52019DC0095

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 26.2.2019

COM(2019) 95 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans
First Flood Risk Management Plans

{SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}

1.Introduction

Water is indispensable for life and thus for our society and economy. Sustainable water management will play an important role towards allowing mankind to adapt to its altered environment, and help in avoiding that the global temperature increase exceeds 1,5° Celsius 1 . More than ever, the management of this vital resource requires a truly integrated approach, taking account of the environmental, social, economic and health dimensions.

This 5th implementation report presents the state of implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2 (WFD) and the Floods Directive 3 (FD) based on the Commission's assessment of the second River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and first Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) prepared and reported by Member States for the period 2015-2021. This report is required by Article 18 of the WFD and Article 16 of the FD respectively; it also responds to Article 11 of the Groundwater Directive.

The WFD introduced in 2000 ensures the full integration of the economic and ecological perspectives in water quality and quantity management. Its key objective is to achieve, by 2015, good status for the over 111 000 surface waters (e.g. rivers, lakes, coastal waters) and the over 13 000 groundwaters in EU territory. The WFD however allows for extensions to the 2015 deadline, provided they are limited to at most 2 further cycles (i.e. the present 2015-2021 period, and the next 2021-2027 one), unless natural conditions 4 prevent reaching the WFD objectives within the time limits set. Achieving “good status” means securing good ecological and chemical status for surface waters and good quantitative and chemical status for groundwaters, main sources of abstraction of drinking water.

The FD, introduced seven years later as one of the responses to the large floods along the Danube and Elbe rivers in the summer of 2002, sets a framework for reducing the risks of flood damage within the EU. Today this goal is more relevant than ever, in light of increased flooding across Europe. As climate change advances and urban settlements 5 expand, the uncertainties surrounding flood risk management require continuous monitoring and adjustment of practices to ensure the lowest possible damages. This report focuses on progress so far, based on the first FRMPs.

The present report is accompanied by a series of Commission Staff Working Documents with both EU overviews and individual Member State assessments and summaries of international co-operation.

2.State of play of adoption and reporting

All Member States have approved their RBMPs and FRMPs, except from the FRMPs of the Canary Islands (Spain) 6 .

Although improved compared to the previous reporting exercise, many Member States adopted their Plans late (after 22 December 2015), or were late in the reporting through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) database (reporting to be concluded by 22 March 2016) 7 . Some delays were of two years or more. The Commission launched legal proceedings against all Member States in breach of their legal reporting requirements.

3.assessment of second RBMPs and first FRMPs

Information contained in the RBMPs and FRMPs was uploaded to the common digital repository, WISE, managed by the European Environment Agency (EEA). The Commission used WISE as a basis for its assessment, next to information coming directly from the national and international RBMPs and FRMPs.

Ireland, Greece and the Spanish Canary Islands failed to timely report to WISE both their RBMPs and FRMPs for these to be assessed, whilst Lithuania and the UK for Gibraltar failed to do so for their RBMPs. Therefore, the present report does not cover these countries or regions.

The Commission took into account the results of the Water Conference held on 20-21 September 2018 in Vienna, which allowed a range of stakeholders and Member States to provide input to its report.

The Commission also considered comments made by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on previous implementation reports. The Parliament adopted a water-related resolution in 2015 stressing, amongst others, the importance of water quality and quantity management, the need for full implementation of EU water law and for its increased integration into other EU policies. It called on the Member States to complete and implement their RBMPs and make relevant information available online. It highlighted also the synergies between the RBMPs and FRMPs. The Council issued several sets of Conclusions between 2007 and 2016. 8 It highlighted in particular the need to fully implement the EU water acquis to protect waters against deterioration and progressively achieve good status, and called on the Commission and Member States to work together to better integrate these efforts into other relevant policies. On floods in particular, the Council referred to the use of green infrastructure and natural water retention measures as means to reduce flooding risks. The Commission supports all these considerations and has committed to act accordingly.

4.WFD - findings from second RBMPs

The EEA State of Water Report, issued in July 2018 9 , provides detailed information on the status of Europe’s water bodies, as reported by the Member States under the WFD.

It shows that 74% of the EU groundwater bodies have by now achieved good chemical status and 89% of them have achieved good quantitative status.

The situation is less encouraging for surface waters: only 38% of them are in good chemical status and just 40% in good ecological status or potential 10 . Few individual pollutants, the most common being mercury 11 , have a large impact on status. Actions are being taken both at EU and at international level to reduce the emissions of mercury and other pollutants, which have resulted in improvements regarding the levels for some individual substances.

Compared to the 2009-2015 cycle, only a limited number of water bodies have improved in status. This may be due to late identification of pressures, the longer time required to design effective policy measures, the slow introduction of measures, the response time of nature before measures take effect, but also heightened quality standards and improved monitoring and reporting that reveals water bodies previously qualified to be in ‘unknown’ status to actually be ’unsatisfactory’.

Overall, substantial efforts have been made to implement the WFD. Better implementation of other closely linked pieces of EU law also had a positive effect. This concerns in particular the Urban Waste Water Treatment, Nitrates, and Industrial Emissions Directives and EU law on chemicals.

The EEA report concludes that European waters remain under significant pressure from both diffuse (e.g. agriculture, transport infrastructure) and point‑source (e.g. industry or energy production) generated pollution, over-abstraction and hydro-morphological changes stemming from a range of human activities.

4.1Assessment at national or sub-national level

Appropriate governance at river basin level is an essential precondition for achieving the WFD’s objectives. By now all Member States have designated competent authorities, often several types, and highlight the importance of coordination across them. They used several methods to consult with stakeholders. Many standing advisory bodies are now in place. Stakeholder consultation reportedly led to changes to the draft RBMPs; however, it was not always clear how the contributions influenced the adopted RBMP.

Member States have to provide for each river basin district (RBD) an analysis of its characteristics, with a review of the impact of human activity and an economic analysis of water use. This ‘characterisation’ needs to be updated every six years. The boundaries and location of each water body also need to be provided. For every cycle this ‘delineation’ has to be checked and updated, changes in pressures and impacts on water status have to be signalled. The delineation changed in around 4 out of 10 cases, often without clear explanation. Descriptions of important pressures are generally clearer thanks to better defined criteria. There is nonetheless still scope for improvement, as for a large proportion of water bodies unknown impacts of anthropogenic origin and pressures of unknown drivers (especially hydro-morphological pressures) were reported.

Some methodological improvements enabling easier progress tracking and comparability of data have been made in relation to establishing when, as required by the WFD, a heavily modified water body or an artificial water body can be considered to have achieved Good Ecological Potential.

The monitoring and assessment of ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies shows a diverse picture in terms of the parameters measured and the comparability of the results. Across the EU, there is a huge variation in the monitoring of Priority Substances 12 , both in terms of the percentage of water bodies and the number of substances. Most Member States monitored all Priority Substances identified as discharged into their RBDs. All Member States reported inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of such harmful substances, but only a few are complete.

The fact that, until early 2018, there was no formal common intercalibration system for many water types 13 makes comparison between water bodies still very difficult in this second reporting cycle.

Nevertheless, for almost all water bodies it has been possible to establish their status, reducing much of the uncertainty previously found. However, important gaps in ecological status monitoring remain.

Overall, monitoring of quality elements in each water category is patchy at best, overly relying on grouping of several different water bodies and expert judgment, rather than on a more thorough assessment of each relevant water body under the specific WFD parameters. Further efforts are needed to have appropriate monitoring networks reach sufficient spatial coverage and assessment reliability.

The monitoring and assessment of the quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies