

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Poland joined the European Union in 2004.

Poland has a population of 38.1 million[1] and a total land area of 312,679km². Its territory stretches from the Baltic Sea (in the north) to the Carpathian Mountains (in the south). The northern part of the country is mainly lowlands with lake districts, whilst the southern part is mountainous. The lowest point in Poland is at 1.8 metres below sea level at Raczki Elblaskie in the delta of Vistula. The highest part of the Carpathians is the Tatra Mountains with the highest peak Rysy at 2,499 meters above sea level.

Poland shares its borders with Germany (west), the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic (south), Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania (east) and the Baltic Sea and the Russian region of Kaliningrad Oblast (north).

Poland has ten river basin districts and they are listed in the Table below. They are all international. The longest Polish rivers are the Vistula and Odra and their river basin districts cover almost 97% of the country. Both rivers flow into the Baltic Sea.

RBD || RBD Name || Size (km2)  (% of RBD in Poland) || Countries sharing RBD

PL1000 || Danube || 385 (less than 1%) || DE, SK, UA, AT, BG, CZ, HR, HU,  RO, IT, MD, ME,  RS, SI, BA, AL, CH, MK

PL2000 || Vistula || 183 174 (app. 59%) || BY, RU, UA, SK

PL3000 || Swieza || 161 (less than 1%) || RU

PL4000 || Jarft || 212 (less than 1%) || RU

PL5000 || Elbe || 238 (less than 1%) || CZ, DE, AT

PL6000 || Oder || 118 015 (app. 38%) || CZ, DE

PL 6700 || Ucker || 15 (less than 1%) || DE

PL7000 || Pregolya || 7 522 (app. 2.5%) || RU

PL8000 || Nemunas || 2 515 (less than 1%) || BY, LT  (RU)

PL9000 || Dniester || 233 (less than 1%) || UA (MD)

Table 1.1: Overview of Poland’s River Basin Districts

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[2]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/pl/eu/wfdart13

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing RBD || Co-ordination category

1 || 2 || 3

km² || % || km² || % || km² || %

Danube || PL1000 || DE, SK, UA, AT, BG, CZ, HR, HU,  RO, IT, MD, ME,  RS, SI, BA, AL, CH, MK || 430 || <0.1 || || || ||

Elbe || PL5000 || CZ, DE, AT || 239 || 0.2 || || || ||

Oder || PL6000 || CZ, DE || 107169 || 86.4 || || || ||

Dniester/ Dnistr/ Nistru || PL9000 || UA (MD) || || || 232 || 0.3 || ||

Nemunas/ Nieman/ Neman/ Nyoman || PL8000 || BY, LT  (RU) || || || || || 2009 || 2.1

Vistula || PL2000 || BY, RU, UA, SK || || || || || 168699 || 86.8

Bug (Sub--basin Vistula) || || || || || || || 19284 || 48.9

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Poland[3]

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

2. Status of River basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

All Polish RBMPs were adopted on 22 February 2011 by the Council of Ministers and subsequently published in the official journal. They were all reported to the Commission in July 2011.

The approach used for the RBMPs preparation was the same for all the Polish RBDs. The Vistula and Odra are the biggest RBDs in terms of area in Poland and the RBMPs prepared for those RBDs were more detailed, and some of the supporting documents reported by Poland included more details for those RBDs. The structure of all the RBMPs were similar, as well as their contents (the similarities are so stark that they approach the point where the content is unchanged apart from values).

The main strengths and gaps in the Polish RBMPs were: 

· The overarching problem identified in the Polish implementation of the WFD as reflected in the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) is the inconsistency of the planning process. In particular, the fact that there is no integrated approach on water management and that there seems to be a disconnection between water management and the environmental objectives of European water legislation. There is also no evidence of an integrated policy approach between water management and other related policy areas such as navigation, energy production, flood protection, agriculture, etc.

· A Strategic Environmental Assessment (the term used in Poland is a Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment) was carried out for all the Polish RBMPs.

· Public participation was very extensive, e.g. with active involvement of the relevant stakeholders. A number of supporting reports uploaded to WISE and a section in RBMPs summarise this aspect. Section 12 of all the RBMPs summarises this aspect. Following the consultation process a number of changes were made to the draft RBMPs. Notwithstanding the above, serious omissions were identified with regard to the public consultations carried out. The monitoring programmes also do not include all the required quality elements and the ecological status assessment methods are not fully developed for all required biological quality elements.

· Some biological methods were intercalibrated during the first phase of the EU intercalibration process but some of the intercalibrated class boundaries were not consistent with those used in national classification systems and the results were not translated to all other types in Poland. Poland expects that its ecological classification methods to be better intercalibrated as a result of the 2nd intercalibration exercise due to be completed in 2012. Poland reported that 79% of its surface water bodies had an unknown ecological status/potential: this probably reflects the lack of fully developed ecological status assessment and classification methods.

· At the time of publication of the RBMPs the methods for the classification of ecological status were not fully compliant with the requirements of the WFD. This is because even though a typology has been developed for all water body categories in Poland there were major gaps in the establishment of reference conditions for all types though since the publication of the RBMP there have been major efforts to fill the gaps.

· Around 30% of surface water bodies have been designated as heavily modified or artificial in Poland. Extensive information was provided regarding the designation of heavily modified water bodies (HMWBs). Additional reports providing the details of the methodology to determine heavily modified and artificial water bodies in Poland, verification of indicators for assessment of HMWBs and number of smaller reports per Regional Water Management Board (which cover all the RBDs) were reported to WISE. Nonetheless, the Commission could not find details on how the methodology for the designation was applied and cannot state that the actual designation of HMWBs was carried in line with the WFD. Poland has confirmed that further work is currently underway to verify the designation of water bodies in the first RBMPs. The ecological potential of some water bodies was reported though there was no detail on the methods used. More recent information from Poland indicates that the mitigation-measures approach has been used in establishing good ecological potential

· While all Polish RBDs are international, little information was provided regarding international cooperation and coordination. There is no evidence that the Programme of Measures has been coordinated with other countries within the international RBDs.

· The Programme of Measures is summarised in Section 10 of all of the RBMPs. More details can be found in the Water and Environment Programme for Poland however, this document was not referenced in the RBMPs or uploaded to WISE.

· Limited number of measures in relation to chemical pollution and no monitoring of the effectiveness of the measures.

· Very little information was found on the classification of ecological status. 

· There was only limited general but not specific information in the RBMPs regarding the monitoring process indicating that biological, physicochemical, chemical and hydromorphological parameters were measured. 

· Climate change issues were only superficially mentioned in short sections 5 of each of the RBMPs. It seems that not a lot of research has been done in this field however each RBMP concludes that for the purposes of future plans, it will be necessary to do more research on climate change.

· There were also many gaps in the information reported to WISE with more than two thirds of the expected elements not being reported for the two main RBDs and even less for the smaller ones. Additionally, the information reported to WISE is inconsistent with that provided in RBMPs. The Polish authorities updated their data reported to WISE after the reporting of the RBMPs and hence leading to the inconsistencies in the data. 

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

There were three rounds of public consultations on the draft RBMPs. The first round concerned the schedule of the activities which were contributing to the development of River Basin Management Plans. The second round of public consultation concerned the consultation of the "Overview of significant water management issues in the river basins". The document set out a preliminary list of major problems in each RBD which could lead to the non-achievement of good status of waters in the area. A third round of consultation concerned the draft river basins water management plans. All the documents summarising the information and activities to be carried out within the river basins to help to achieve good water status by 2015 were then consulted. 

Each of the three rounds took 6 months; first started 22 December 2006 till 22 June 2007, second started 22 December 2007 till 22 June 2008 and finally third round started 19 December 2008 and was finished on 22 June 2009. It is clear that the relevant summary documents were available during these periods. The timetable of the major milestones is summarised in the Table below.

· Date of publication of the draft timetable for the production of the RBMP: 22/12/2006.

· Date of publication of the work programme for the production of the RBMP: 22/12/2007.

· Significant water management issues: 22/12/2007.

· Draft River Basin Management Plan: 19/12/2008.

· Date of adoption of the final RBMPs: 22/02/2011.

3.2 National administrative arrangement – river basin district and competent authorities

The main competent authority roles in the Polish RBDs are split between the National Water Management Authority and the relevant Regional Water Management Boards. The National Board is responsible for the coordination, preparation and production of river basin management plans and the Regional Boards for reporting, public information and consultation. The responsibility of implementation of WFD is split between a large number of national and regional authorities. More detail is given in the following Tables.

Authority || Responsibilities

Minister responsible for water management (Ministry of Environment) || Responsible for water management and every two years, not later than June 30, needs to provide the government with the following information: State of Water Resources (quality and quantity),  Usage of water resources, Implementation of RBMP, International cooperation, Maintenance of surface water and water facilities, Investments, Flood and drought protection.

President of the National Water Management Authority || Central governmental organisation body responsible for water management. The responsibilities consist of e.g. development of RBMP, supervision of the activities of directors of the regional water management boards, in particular, controlling their actions, approval of plans and RBMPs and their implementation, as well as ad-hoc commission to carry out the control of water management in different regions.

Minister of Infrastructure || Responsible for maritime affairs.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development || Responsible for keeping the records of: · Inland surface waters or parts in the public domain, essential for the regulation of water for agriculture, water management facilities, and the reclaimed land, · Determination of the area which have a beneficial effect of specific water drainage devices.

Chief Inspector for Environment Protection || The central body of government. Appointed to monitor compliance with environmental legislation and environmental studies, supervised by the Minister of the environment.

Table 3.2.1: Responsibilities for the implementation of the WFD

Source: RBMPs

Regional administrative arrangements are summarised in the table below.

Regional authority || Arrangements

Directors of Regional Water Management Boards (Authorities) || Supervised by the President of National Water Management Authority. The Directors of the regional boards are responsible for water management in the region, i.a. the identification of significant pressures and assessment of their impact on the status of surface and ground water in the region, developing terms of water use water region, developing the economic analysis of water use in the region, preparation and maintenance of lists of protected areas, the development of flood studies in the region of water, the development of draft plans for flood protection in a region, coordinating the activities related to the protection against floods and drought, etc.

District Governors || Government Administration. . They are responsible for: delineating water bodies; distribute the costs of maintaining the water's edge forming the walls of buildings or facilities other than water, establishing the buffer zone measuring devices of state services, at the request of the service, specifying the prohibitions, orders, restrictions, issuing water licenses, approval of the shareholders, enable the plant to the company, at the request of the water company or establishment concerned, if it is justified by the purposes for which the company was established (Article 168), supervision and control over the activities of water companies .

Province Inspectorate for Environment Protection || Carry out the different types of monitoring.

Province Sanitary Inspectorates || Responsible for drinking water quality

Directors of the Province Authorities for Land Improvement and Water Facilities. || They are responsible for: implementation, on behalf of the Province Marshals, the tasks arising from the exercise by the Marshal of ownership rights in relation to public waters owned by the State, essential for the regulation of water in agriculture and in relation to other waters not subject to management by President of the National Water Management Authority and directors of national parks.

Province Marshalls || Local government administration. They are responsible for issuing water licenses.

Directors of Maritime Authority and Directors of Inland Waterways || Both report to the Minister of Infrastructure.

Table 3.2.2: Regional administrative arrangements

Source: RBMPs

The responsibility of implementation of WFD is split between a large number of national and regional authorities. The RBD competent arrangements are summarised in the Table below.

Competent Authority || Responsibilities

President of National Water Management Authority || Responsible for: development of draft management plans for the river basin, water and environment programmes for the country, drafting plan for flood protection and counteract the effects of drought in the country, including the sharing of river basins, agreeing project terms of water use the water of the region, conducting water cadastre for the area of the state, including the sharing of river basins etc.

Directors of Regional Water Management Boards || · Responsible for water regions, e.g. Regional Water Management Board in Warsaw is responsible for the following river basins: Jarf, Swieza, Lyna, i Węgorapa, Niemen (Nemunas) and the central (middle) part of the Vistula RB.

Chief Inspector for Environmental Protection || Central organ of government, appointed to monitor compliance with environmental legislation and environmental studies, and supervised by the MoE

Province Marshalls || Cooperation with President of National Water Management Authority.

Province Governors ||

Melioration board || Reporting to the province marshals.

Table 3.2.3: Competent Authorities

Source: RBMPs

The Regional Water Management Boards are shown on the map below.

Figure 3.2.1: Map of Regional Water Management Boards

Source: http://www.warszawa.rzgw.gov.pl/en/?skipcheck

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

All ten RBDs are international; however no international RBMP has been reported or mentioned by Poland for any of these RBDs.

The RBMPS were adopted by the Council of Ministers, in the form of a Resolution. The National Programme of measures was however not adopted in the form of a legal act.

The RBMPs are adopted by resolution of the Council of Ministers. These are internal acts binding on the authorities and bodies subordinated to that Council. However, the specific provisions of Polish law provide for instances when the RBMPs are binding on other planning acts or individual decisions, namely on the land use plans prepared on the national, regional and local level; regional development plans; water-law permits and EIA decisions. Polish law does not provide for any requirement to review the existing permits/decisions in line with environmental objectives. However, the majority of water-law permits are issued for the period of 10 years. This means that after the previous permit expires, the new one will be issued only after stating that it will be in line with the RBMP.

The permitting authorities are bound by the RBMPs. The legislation states that the competent authority shall refuse the water-law permit in case when it violates the RBMP (and not only the “environmental objectives”). The same rule applies to EIA decision when the EIA procedure shows that the project may jeopardize the achievement of the environmental objectives set by the RBMP (thus, in this case only the environmental objectives and not the entire RBMP are mentioned).

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

The methodology used for the consultation process was generally consistent across all RBDs in Poland. There were three rounds of consultations (for more details see Timeline of implementation). These were carried out quite extensively by surveys mainly distributed to local governments but also to Regional Water Management Boards and water related people. Stakeholders involved included: local government, government administration, water supply and sanitation sector, environmental NGOs and other (industry, agriculture, public utilities, tourism and water recreation, forestry, fisheries, services, trade and hydropower). The general public was able to provide comments at the consultation meetings held and organised by National and Regional Water Management Boards. Also users of different sectors of water usage were invited to be actively involved in the consultation process.

Following the third round of consultation a number of changes were made to the RBMPs. These included:

· Some general changes in the structure of some of the chapters and addition of a glossary of terms.

· Other changes included addition of the general characteristics of the river basin, climatic conditions in relation to river basin, more detailed description of the monitoring of surface water, groundwater, environmental objectives set for groundwater, description of the results of additional studies in the municipal sector in relation to the recovery of costs, explanations on what was included in the basic measures with supplementary measures, analysis of planning documents indicating the links with the objectives of the WFD  supplemented by a list of missing documents identified during the public consultation and updated documents outlined the tasks of planning and development, more details on public consultations, more detail description of the governmental and administrative bodies responsible for the implementation of WFD etc.

· According to the information recently provided by Poland[4], the Programme of Measures was extended to include more measures related to inter alia wastewater management with more information regarding the costs and those who are responsible for implementation of measures. 

It is however clear that despite the extensive process of public consultations, substantive parts of the documents, which should had been subject to public consultations under WFD, were omitted in the process of consultations. In particular, application of derogations from duties flowing from Article 4 was placed in annexes to the RBMPs and were not made subject to public consultations (thus inter alia application of Article 4.7 on new modifications, application of Article 4.3 on HMWB).

3.5 International cooperation and coordination

Poland has 10 RBDs and all of them are international. No detailed information regarding international cooperation and coordination has been found. Each RBMP includes a section where international agreements are listed; however there is no indication of an International RBMP. International RBMPs are however available for the Odra, Elbe and the Danube, although for the latter two Poland has a very small share.

According to the information recently provided by Polish authorities, Poland is a member of three international commissions with a number of different working group regarding Odra, Elbe/Laba and Danube rivers. Additionally, Poland is a member of Polish-Slovakian, Polish-Czech, Polish-German and Polish-Ukrainian commissions which cooperate on the management of trans-boundary/international water. 

3.6 Integration with other sectors

The RBMPs contain links to other sectors such as agriculture through Rural Areas Development Programme for 2007-2013 although no specific measures are defined, energy through the Renewable Energy Development Strategy, forestry through the National Forestry Expansion Plan, Conservation Plans for National Parks, Conservation Plans for Landscape Parks, Conservation plans for Nature Reserves and biodiversity through the National Strategy for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. It is however only mentioned and not clear to which degree the RBMPs are coordinated with these plans and which measures are identified.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

Each of the RBDs in Poland (except Ucker RBD) has rivers and lakes, but only PL 2000 (Vistula) and PL 6000 (Odra) have transitional and coastal waters. The typology is described in detail in the report “Typology and surface water designation of surface and groundwater in accordance with requirements of WFD 2000/60/EC”.

4.2 Typology of surface waters

The RBMPs show that typologies have been developed for all water categories in Poland. The typologies of rivers were determined using "system A", and for lakes, transitional and coastal waters using "system B" (Annex II WFD).

Preliminary work to establish reference conditions was carried out in Poland in 2004, however due to major data gaps, especially on biological quality elements, only 8 out of 26 river’s types had a reference condition established, and  only preliminary reference conditions were determined for the remainder. Also due to the lack of data, for some of the rivers, there is an incomplete description of the biological conditions. According to more recent information provided by Poland[5], reference conditions for rivers were established using a spatially based method.

Poland has a lake typology which is said to be consistent with the WFD (using spatially based methods), but it is only based on chlorophyll a (phytoplankton abundance) and macrophytes, and consequently reference conditions were only determined for those biological quality elements.

The RBMPs also report that due to lack of biological data reference conditions in coastal and transitional waters were only preliminary and only determined for physico-chemical quality elements. However the typology report[6] indicates that there are 5 transitional water body types and the WISE summary, indicates that there are reference conditions for phytoplankton (chlorophyll) for four of them. Similarly, 3 coastal water body types were reported and reference conditions for all of them in terms of phytoplankton (chlorophyll) but not for any other biological quality element. The number of surface water types by water category is shown in the Table below (based on the information from the Typology report [7]).

Category || Number of types

Rivers || 26

Lakes || 13

Transitional || 5

Coastal || 3

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at water category level

Source: Typology report

The following information on typology was reported to WISE.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

PL1000 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 24 || 13 || 4 || 3

PL3000 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0

PL4000 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL6000 || 21 || 9 || 2 || 2

PL6700 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL7000 || 5 || 5 || 0 || 0

PL8000 || 6 || 3 || 0 || 0

PL9000 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 4.2.2: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE

The background document ‘Typology and surface water designation of surface and groundwater in accordance with requirements of WFD 2000/60/EC’ has been reported.

Since the publication of RBMPs, Poland indicated that since 2004 there has been intensive work carried out to supplement reference conditions and to improve methodologies. Polish authorities have informed after the RBMP reporting that information about reference conditions is planned to be completed in the next actualization of the RBMPs.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

The smallest river water bodies identified in the RBMPs have catchment areas of 10 km2 – this is the smallest size criterion given in for a system A typology in Annex II of the WFD for the identification of river water bodies. Small lakes are referred to in the background typology document but the numerical value for the surface area delineating small lakes was not given. Transitional and coastal waters have been delineated, however, as for lakes, no numerical values were provided for the smallest water bodies delineated. It was also reported that small bodies of water could be aggregated into adjacent bodies of water of the same category and type. A methodology for this was not reported.

The number and sizes of rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters identified in the Polish RBDs are given in the following Table.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

PL1000 || 11 || 21 || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || || 2 || 192

PL2000 || 2660 || 25 || 481 || 2 || 5 || 295 || 6 || 53 || 89 || 2049

PL3000 || 4 || 16 || 1 || 1 || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || 0

PL4000 || 6 || 18 || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 8 || 18 || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || || 1 || 214

PL6000 || 1735 || 24 || 420 || 2 || 4 || 116 || 4 || 87 || 63 || 1874

PL7000 || 120 || 24 || 101 || 3 || 0 || || 0 || || 3 || 2806

PL8000 || 39 || 21 || 35 || 2 || 0 || || 0 || || 2 || 1236

PL9000 || 3 || 43 || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || || 1 || 233

Total || 4586 || 24 || 1038 || 2 || 9 || 215 || 10 || 67 || 161 || 1939

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Note: No information has been reported on PL 6700 (Ucker).

Source: WISE

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

Poland used a common, national approach to identify significant pressures in all RBDs. All the pressures required by the WFD were assessed. The main common pressures in all RBDs were identified as municipal and industrial wastewaters discharges, leachate from landfills and accidental contamination of soil and water. Additionally, the Odra and Vistula RBDs have pressures from mining. The Vistula also has some pressures from sand and gravel extraction. The information reported to WISE also indicates that the Vistula, Odra and Pregolya have a number of water bodies that are subject to significant diffuse pressures from agriculture.

No detailed information was provided on flow and morphological alterations despite the fact that these pressures affects the largest part of water bodies (see table below).

Numerical methods were mainly used to assess the significance of the identified pressures arising from point source, diffuse source and abstraction pressures. Summary details of the methods were described in the WISE report, though there was no information on the actual criteria or thresholds used to define significance. The basis of the methods for the other pressures was not clearly reported[8].

Significant pressures and impacts of human activities on surface and groundwater are presented on maps in RBMPs.

The table below lists the significance pressures on surface water bodies in terms of numbers and percentage of total surface water bodies - information reported to WISE.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

PL1000 || 4 || 36.36 || 3 || 27.27 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 27.27 || 5 || 45.45 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 1132 || 35.91 || 1037 || 32.9 || 44 || 1.4 || 402 || 12.75 || 1542 || 48.92 || 49 || 1.55 || 0 || 0 || 192 || 6.09 || 642 || 20.37

PL3000 || 3 || 60 || 1 || 20 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 20 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL4000 || 6 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 4 || 50 || 1 || 12.5 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 25 || 3 || 37.5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 50

PL6000 || 455 || 21.04 || 782 || 36.15 || 106 || 4.9 || 268 || 12.39 || 1351 || 62.46 || 8 || 0.37 || 0 || 0 || 121 || 5.59 || 1386 || 64.08

PL7000 || 163 || 73.76 || 38 || 17.19 || 2 || 0.9 || 14 || 6.33 || 16 || 7.24 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 3.17 || 8 || 3.62

PL8000 || 62 || 83.78 || 6 || 8.11 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1.35 || 2 || 2.7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 4.05 || 2 || 2.7

PL9000 || 1 || 33.33 || 2 || 66.67 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 33.33 || 1 || 33.33 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1830 || 32.43 || 1870 || 33.14 || 152 || 2.69 || 692 || 12.26 || 2920 || 51.75 || 57 || 1.01 || 0 || 0 || 323 || 5.72 || 2042 || 36.19

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

No information has been found on which sectors contributing most to chemical pollution.

4.5 Protected areas

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

PL1000 || 5 || || || || || 2 || || || || ||

PL2000 || 219 || 148 || 86 || || || 206 || || || 7 || ||

PL5000 || 3 || 1 || 1 || || || 3 || || || || ||

PL6000 || 127 || 163 || 49 || || || 144 || || || 11 || ||

PL7000 || 3 || 6 || 4 || || || 4 || || || 1 || ||

PL8000 || || 2 || 1 || || || 5 || || || || ||

Total || 357 || 320 || 141 || || || 364 || || || 19 || ||

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[9]

Note: Table currently does not distinguish between Article 7 drinking water protected areas for surface and groundwater. Also data on PL3000, PL4000, PL6700 and PL9000 were not reported.

Source: WISE

5. Monitoring

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || ||  River Basin Districts

|| || ||  Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The RBMPs state that the monitoring of surface water is carried out according to the Ministry of Environment Regulation of 13 May 2009. The regulation entered into force at a later stage to have the chance to be used for the RBMPs preparation (considering also that the monitoring programmes are the substantial source of information to define the actions to identify in the RBMPs).

The Regulation lists all the elements required to be monitored under the WFD. However the information reported in the RBMPs indicate that this has not yet been fully implemented. The RBMPs report monitoring sites of surface water in nine RBDs and for groundwater in eight RBDs (except Ucker RBD). Monitoring is not carried out in the Ucker RBD for both, surface and groundwater and in the Swieza RBD for groundwater bodies. The information reported in WISE confirms this.

Information reported to WISE shows that there are 1946 monitoring sites on rivers, 1943 for operational monitoring and 446 for surveillance. In comparison, the total number of sites on rivers reported in 2009 was 2235 of which 1594 were for operational purposes and 1218 for surveillance i.e. there were fewer stations reported in 2010 than reported in 2009.[10] Recent information from Poland shows that the number of monitoring sites on rivers has increased again (see Table 5.1). The quality elements monitored at each site was not reported. The number of monitoring sites for lakes, transitional and coastal waters was not reported to WISE. Similarly for groundwater monitoring sites, it can be concluded that a number of chemical surveillance monitoring sites decreased from 918 to 789, while the number of chemical operational and quantitative monitoring sites increased, from 115 to 369 for operational monitoring and from 804 to 828 for quantitative.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

PL1000 || 2 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1

PL2000 || 304 || 1134 || 303 || 315 || 8 || 19 || 8 || 9 || 492 || 118 || 465

PL3000 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL4000 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1

PL5000 || 2 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1

PL6000 || 193 || 913 || 229 || 324 || 8 || 12 || 6 || 6 || 263 || 242 || 325

PL7000 || 5 || 41 || 32 || 32 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 16 || 9 || 16

PL8000 || 15 || 14 || 17 || 18 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 15 || 0 || 18

PL9000 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1

Total by type of site || 523 || 2115 || 581 || 689 || 16 || 31 || 14 || 15 || 789 || 369 || 828

Total number of monitoring sites[11] || 2194 || 707- || 31- || 15- || 1304

Table 5.1: Number of monitoring sites by water category

Surv = Surveillance

Op = Operational

Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE and feedback from MS

Polish authorities have informally transmitted information on operational and surveillance monitoring in lakes, transitional and coastal waters after the RBMPs reporting but no reference/source information was provided. PL 6700 Ucker was not reported (as no monitoring is carried out there).

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  on priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

PL1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL2000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL3000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL4000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL5000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL6000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL7000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL8000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL9000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

PL1000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL2000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL3000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL4000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL5000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL6000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL7000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL8000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL9000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Table 5.2: Quality elements monitored

|| || QE Monitored

|| || QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE

5.1 Monitoring of surface waters

The distribution of monitoring sites for Vistula and Odra RBDs is presented in the RBMPs and on the maps below. Similar maps can be found in other RBMPs (excluding Ucker as monitoring is not carried out in this RBD). There is, however, no detail on how the required objectives of surveillance and operational and the location of monitoring sites have been met in the design of the monitoring networks. According to information provided by Poland[12], monitoring sites have been located in accordance with the Ministry of Environment Regulations mentioned above. In case of surveillance monitoring, the criteria used were inter alia the monitoring of rivers in catchment over 2,500 km2 as well as where water bodies crossed international borders. In the case of operational monitoring, sites were focused on water bodies identified as at risk of failing of WFD objectives by the Article 5 analysis of pressures and impacts. However, there was no information as to whether or not the monitoring programmes are compliant with all WFD objectives for monitoring such as the objective of the surveillance monitoring programme for which MS shall establish the assessment of long-term changes in natural conditions[13].

The RBMPs only provide general information on monitoring indicating that for rivers and lakes the following elements were monitored: biological indicators, physicochemical and chemical indicators and hydro-morphological indicators for all types of monitoring. However specific quality elements (QEs) are not described in RBMPs. Similarly only limited information for rivers were reported to WISE. These only indicated that priority and non-priority specific substances were monitored.

Additional information on the QEs monitored was found in the Status of Rivers[14] and Status of Lakes[15] reports (both not reported to the Commission). These are summarised in a Table below. In terms of biological quality indicators monitoring was not compliant with WFD as fish and hydromorphological QEs were not monitored in rivers. Phytobenthos and fish were not monitored in lakes[16]. Some physico-chemical elements were not included in monitoring and these were: thermal conditions, salinity, acidification status, and other pollutants.  Priority substances were analysed, however not used to determine the classification of chemical status[17]. Hydromorphological elements were not monitored. No information was found on the specific QEs monitored for in coastal and transitional waters. The information found is in the table below.

BQE || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional waters || Coastal waters

Phytoplankton || ü || ü || ||

Macrophytes || ü || ü || ||

Phytobenthos || ü || || ||

Macroalgae || || || ||

Benthic fauna || ü || || ||

Fish || || || ||

Table 5.1.1: BQEs monitored

Source: Status of Rivers and Status of Lakes reports

According to information provided by Poland[18], surveillance monitoring does not include phytobenthos in rivers. A method is being developed for macroinvertebrates in lakes and is expected to be finalised by the end of 2012. With regard to the physicochemical quality elements all the required elements are said by the Polish authorities to be monitored.

Operational monitoring has been established. The Ministry of Environment Regulation of 13 May 2009 (Polish authorities have informed after the RBMPs reporting that this has been replaced in 2011 by the Ministry of Environment Regulation of 15 November 2011) lists all the biological quality elements required under the WFD to be considered in the operational monitoring. There is however no further information on which QEs have been selected and actually monitored in operational monitoring for particular RBDs and methodology on how they were selected. According to the latest information provided by Poland, depending on the type of pressure and type of water bodies, chlorophyll a, phytobenthos or macrophytes and selected physicochemical supporting elements, as well as all priority substances discharged and other contaminants are monitored.

The WFD required monitoring frequencies (all 12 times a year) for rivers and lakes for priority substances in surveillance monitoring are tabulated in the Ministry of Environment Regulation of 13 May 2009[19]. It is not clear however whether this is the case for transitional and coastal waters as the Table in Regulations has not been formatted properly and could not be assessed.

There is no further information on which priority substances or other specific pollutants are discharged and actually monitored in the RBDs. Additionally, no information was found in the WISE summary, RBMP or the Regulation on the sediment and biota monitoring including required frequencies. Recent information provided by Poland[20] specified that some of the heavy metals and organic compounds were monitored in the period preceding the entry into force of the river basin management plans. In 2009, analytical screening was carried out for the 33 priority substances at 123 measurement stations. Surveillance monitoring covering all 33 priority substances was implemented in most of the regional inspectorates in 2011 and it will be continued in 2012.While the RBMPs refer to ‘aggregated surface water bodies’ for the purpose of assessment under the WFD, an explanation of the methodology for aggregating (grouping) those water bodies for monitoring was not provided. It is also not clear which types of surface waters were grouped and whether the grouping was carried out in the context of the WFD.

Generally no information was found on whether any WFD trans-boundary monitoring or co-operation was taking place.

5.2 Monitoring of groundwater

Quantitative and chemical surveillance and operational monitoring of groundwater has been established in Poland.

It is not clear from the RBMPs or from WISE reports how the parameters used in operational and surveillance monitoring are selected in relation to pressures. Information on the parameters used in groundwater monitoring programmes was reported to WISE for 4 (Danube, Jarft, Elbe and Dniester) of the 10 RBDs while groundwater monitoring sites (without information on which parameters) were reported for a further 4 RBDs (Vistula, Oder, Pregolya and Nemunas).

All core parameters (oxygen content, pH value, conductivity, nitrate and ammonium) and other pollutants were reported to be monitored for chemical surveillance in 3 of the 4 RBDs mentioned above (no chemical monitoring in the Dniester) at one site per RBD at a frequency of once a year for one year in the first 6 year planning cycle. In terms of chemical operational monitoring no sites were reported to be monitored in the 4 RBDs.

Groundwater levels were monitored for quantitative status at a frequency of once a week every 3 years in the Danube and 12 times a year once every sixth year in the other 3 RBDs.

The RBMPs state that according to a 2009 Regulation of the Ministry of Environment the monitoring of Polish RBDs aims to detect long term trends but no detailed information was found on how programmes were designed to do this. According to the recent information provided by Poland[21], the methodology for detecting significant trends has been developed in Poland, however due to the requirement of at least 8 years of monitoring data to be used in trend analysis it was not possible to assess the available data. The Polish authorities referred also to a simplified analysis, which was carried out but this only gave unreliable assessment of trends. No information was found on whether any transboundary monitoring or cooperation for groundwater bodies was taking place.

5.3 Monitoring of protected areas

The RBMPs indicate that drinking water protected areas are included in groundwater surveillance and/or operational monitoring programmes and also in quantitative monitoring. However, it is not clear whether there is a separate (from WFD) monitoring programme for drinking water protection areas (DWPAs), and as to whether the monitoring is adequate or not in terms of protecting drinking water sources. It is also unclear on how many of monitored protected areas are at risk of failing the objectives of Habitat and Birds Directives. Polish authorities state in more recent information provided by Poland[22]  that monitoring includes all of the physicochemical parameters listed in the Drinking Water Directive but no additional information has been provided.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

PL1000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 0

PL2000 || 0 || 0 || 135 || 387 || 6 || 382 || 27 || 0 || 1521 || 236

PL4000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0

PL5000 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 0

PL6000 || 0 || 0 || 305 || 391 || 98 || 406 || 60 || 0 || 1264 || 212

PL6700 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL7000 || 0 || 0 || 9 || 24 || 0 || 15 || 2 || 0 || 73 || 8

PL8000 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 26 || 0 || 35 || 0 || 0 || 48 || 3

PL9000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0

Total || 0 || 0 || 451 || 830 || 106 || 844 || 89 || 0 || 2918 || 459

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring sites in protected areas[23]

Source: WISE

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, QUANTITATIVE)

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

PL1000 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 12.5 || 1 || 12.5 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 75.0

PL2000 || 2158 || 16 || 0.7 || 48 || 2.2 || 236 || 10.9 || 44 || 2.0 || 39 || 1.8 || 1775 || 82.3

PL3000 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 100

PL4000 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 100

PL5000 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 12.5 || 2 || 25.0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 62.5

PL6000 || 1470 || 9 || 0.6 || 26 || 1.8 || 136 || 9.3 || 36 || 2.4 || 30 || 2.0 || 1233 || 83.9

PL7000 || 207 || 2 || 1.0 || 4 || 1.9 || 26 || 12.6 || 4 || 1.9 || 2 || 1.0 || 169 || 81.6

PL8000 || 71 || 5 || 7.0 || 5 || 7.0 || 4 || 5.6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 57 || 80.3

PL9000 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 33.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 66.7

Total || 3936 || 32 || 0.8 || 84 || 2.1 || 406 || 10.3 || 85 || 2.2 || 71 || 1.8 || 3258 || 82.8

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

PL1000 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 33.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 66.7

PL2000 || 994 || 10 || 1.0 || 20 || 2.0 || 164 || 16.5 || 39 || 3.9 || 17 || 1.7 || 744 || 74.8

PL3000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL4000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL6000 || 693 || 9 || 1.3 || 16 || 2.3 || 153 || 22.1 || 49 || 7.1 || 27 || 3.9 || 439 || 63.3

PL7000 || 14 || 1 || 7.1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 7.1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 7.1 || 11 || 78.6

PL8000 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 100

PL9000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1707 || 20 || 1.2 || 36 || 2.1 || 319 || 18.7 || 88 || 5.2 || 45 || 2.6 || 1199 || 70.2

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

PL1000 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 25.0 || 6 || 75.0

PL2000 || 2158 || 47 || 2.2 || 95 || 4.4 || 2016 || 93.4

PL3000 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 100

PL4000 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 100

PL5000 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 25.0 || 6 || 75.0

PL6000 || 1470 || 39 || 2.7 || 39 || 2.7 || 1392 || 94.7

PL7000 || 207 || 9 || 4.3 || 3 || 1.4 || 195 || 94.2

PL8000 || 71 || 7 || 9.9 || 0 || 0 || 64 || 90.1

PL9000 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 33.3 || 2 || 66.7

Total || 3936 || 102 || 2.8 || 142 || 3.6 || 3692 || 93.8

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

PL1000 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 100

PL2000 || 994 || 23 || 2.3 || 92 || 9.3 || 879 || 88.4

PL3000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL4000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL6000 || 693 || 26 || 3.8 || 45 || 6.5 || 622 || 89.8

PL7000 || 14 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 14 || 100

PL8000 || 3 || 1 || 33.3 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 66.7

PL9000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1707 || 50 || 5.8 || 137 || 8.0 || 1520 || 89.0

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

PL1000 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 89 || 84 || 94.4 || 5 || 5.6 || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL6000 || 63 || 57 || 90.5 || 6 || 9.5 || 0 || 0

PL7000 || 3 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL8000 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL9000 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 161 || 150 || 93.2 || 11 || 6.8 || 0 || 0

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

 

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

PL1000 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 89 || 73 || 82 || 16 || 18 || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL6000 || 63 || 50 || 79.4 || 13 || 20.6 || 0 || 0

PL7000 || 3 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL8000 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL9000 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 161 || 132 || 82 || 29 || 18 || 0 || 0

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PL1000 || 11 || 0 || 0.0 || 2 || 18.2 || 18.2 || || || || || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 3152 || 10 || 0.3 || 72 || 2.3 || 2.0 || || || || || || || || || 35 || 1 || 0 || 2

PL3000 || 5 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 20 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL4000 || 6 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || || || || || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 8 || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 12.5 || 12.5 || || || || || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL6000 || 2163 || 6 || 0.3 || 59 || 2.7 || 2.5 || || || || || || || || || 39 || 0 || 0 || 4

PL7000 || 221 || 0 || 0.0 || 2 || 0.9 || 0.9 || || || || || || || || || 32 || 0 || 0 || 1

PL8000 || 74 || 3 || 4.1 || 4 || 5.4 || 1.4 || || || || || || || || || 23 || 0 || 0 || 1

PL9000 || 3 || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 33.3 || 33.3 || || || || || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 5643 || 19 || 0.3 || 141 || 2.5 || 2.2 || || || || || || || || || 36 || 1 || 0 || 3

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[24]

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PL1000 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 25.0 || 25.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 2158 || 64 || 3.0 || 186 || 8.6 || 5.7 || || || || || 35.5 || 0.2 || 0 || 2.0

PL3000 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 20.0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL4000 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 8 || 1 || 12.5 || 2 || 25.0 || 12.5 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 50.0

PL6000 || 1470 || 35 || 2.4 || 125 || 8.5 || 6.1 || || || || || 35.2 || 0 || 0 || 2.3

PL7000 || 207 || 6 || 2.9 || 24 || 11.6 || 8.7 || || || || || 30.0 || 0 || 0 || 1.0

PL8000 || 71 || 10 || 14.1 || 14 || 19.7 || 5.6 || || || || || 23.9 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL9000 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 33.3 || 33.3 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3936 || 116 || 3.0 || 354 || 9.0 || 6.0 || || || || || 34.7 || 0.1 || 0 || 2.1

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[25]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PL1000 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 25.0 || 25.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 2158 || 47 || 2.2 || 142 || 6.6 || 4.4 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL3000 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL4000 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 25.0 || 25.0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL6000 || 1470 || 39 || 2.7 || 78 || 5.3 || 2.7 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL7000 || 207 || 9 || 4.3 || 12 || 5.8 || 1.4 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL8000 || 71 || 7 || 9.9 || 7 || 9.9 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL9000 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 33.3 || 33.3 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 3936 || 102 || 2.6 || 244 || 6.7 || 4.1 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[26]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PL1000 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 89 || 84 || 94.4 || 88 || 98.9 || 4.5 || || || || || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL6000 || 63 || 57 || 90.5 || 58 || 92.1 || 1.6 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL7000 || 3 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL8000 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL9000 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 161 || 150 || 93.2 || 155 || 96.3 || 3.1 || || || || || 3 || 1 || 0 || 0

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[27]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PL1000 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 89 || 73 || 82.0 || 74 || 83.1 || 1.1 || || || || || 9 || 15 || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL6000 || 63 || 50 || 79.4 || 50 || 79.4 || 0 || || || || || 6 || 24 || 0 || 0

PL7000 || 3 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL8000 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL9000 || 1 || 1 || 100 || 1 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 161 || 132 || 82.0 || 133 || 82.6 || 0.6 || || || || || 7 || 17 || 0 || 0

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[28]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PL1000 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 33.3 || 33.3 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 994 || 30 || 3.0 || 130 || 13.1 || 10.1 || || || || || 11.6 || 1.0 || 0 || 0.7

PL5000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL6000 || 693 || 25 || 3.6 || 105 || 15.2 || 11.5 || || || || || 21.5 || 0 || 0 || 3.3

PL7000 || 14 || 1 || 7.1 || 3 || 21.4 || 14.3 || || || || || 7.1 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL8000 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL9000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1707 || 56 || 3.3 || 239 || 14.0 || 10.7 || || || || || 15.5 || 0.6 || 0 || 1.8

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[29]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PL1000 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 994 || 23 || 2.3 || 115 || 11.6 || 9.3 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL6000 || 693 || 26 || 3.8 || 71 || 10.2 || 6.5 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL7000 || 14 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL8000 || 3 || 1 || 33.3 || 1 || 33.3 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL9000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 1707 || 50 || 2.9 || 187 || 11.0 || 8.1 || || || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[30]

Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027)

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

A national approach is followed for the ecological classification of surface waters.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

Limited information was found in the RBMPs or the background documents reported to WISE on the methods used for the classification of ecological status in terms of biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. The RBMPs refer to a national regulation[31] that lists QEs and threshold values used in the classification and this was reported to WISE.

In Poland fully developed methods (i.e. WFD compliant) are currently available for phytoplankton in all 4 water categories[32]. For rivers fully developed methods were also available for macrophytes and phytobenthos but only partially developed methods for benthic invertebrates and no methods for fish. Fully developed methods for phytobenthos and macrophytes were also available for lakes but there were not methods for benthic invertebrates and fish. More recent information from Poland[33] indicates that since the publication of the RBMP that the method for benthic invertebrates in rivers had been fully developed. Additionally a method for benthic macroinvertebrates in lakes is currently being finalised, and methods for fish in rivers and lakes would be developed by the end of 2013. Biological methods are less well developed in transitional and coastal waters where only methods for phytoplankton were fully developed with no methods available for macroalgae and angiosperms in both categories, and also not for fish in transitional waters, and with methods for benthic invertebrates in both under development. No information was found on whether the biological assessment methods are able to detect the major pressures.

The methods for the supporting physicochemical QEs are developed for all relevant ones in rivers but only developed for some in lakes (acidification status missing[34]), transitional and coastal waters (thermal conditions for both and salinity for coastal waters are missing). There was no information as to whether or not there were any relationships between the biological QE class boundaries and the physicochemical QE class boundaries.

The hydromorphological QEs have not been used in the ecological classification of any of the water categories and that reference conditions have not yet been identified due to the lack of data.

Poland did not classify the ecological status/potential of its surface water bodies in terms of non-priority specific pollutants or other national pollutants with water bodies being reported as having unknown status. However, Poland has established ‘water quality indicators’ in terms of many non-priority specific pollutants such as copper and zinc. However, no information was found in the RBMP or supporting documents on how they were derived and whether or not they are equivalent to WFD compliant Environmental Quality Standards (EQS). However, the Polish Classification Regulations[35] indicates that the concentrations of the water quality indicators are expressed as 90 percentile concentrations which is not consistent with the WFD requirement for maximum and annual average concentrations being establish for EQSs.

The one-out, all-out principle was used in the classification of ecological status though it is clear this was not based on the full set of quality elements required by the WFD. In spite of this confidence in the classification of some water bodies was reported as being high though there was no information on the methodology used to determine the confidence and precision.

Poland does not have classifications systems for all national water body types in all water categories[36].

In terms of the intercalibration of class boundaries for ecological status classification, there are 4 river common intercalibration types relevant to Poland that have been intercalibrated in terms of benthic invertebrates. The values in the national classification scheme are not consistent with the values given in the Intercalibration Decision perhaps reflecting that the river invertebrate assessment method was only partly developed. For lakes, 3 common types relevant to Poland have been intercalibrated for phytoplankton. From the available information the national classification boundaries are partly consistent with the Decision as the boundaries have not been transposed to all types equivalent to the common types. One of the 3 common intercalibration types for transitional and coastal waters relevant to Poland have been intercalibrated in terms of phytoplankton but the intercalibrated values have not been transposed to the relevant types in the national classification even though fully developed assessment methods for phytoplankton are available.

Since the publication of the RBMPs there has been a further EU intercalibration exercise which has included the intercalibration of the common transitional and coastal water types relevant to Poland. It is expected that the new results will be incorporated in the national classifications for future assessments.

The results of intercalibration have also not been applied to the classification boundaries of other national types that differ or slightly differ from the intercalibrated common types for all 4 water categories.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological

PL2000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL6000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

PL7000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

PL8000 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods

|| || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs

|| || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs

|| || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided

- || || Water category not relevant

Note: only the river basin management plans from the 4 named RBDs were assessed: there are 10 RBDs in Poland. No transitional or coastal waters in the Pregolya and Nemunas

Source: RBMPs

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results

Rivers were classified in terms of phytoplankton, other aquatic flora and general physicochemical quality elements. All of these were included in surveillance monitoring but benthic invertebrates though monitored were not classified.  Lakes were classified in terms of phytoplankton, and general physicochemical QEs. Of these only phytoplankton and general physicochemical QEs were monitored for surveillance purposes[37]. However macrophytes were also monitored in lakes. Transitional waters were classified in terms of phytoplankton, other aquatic flora and benthic invertebrates; and coastal waters in terms of phytoplankton, other aquatic flora and benthic invertebrates. There was no information on the surveillance monitoring of transitional and coastal waters. 

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District

|| || || 0 – 5 %

|| || || 5 – 20 %

|| || || 20 – 40 %

|| || || 40 – 60%

|| || || 60 – 100 %

|| || || No data reported

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Around 30% of surface water bodies have been designated as HMWB or AWBs in Poland.

8.1 Designation of HMWBs

One of the supporting documents reported to WISE[38] specifies the following water uses navigation, including port facilities, recreation, storage for drinking water supply, storage for power generation, storage for irrigation, water regulation, flood protection, land drainage, construction (roads, railways, pipelines), urban development, fish ponds, water and wastewater discharges. The physical modifications leading to designation may include dams, reservoirs, bank reinforcement etc.

It is clear that there has been extensive technical work and detailed documentation on the process of designating HMWB in Poland though not much relevant information was published in the RBMPs. From the supporting technical documents it is apparent that the methodology used for the designated followed the stepwise approach of the CIS Guidance No. 4. Nevertheless there are no details on how the methodology has been applied and the reasoning behind its application. Therefore, it is not possible to assess how the designation of HMWB has been done.

There is no explicit mention of uncertainty in relation to the designation of HMWB in the RBMP and WISE summary. Recently Poland has informed the Commission[39] that work is underway on the verification of the methodology for designating heavily modified and artificial water bodies. It is expected that this will be completed by the end of 2012, and the results presented in the RBMPs in 2015. This provides the evidence that the designation of HMWB done should be reviewed.

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP)

HMWBs have been designated and the ecological potential of some (but nowhere near all) heavily modified water bodies has been reported, including some water bodies at high potential. However, no methodological information was found on how GEP has been defined nor on the next steps on how/when the methodology for GEP definition will be reported. Information from Poland to the Commission[40] since the publication of the RBMPs indicates that the so-called mitigation-measures (or Prague) approach has been adopted in the definition of GEP.

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters 9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment

Over 92% (5212) of water bodies were reported with an unknown chemical status in Poland, 5% (279) less than good status and 3% (152) of good chemical status. The large percentage of unknowns indicates that priority substances were not being extensively monitored at the time of developing the RBMPs. However, the RBMPs state that the monitoring of surface water’s chemical status was being expanded and in 2009 there was a monitoring screening exercise for all priority substances at 123 monitoring sites in Poland. Surveillance monitoring of all 33 priority substances was undertaken in 2011

At the time of publication of the RBMPs the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) laid down in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive (2008/105/EC) had not been completely transposed into Polish law. More recently Poland has informed the Commission[41] that all of the provisions of the Directive have been included in the amended Regulation, including all EQSs. However, whilst all the concentration values for the EQSs are the same as given in the Directive, the MAC standards are compared to calculated 90 percentile values instead of maximum values which may give a less stringent and non-compliant assessment of chemical status.

The EQS Directive gives Member States the option of applying EQSs for sediment and/or biota instead of those laid down in Part A of Annex I in certain categories of water. From the revised Regulation mentioned above and information reported in the RBMP it appears that standards in biota and/or sediment are not applied. However, recent information provided by Poland indicates that 17 priority substances (including mercury) are monitored approximately once every 3 years in river and lake sediment.

Member States also have the option of taking into account natural levels and bioavailability of metals when assessing compliance with EQSs. From the revised Regulation these options are available for use in Poland when assessing compliance with EQSs for metals.

The EQS Directive also states that Member States may use mixing zones when establishing regulatory and compliance assessment regimes for discharges of priority substances. There was no indication in the RBMP or the revised Regulation that mixing zones are used in Poland.

10. Assessment of groundwater status

All groundwater bodies were classified in terms of chemical and quantitative status. Monitoring programmes have been established for both chemical and quantitative status and all expected parameters are included. The assessment and confirmation of both statuses in groundwater bodies has included some but not all of the tests required by the Groundwater Directive. Though there is a method established for detecting trends of pollutants in groundwater, no reliable trends have yet been detected because of a lack of a long enough time series of data. It is expected that this will improve in time for the next RBMP.

The assessment of groundwater status generally follows a national approach. In Poland 132 (82%) were reported to be at good quantitative status and 29 (18%) at poor status. The RBMPs report that the main reason for groundwater bodies not achieving good quantitative status is excessive, long-term consumption of groundwater that exceeds the resources available. 150 (93.2%) out of 161 groundwater bodies were reported to be at good chemical status and 11 (6.8%) at poor status. The chemicals causing failure of good chemical status were nitrates (6 GWB), ammonium (6 GWB), sulphate (3 GWB), conductivity (1 GWB) and chloride (1 GWB).

10.1 Groundwater quantitative status

The assessment of groundwater quantitative status must ensure that there are no adverse impacts on associated surface waters and dependent terrestrial ecosystems and there are no anthropogenically induced saltwater or other intrusions in the GWB. Most of the criteria specified in Annex V of the WFD for the assessment have been considered with the exception of the effects of water level alterations or changes in flow conditions on the achievement of Article 4 objectives in associated surface water bodies.

10.2 Groundwater chemical status

In 81 out of 161 GWBs there are threshold value exceedances at monitoring points and yet the GWB is considered to be at good chemical status according to the GWD.

However, no information was reported on which method/criteria had been applied to estimate the extent of the GWB which exceeds quality standards (QS) or threshold values (TV) and what extent of the GWB exceeding QSs or TVs is considered acceptable for confirming good groundwater chemical status.

The assessment of chemical status must ensure that there is no diminution of surface water chemistry and ecology for associated waters and no damage on groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs) because of transfer of pollutants from the groundwater body.  It is clear from documents supporting the RBMP that the assessment of associated surface waters was undertaken in Poland (with unclear methodology) but not the one relating to GWDTEs. 

No information on the analysis of trends in pollution has been found.

The establishment of threshold values in Poland for the assessment of chemical status in groundwater bodies follows the guidelines given in the GWD and background levels of naturally occurring substances have also been considered, but it is not clear, how.

It is not known whether or not there has been coordination in the establishment of TV in transboundary GWB with neighbouring countries.

10.3 Protected areas associated with groundwater bodies

As indicated below even though there are drinking water protected areas associated with groundwater bodies no information was reported on their status. The establishment of safeguard zones around water abstraction areas was also identified as one of the supplementary measures.

RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown

PL1000 || || || 2

PL2000 || || || 78

PL5000 || || || 1

PL6000 || || || 61

PL7000 || || || 3

Total || 0 || 0 || 145

Table 10.3.1: Status of groundwater drinking water protected areas

No data reported for PL3000, PL4000, PL6700, PL8000 and PL9000

Source: WISE

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions

· Surface waters

The Table below shows the number of surface water bodies with exemption from achieving the environmental objectives of the WFD according to Articles 4.(4) to (7).

a)         Ecological status/potential

RBD || Total surface water bodies || At least good status || less than good status || Unknown status || At least one exemption || Article 4(4) Technical feasibility || Article 4(4) Disproportionate costs || Article 4.4 Natural conditions || Article 4(5) Technical feasibility || Article 4(5) Disproportionate  costs || Article 4(7)

Total || 5643 || 172 (3%) || 1014 (18%) || 4457 (79%) || 2176 (39%) || 1287 (23%) || 396 (7%) || 747 913%) || 29 (1%) || 23 (1%) || 152 (3%)

PL1000 || 11 || 0 || 3 (27%) || 8 (73%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 3152 || 94 (3%) || 539 (17%) || 2519 (80%) || 1167 (37%) || 769 (24%) || 14 (1%) || 336 (11%) || 24 (1%) || 23 (1%) || 66 (2%)

PL3000 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 5 (100%) || 1 (20%) || 0 || 0 || 1 (20%) || 0 || 0 || 0

PL4000 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 6 (100%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL5000 || 8 || 1 (13%) || 2 (25%) || 5 (63%) || 4 (50%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 (50%)

PL6000 || 2163 || 60 (3%) || 431 (20%) || 1672 (77%) || 913 (42%) || 508 (23%) || 382 (18%) || 332 (15%) || 5 (1%) || 0 || 79 (4%)

PL7000 || 221 || 7 (3%) || 34 (15%) || 180 (81%) || 73 (33%) || 9 (4%) || 0 || 62 (28%) || 0 || 0 || 2 (1%)

PL8000 || 74 || 10 (14%) || 4 (5%) || 60 (81%) || 18 (24%) || 1 (1%) || 0 || 16 (22%) || 0 || 0 || 1 (1%)

PL9000 || 3 || 0 || 1 (33%) || 2 (67%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 11.1: Ecological status/potential of surface water bodies

Source: WISE

There were no exemptions applied to surface water bodies in terms of chemical status.

b)         Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

RBD || Total groundwater bodies || Good status || Poor status || unknown status || With at least one exemption || Article 4(4) Technical feasibility || Article 4(4) Natural conditions || Article 4(5) Technical feasibility

Total || 161 || 132 (82%) || 18 (29%) || 0 || 40 (25%) || 9 (6%) || 3 (2%) || 28 (17%)

PL1000 || 2 || 2 (100%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 89 || 73 (82%) || 16 (18%) || 0 || 21 (24%) || 7 (8%) || 1 (1%) || 13 (15%)

PL5000 || 1 || 1 (100%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL6000 || 63 || 50 (79%) || 13 (21%) || 0 || 19 (30%) || 2 (3%) || 2 (3%) || 15 (24%)

PL7000 || 3 || 3 (100%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL8000 || 2 || 2 (100%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL9000 || 1 || 1 (100%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 11.2: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

c)         Chemical status of groundwater bodies

RBD || Total groundwater bodies || Good status || Poor status || unknown status || With at least one exemption || Article 4(4) Technical feasibility || Article 4(4) Natural conditions || Article 4(5) Technical feasibility

Total || 161 || 150 (93%) || 11 (7%) || 0 || 6 (4%) || 1 (1%) || 4 (2%) || 1 (1%)

PL1000 || 2 || 2 (100%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL2000 || 89 || 84 (94%) || 5 (6%) || 0 || 1 (1%) || 0 || 0 || 1 (1%)

PL5000 || 1 || 1 (100%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL6000 || 63 || 57 (90%) || 6 (10%) || 0 || 5 (8%) || 1 (2%) || 4 (6%) || 0

PL7000 || 3 || 3 (100%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL8000 || 2 || 2 (100%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PL9000 || 1 || 1 (100%) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 11.3: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas

There are protected areas in Poland which include drinking water protected areas, bathing waters and Natura 2000 sites and the supplementary measures to achieve at least good environmental status/potential have been set for those. Additional objectives (to achieve the status/potential beyond good) have not been established as clarified by Polish authorities, because they deem the objectives of WFD to often be higher than the objectives in the regulations regarding protected areas[42]. There has been No verification of the environmental objectives for protected areas in the first planning cycle. The authorities say that these activities are however planned in subsequent planning cycles.

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

Article 4(4) and 4(5) are summarised in RBMPs but there is no specific information on how each exemption have been applied. The investment projects for flooding protection, improvement and development and adaption of agriculture and forestry, economic development of the region and investments related to the mining industry which have an impact on GWBs which will lead to derogations under the WFD, are listed in RBMPs but there is no breakdown under which article the derogations are made for or the expected improvements in status/potential over each planning cycle. The exemptions applied under Article 4.4 and 4.5 are by water category, RBD and for the whole of Poland are presented in the Table above. This information was reported to WISE and a breakdown of the justifications for exemption from achieving the ecological status objectives under Articles 4(4) and 4(5) is graphically presented below. There were no exemptions reported in terms of achievement of good chemical status in surface waters.

The pollutants that are associated with the exemptions for chemical status in groundwater bodies were identified as following: Nitrates, Annex II pollutants, Conductivity, Ammonium, Chloride and Sulphate. In total 6 groundwater bodies were exempted from achieving good chemical status but some of them were exempted because of more than one pollutant.

RBD || Global[43]

Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions

Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)

PL1000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

PL2000 || 769 || 24 || 14 || 23 || 336 || -

PL3000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || -

PL4000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

PL5000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

PL6000 || 508 || 5 || 382 || 0 || 0 || -

PL7000 || 9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 62 || -

PL8000 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 16 || -

PL9000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || -

Total || 1287 || 29 || 396 || 23 || 747 || -

Table 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions

T = Technical feasibility

D = Disproportionate costs

N = Natural conditions

Blue = Article 4(4) exemptions

Red = Article 4(5) exemptions

Source: WISE

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

Article 4 (6) has not been applied.

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

The RBMPs refer to the Article 4(7) in terms of failure to achieve environmental objectives because of the implementation of new investments projects. Similarly as Article 4(4) and 4(5) derogations the RBMPs list the investment projects but there is no indication which ones are under Article 4(7) or regarding the expected improvements in status/potential.

However, the information in WISE indicates that a total of 162 exemptions under Article 4(7) were reported for 152 surface water bodies in Poland. 10 were because of sustainable human development and 152 were for new modifications.

No further information regarding implemented measures, justification or alternatives options for the exemptions under Article 4(7) were provided by Poland. No information on whether or not the cumulative effects were included in the assessment.

12. Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoM), including the ways in which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 WFD. The programmes should have been established by 2009, but are required to become operational only by December 2012. The assessment in this section is based on the PoM as summarised by the Member State in its RBMP, and the compliance of this with the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD.

It therefore does not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance with the requirements of Article 11(3)[44] on basic measures. It focuses in particular on key sets of measures. Member States will report to the Commission by December 2012 on the full implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress on the implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The Commission will assess what Member States report and will publish its assessment in accordance with Article 18 WFD.

12.1 Programme of measures (PoM) – general

Poland reported programmes of measures, however the basis for the selection of measures is unclear as well as it is not clear whether cost-effectiveness analysis of measures has been carried out. Recent clarifications added by Poland[45] explain that development of PoM was preceded by identification of measures together with an analysis of cost-effectiveness and indication and the reasons for the need for derogation. Further work involved the identification of measures for specific water bodies.

Measures were not based on the status assessment of water bodies. When selecting measures for each of the water bodies, risk assessment results and assessment of their impact on water status were primarily used, as well as the provisions of existing laws, programmes and documents implementing these provisions, in meeting the requirements imposed on Poland and fulfilling the tasks set out in EU legislation. The public consultation of relevant water management issues was taken into account. The Polish authorities also recently informed the Commission that in the final version of the PoM, the requirements of Article 11 of WFD regarding protected areas were taken into account.

Measures are reported in terms of the main pressures and impacts identified in the RBMPs. However, there is often a lack of information on how measures were selected and on links between pressures/uses and measures. Because of gaps and shortcomings in some of the methods available to assess and classify water status (e.g. no monitoring of hydromorphology and incomplete monitoring and assessment of chemical status) it is uncertain whether or not all identified pressures will be tackled effectively by the reported programmes of measures.

There is no information regarding the international coordination in the setting of the Programme of Measures for RBDs in Poland.

Measures are said to be implemented on a number of levels, including national level, RBD, sub-basin or water body level. A number of authorities/bodies share responsibility for the implementation of measures in Poland. These include national, regional and local authorities, enterprises, farmers, individuals and land or objects owners.

The costs of measures in Poland have been estimated to be PLN10.7 billion (approximately €2.8 billion)[46]. These costs can be found presented for sub-basins, regional water management bodies, river basins and water regions in the Access database[47] provided as a part of PoM document (not referenced in RBMP). No information has been presented in terms of costs per measure; however costs were presented by sector, including agriculture, household, industry and others. The RBMPs define the costs which will be paid for by the government[48]. It also lists public bodies and facility owners as those who are obliged to provide the funding without explicitly saying how much will be paid by those public and private bodies. Some specific projects which contribute towards the implementation of WFD through the national planning and development together with their costs and information on how they will be funded are presented in RBMPs. Most of these have very clearly defined costs and who will finance them. Some of them have exact indication of the costs where others total values and list of institutions that will finance the activity without specific cost values against each of them.

It is not clear when measures will be operational; the various actions envisaged in the programme are divided by the deadline of their implementation, i.e., for periods up to the end of 2005, 2010, 2013, or 2015. There was also no information on how the effectiveness of measures will be monitored.

12.2 Measures related to agriculture

The pressures on water from agriculture include: pressures on water quality from diffuse source of pollutant such as nutrients and eutrophication.

Farmers were included in the general consultation process but no specific approach was taken for the agricultural sector

Technical measures which were selected to address pressures included: reduction or modification of fertiliser and pesticide application, hydromorphological measures and water saving measures by construction of drainage and irrigation of agricultural land and verification of licenses abstraction of water and reduction of groundwater abstraction for industry and agriculture. Non-technical measures included implementation and enforcement of existing older EU legislation including Nitrates Directive, Sewage Sludge Directive, Plant Protection Products Directive and IPPC Directive, Advice and training on the specific method of application of fertilisers and conducting training of its use/handling, development of specific action plans/programmes and technical standards.

The scope of the recommended measures is reported to relate to the geographical area and sector/sub-sector. Some information regarding the timing of implementation are also included.

Some potential sources of funding are listed in RBMPs indicating how some of the measures will be financed. This also includes funds from the Rural Development Programmes. The Access dB[49] provided as a part of Water and Environment Programme[50] (not referenced in RBMP) provides more details regarding the funding including the for agriculture sector as a whole; however, no information has been presented in terms of costs per measure.

The Water and Environment Programme lists the key actions which will allow the achievement of good water status by 2015.

The Table below summarises the measures in relation to agriculture that were included in 4 RBMPs in Poland. [51]

Measures || PL2000 || PL6000 || PL7000 || PL8000

Technical measures

Reduction/modification of fertiliser application || ü || || ü || ü

Reduction/modification of pesticide application || ü || ü || ü || ü

Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) || || || ||

Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices || ü || ü || ü || ü

Measures against soil erosion || || || ||

Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || || || ||

Technical measures for water saving || ü || ü || ||

Economic instruments

Compensation for land cover || || || ||

Co-operative agreements || || || ||

Water pricing specifications for irrigators || || || ||

Nutrient trading || || || ||

Fertiliser taxation || || || ||

Non-technical measures

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || ü || ü || ü || ü

Institutional changes || || || ||

Codes of agricultural practice || || || ||

Farm advice and training || ü || ü || ü || ü

Raising awareness of farmers || || || ||

Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making || || || ||

Certification schemes || || || ||

Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) || || || ||

Specific action plans/programmes || ü || ü || ü || ü

Land use planning || || || ||

Technical standards || ü || ü || ü || ü

Specific projects related to agriculture || || || ||

Environmental permitting and licensing || || || ||

Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation || || || ||

Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoM

Note: only the river basin management plans from the 4 named RBDs were assessed: there are 10 RBDs in Poland.

Source: RBMPs

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology

Water flow regulation, weirs, land drainage, abstraction for hydropower, abstraction for water supply, barriers, land sealing, flood defence dams and river dredging were identified as significant pressures. Hydromorphological measures were reported, however no details were provided on the selection methodology. There was also no explicit link between pressures/uses and measures. Therefore, it seems to be inconsistency on stating hydromorphology as a significant pressure but scarce efforts on measures related to hydromorphology. Measures include construction of fish ladders, removal of structures such as weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement and an inspection of water management in the possession of licenses and inspections intervention.

Limited information is provided in RBMPs on the expected improvements due to the hydromorphological measures. This includes e.g. biological continuity of rivers and increased the diversity of fish and other aquatic organisms of rivers will be improved by creating fish passages or partial or complete removal of weirs, dams etc.

There is a clear evidence that hydromorphological measures are planned in HMWB, however it is only mentioned in general terms that these will be carried out e.g. WISE Summary states that ensuring continuity of rivers and streams through the patency of rivers by removing objects forming a barrier to fish migration in heavily modified bodies is planned in the RBD of Vistula. Implementation of measures for heavily modified and artificial water bodies was preceded by the development of a comprehensive program of river patency in order to provide the condition for the migration of species of special interest. The result only became available in 2010 and will be taken into account in the second planning period. Definition of an ecologically based flow regime has not been provided in RBMP and no specific measures have been reported to achieve an ecologically based flow regime.

Measures || PL2000 || PL6000 || PL7000 || PL8000

Fish ladders || ü || ü || ||

Bypass channels || || || ||

Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || || || ||

Sediment/debris management || || || ||

Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || ü || ü || ü || ü

Reconnection of meander bends or side arms || || || ||

Lowering of river banks || || || ||

Restoration of bank structure || || || ||

Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || || || ||

Operational modifications for hydropeaking || || || ||

Inundation of flood plains || || || ||

Construction of retention basins || || || ||

Reduction or modification of dredging || || || ||

Restoration of degraded bed structure || || || ||

Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses || || || ||

Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological pressures, as described in the PoM

Source: RBMPs

12.4 Measures related to groundwater

In terms of quantitative status basic and supplementary measures are implemented to tackle groundwater over-exploitation. Basic measures include verification of abstraction licenses and users of water, especially in areas where there is a need for a significant reallocation of water resources and where restrictions in the consumption of water for purposes other than social and living, food and pharmaceutical products may be needed. There is no mention of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies.

The supplementary measures include annual reports on measurements of the quantity and quality of water collected, discharged, injected and dehydrated, along with a range of depression cone, in mining areas as a condition of permits issued for the use of water, isolation outbreaks of impurities (e.g., heaps and heaps coal mining, landfills); monitoring for potential pollution sources (industrial plants, farms and livestock rearing) and closed areas, degraded and mining; effective implementation of the rationalization of water consumption in industrial plants by the obligation to use good quality water, drainage from the mine for the purpose of social and living conditions; rational management of water intended for consumption by seeking and documentation and verification of the power of water, especially in areas with a significant reallocation of groundwater.

In terms of chemical status, measures were put in place to prevent input of pollutants under other Directives (plant protection products, IPPC, SEVESO II) and to limit inputs into groundwater of any hazardous substance from diffuse or point sources and any non-hazardous substance from point sources and to prevent losses from technical installations and prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical installations. There is scarce information on the link between pressures and selection and application of measures.

No information on transboundary coordination has been found. According to the additional information provided by Poland, the study has been carried out and there were no negative impacts on cross-border environment.

It is not clear whether there are measures for groundwater bodies where TVs are exceeded in some monitoring points but status is still considered good.

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution

No information was found regarding an inventory of sources of pollution. However according to the additional information recently provided by Poland, the obligation of recording information on discharges containing hazardous substances priority lies with the Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, which runs the National Register of Pollutant Release and Transfer. According to Polish Water Law, the director of RWMB needs to prepare water emission inventories of priority substances and other causing pollution set environmental quality standards. In accordance with the requirements of Directive 2008/105/EC, the lists will be prepared for the first time by 31 December 2013.

It was not clear from the RBMP whether the chemical pollution is a significant factor however the following pressures that contribute to the chemical pollution were reported:  mining activities, wastewater discharges, landfills, accidental contamination of soil and water as point sources and agriculture, wastewater discharges as diffuse pollution.

The programme of measures reports measures to tackle chemical pollution from industrial emissions, waste deposits on land/fields and from households.

In terms of industrial emissions, measures included: the development of a programme to prevent major accidents in industrial plants, construction of a National Register of dangerous facilities, establishment of standards for emissions of chemical substances in discharges to water or sewer facilities, issuing permits for the discharge of waste containing chemical substances, the development of special programs to reduce emissions of priority hazardous substances and to reduce water pollution by hazardous substances (schedule II of Directive 76/464/EEC).

In terms of waste deposits on land/fields, the following measures were reported: additional monitoring points to determine groundwater quality, targeted surveillance monitoring, systematic rehabilitation and redevelopment of sites previously used as a landfill.

In terms of households, the following measures were reported:  development of an inventory of septic tanks and sewage treatment plants, monitoring of compliance with the conditions of the emission limit values for pollutants, the use of authorised plant protection products and, to obtain an integrated permit for pollution prevention etc.

However no information has been found on the substance specific measures.

According to the additional information provided  to the Commission by Poland,  Annex 6 of PoM document lists measures to prevent pollution and control IPPC  (obtaining permission for an integrated pollution prevention and control by companies carrying out activities listed in the Regulation on the types of installations which may cause significant pollution of the environment or environmental elements j as a whole; monitoring of compliance with the conditions of the emission limit values of pollutants) and prevention of pollution by certain dangerous substances (the elimination of pollution by priority hazardous (List I) and  dangerous substances (List II) (by: a census of discharges containing these substances, establishing emission standards of these substances in discharges to water or sewage facilities, issuing permits for the discharge of wastewater containing these substances, the development of programs aimed at reducing water pollution) and control of the implementation of Directive 2006/11/EC and Directive 80/68/EEC by Inspectorate.

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies)

· The definition of water services provided in RBMPs covers water and sewerage services in the municipal sector provided by legal entities involved in water supply, collection and treatment of sewage or the provision of both of these services. However in the economic analysis of water uses in RBD a broader range of water services was taken into account within the calculation of cost recovery of water services (derange, impoundment for hydropower, industrial and agriculture self-abstraction, pollutant release, services for inland navigation). Households' self-abstraction has not been taken into account.

· RBMPs identify following water uses: public water supply and waste water treatment, industry, agriculture and forestry, and "indirect water use" such as: floods protection, inland navigation, hydropower, recreation.

· The above mentioned analysis does not take into account the development of mining sector (the analysis predicts reduction in water abstraction for mining sector in 2015) related to shell gas extraction, which is a high water consuming technology.

· Cost recovery levels were calculated for public water supply & waste water treatment, industry and agriculture. According to Polish authorities, there were some methodological and analytical attempts undertaken to calculate cost recovery for other forms of water usage. 

· Environmental and resource costs were calculated. Environmental costs were based on studies of A. Markowska of 2003 (not reference in the RBMP) by contingent valuation method, which determine the average willingness to pay for improving water quality. Allocation of environmental costs between the various sectors was achieved by the division of responsibility according to the structure of pollutants discharged by the different sectors.

· The resource costs were calculated by the determination of the quantitative deficit of water resources in the unit i.e. country, RBD, Regional Water Management Board (RMBD) and then specific unit values were assigned to the loss of benefits as a result of water deficit (in PLN/m3 water deficit per year). A zero value was assigned in Poland for the resource costs as a result of analysis but also due to assumption made and lack of the data. Further work is planned (data collection and further estimates).

· It was reported that subsidies were only approximately 1% of water supply in 2006 in Poland.

· The enforcement of the polluter pays principle is described for water uses in the following sectors: householders, industry and agriculture. The polluter-pays principle has been taken into account in the recovery of the costs of water services with reference to the pressure and impact study. The principle 'polluter-pays' is especially strictly enforced for the industry sector.

Although there is no detailed information reported, it is mentioned that water-pricing policies were introduced to provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently. Also that current water pricing policies provide adequate incentives through the volumetric charging and water metering and price elasticity for water demand (adjusting unit rates). Polish legal system however allows for some exemption from water abstraction and waste water release fees, resulting from the Act of 27 April 2001 - Environmental Protection Law for energy, agricultural irrigation and filling fish ponds. There are as well no charges for water services related to hydropower, despite the fact that environmental costs have been identified. There is a clear statement in the analysis that agriculture does not comply with polluter pays principle. However introduction of charges for consumption of cooling water and for agriculture is planned but no details on how and when this will be done are provided.

· No information has been found on whether the provision of Article 9(4) or flexibility provisions of Article 9 has been used concerning agriculture and energy (cooling) and hydropower sectors

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas

The water bodies and protected areas needing additional measures are not clearly identified in the RBMPs and no information on the type and magnitude of the additional measure(s) was given in the PoM.

No additional measures have been included to reach the more stringent objectives of the Birds Directive, Habitats Directive, Shellfish Directive, Fresh Water Fish Directive or Bathing Water Directive. Safeguard zones to protect drinking water abstraction areas have been established, however no further information has been provided. 

These measures should have been included in the Plan. In particular if there are additional objectives, there should be additional measures.

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts and flood risk management 13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts

Local / sub-basins water scarcity is a phenomenon that characterise all assessed Polish RBDs except for Nemunas, when local / sub-basins droughts characterise all of them. Both, water scarcity and droughts were not clearly defined as pressures in the RBMPs however past and current over-allocation of available water resources, water shortages caused by e.g. mining activities and increased air temperature and evapotranspiration in spite of a slightly increased precipitation was reported. Also, in some of the RBMPs measures to deal with the negative effects of drought were reported. In 2012, two out of seven Regional Water Management Boards started preparatory activities to develop draft plans to counter the effects of drought.

Water demand trend scenarios were not provided in RBMPs. Information on water availability and prospective resources of groundwater were presented in the form of a Table divided by different regions, however only one value per region was provided rather than trends.

Measures to deal with water scarcity and drought include: improvement of the efficiency of water agricultural uses, reduction of losses in urban distribution networks, reduction / management of groundwater abstraction (e.g. by controls, registers), modification of the water pricing system to foster a more efficient use of water.

No international coordination on water scarcity or droughts was mentioned.

13.2 Flood Risk Management

Floods are mentioned in RBMP in a number of places e.g. increased flooding is listed under climate change scenarios. Flood defence, dams, dredging weirs, weirs, land drainage, barriers, land sealing, were identified as significant hydromorphological pressures in Poland.

Article 4 (6) has not been applied.

The RBMPs refer to the Article 4(7) in terms of failure to achieve environmental objectives because of the implementation of new investments projects and lists those projects but there is no indication which ones are exemptions under Article 4(7). However a number of them relate to flood protection.

No further information regarding implemented measures, justification or alternatives options for the exemptions under Article 4(7) were provided by Poland. No information on whether or not the cumulative effects were included in the assessment.

The State Water Policy Programme till 2030 (including the stage of 2016) as one of the objectives states the completion of work on the foundations of the implementation of Floods Directive 2007/60/EC.

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change

A separate chapter was included in RBMP about the climate change. Climate change scenarios focus on change in temperature and precipitation. Drought and flood risks were mentioned in relation to adaptation to climate change. 

A climate check of the programme of measures has not been carried out.  However, the RBMP states that the predicted climate change will not be significant to any actions identified, but for the purpose of future plans research on climate change will be undertaken.

14. recommendations

· On the basis of the analysis of the RBMPs prepared by Poland, important shortcomings include; i) a large number of infrastructure projects on water management planned in the river basins of Poland but no application of environmental protection measures and no reference to Article 4; often the projects are not even mentioned in the RBMPs, ii) the limited approach of the monitoring programmes, iii) the little control of chemical pollution, and iv) no monitoring of the effectiveness of measures. 

· The information reported to WISE should be improved and made more comprehensive. For example, the quality elements monitored should be reported for each monitoring site rather than just at the aggregated monitoring programme level. Effort should also be made to ensure that information reported to WISE is consistent with that in the RBMPs.

· Further work is required to make the monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water and groundwater status fully compliant with the requirements of the WFD, EQS and Groundwater Directives. The biological assessment methods for all surface water categories in Poland should be fully intercalibrated at the EU level.

· Only little improvement of the water status is expected by 2015 and the objectives for subsequent plans are not always clear. Objectives should be clearly indicated and transparent in order to be able to reach good status of waters in a reasonable timeframe.

· Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.

· The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of "significant adverse effects" on their use or the environment and the lack of "significantly better environmental options" should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure the transparency of the designation process.

· The method for the determination of good ecological potential in heavily modified and artificial water bodies should be transparent and clearly reported. There seems to be no understanding of how the methodology should be applied.

· Exemptions from the achievement of good ecological status by 2015 have been widely applied in Poland, and mostly under Article 4(4). While the WFD does provide for exemptions, specific criteria must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans.

· The high number of exemptions applied in these first RBMPs is a cause for concern. Poland should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainties.

· It is unclear whether there are other new physical modifications planned in RBMPs apart from those reported in the RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.

· River basin specific pollutants need to be identified, with clear information on how they have been selected, how and where they are being monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances will be taken into account in the assessment of ecological status.  It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.  

· The monitoring of priority substances should be sufficient to allow chemical status to be determined for a much higher proportion of water bodies. The correct statistical calculations should be done when assessing compliance with the MACs. The plans should make clear which priority substances are being monitored where, and in which matrix. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota unless an equally protective EQS has been established in water. The trend monitoring apparently being carried out in sediment or biota should include the substances in EQSD Article 3(3) and will need to be reflected in the next RBMP.

· On groundwater, it is important to have a clear methodology on how exceedances of threshold values are handled in the assessment of groundwater chemical status. Furthermore, a methodology for trend analysis should be in place, even if it was not possible yet to carry out such an analysis during the first RBMP, in order to be sure that this will be done in the second RBMP, and to link groundwater protection measures with the relevant pressures.

· Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so that the approach to achieve the objectives is clear and the ambition in the PoM is transparent. All the relevant information on basic and supplementary measures should be included in the summary of the PoM to ensure transparency on the planned actions for the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in the WFD.

· The adopted measures in the PoM are not based on the status assessment of water bodies. This is the result of the absence of fully developed status assessment methods and classification systems in Poland at the time of publication of the RBMPs. Poland should urgently improve these methods, which will allow, together with a cost-effectiveness analysis, a selection of the measures based on the current status, and will improve the definition of the measures. The monitoring of the effectiveness of measures should also be done in the current RBMP.

· More information should be provided regarding the programme of measures. In particular there is a need for a clear link between pressures and measures, a clear identification of the costs of measures, who is responsible for their implementation and on how their effectiveness will be monitored. More effort should be put in identifying and linking the whole cycle of the planning process, in particular regarding the monitoring network.

· Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resource in all Polish RBDs. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed with the farming community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a very clear baseline so that farmers know the rules and the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.

· In terms of measures related to Article 9, a narrow approach to water services was applied. The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are 'self-services', for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost recovery should be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring the efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs.

[1]     European Commission http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/poland/index_en.htm

[2]     This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE.

[3]     Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).

[4]     Information mentioned after the RBMPs were reported to the Commission.

[5]     It is however not clear to which degree the RBMPs are coordinated with these.

[6]     Typology and surface water designation of surface and groundwater in accordance with requirements of WFD 2000/60/EC. It seems to be a contradiction: if it is stated that there is no biological data how types could have been defined?

[7]     Typology and surface water designation of surface and groundwater in accordance with requirements of WFD 2000/60/EC.

[8]     Polish authorities have mentioned after the RBMPs reporting that Information given in the WISE report and published in the RBMP include (according to the WFD requirements) only a synthesis, a descriptions of actions undertaken on the pressures analysis. Detailed information concerning a review of human activity impact on the ground and surface waters are described in the elaboration titled „The analysis of pressures and anthropogenic pollution impacts with particular regard on ground and surface water bodies for completion of programs of measures and of the RBMP”, delivered to the European Commission as source materials together with the report on the RBMP in March 2010. According to Polish authorities, this elaboration complying the available data identifies anthropogenic pressures and evaluates their impact on particular water bodies as well as it points a level of pressures susceptibility qualifying them to the threatened, potentially threatened and not threatened water bodies, involving the requirements of points 1.4 and 1.5 of the Annex II to the WFD. Authorities have also pointed that to identify significant anthropogenic impacts the Method of Multivariate Comparative Analysis was applied although relevant documents regarding all these aspects was not found on the RBMPs reported.

[9]     This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.

[10]    Polish authorities have pointed out after the RBMPs reporting that the difference in the number of monitoring sites was largely because sites located in small inflows or lakes were removed.

[11]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[12]    Information provided after the RBMPs reporting.

[13]    According to Polish authorities – as indicated after the RBMPs reporting -  the Ministry of Environment Regulation of 13 May 2009 regarding surveillance and operational monitoring objectives meet the objectives of WFD.

[14]    http://www.gios.gov.pl/zalaczniki/artykuly/stan_czystosci_rzek_2007-2009.pdf

[15]    http://www.gios.gov.pl/zalaczniki/artykuly/wyniki_monitoringu_wod_jezior_2008.pdf

[16]    Polish authorities have pointed out after the RBMPs reporting that in the following years his element was added to monitoring but no supporting document was provided.

[17]    Polish authorities have pointed out after the RBMPs reporting that both thermal conditions and elements characterizing salinity (conductivity, sulfur, chlorides, calcium) and acidification (basicity and pH) have been monitored. The scope of elements differed between water categories but no supporting document was provided.

[18]    Information not included in the reporting and provided after the reporting of the RBMPs.

[19]    This Regulation was replaced by a 2011 Regulation (with the same title).

[20]    Information not included in the reporting and provided after the reporting of the RBMPs.

[21] Information not included in the reporting and provided after the reporting of the RBMPs

[22] Information not included in the reporting and provided after the reporting of the RBMPs

[23]    Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level.

[24]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[25]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[26]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[27]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[28]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[29]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[30]    Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.

[31]    National Regulation Dz.U.2008.162.1008, (Journal of Laws No. 162 Regulations of Minister of the Environment, of 20 August 2008 concerning the classification of the status of surface water bodies).

[32]    But, no monitoring found on this for coastal and Transitional waters.

[33]    Information not included in the reporting and provided after the reporting of the RBMPs.

[34]    According to Polish authorities as pointed out after the RBMPs this parameter is useless in assessment of ecological status of Polish lakes.

[35]    Although it is not clear which one has been applied (2008 or 2011).

[36]    According to Polish authorities all water body types in all water categories have classification system but no supporting information has been provided.

[37]    According to Polish authorities all indicators were monitored for surveillance purposes but no supporting information has been provided.

[38]    Uszczegółowienie metodyki w zakresie ostatecznego wyznaczania silnie zmienionych i sztucznych części wód w Polsce.

[39]    Information not included in the reporting and provided after the reporting of the RBMPs.

[40]    Information not included in the reporting and provided after the reporting of the RBMPs.

[41]    Information not included in the reporting and provided after the reporting of the RBMPs.

[42]    According to the interpretation of Polish authorities.

[43] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status.

[44]    These are the minimum requirements to be complied with and include the measures required under other Community legislation as well as measures to achieve the requirements of other WFD Articles and to ensure appropriate controls on different activities affecting water management.

[45]    Information not included in the reporting and provided after the reporting of the RBMPs.

[46]    According to Polish authorities as pointed out after the RBMPs reporting the cost is estimated to be 20.495.217.200 PLN – approximately 5.4 Billion€ - but no supporting information has been provided.

[47]    http://www.kzgw.gov.pl/pl/Program-wodno-srodowiskowy-kraju.html

[48]    According to Polish authorities as pointed out after the RBMPs reporting, the cost summary for particular actions together with information about institutions responsible for their implementation occur in the attachment 2 to The National Program of (Access base, task table zd).

[49]    http://www.kzgw.gov.pl/pl/Program-wodno-srodowiskowy-kraju.html

[50]    http://www.kzgw.gov.pl/pl/Program-wodno-srodowiskowy-kraju.html

[51] According to Polish authorities as pointed out after the RBMPs reporting, detailed information on actions taken to prevent erosion occur in the attachment 2 (Access base) and the attachment 6 to the National Program of Measures. These actions are dedicated to Oder and Vistula under the Act of 3 February 1995 on agricultural and forest land protection. According to the Act the owner of the agricultural land and of the land recultivated for agricultural purposes is obliged to prevent soil degradation, in particular erosion and massive land movements. Additionally the National Program of Measures contains among all controlling actions and increasing of farmers’ environmental awareness.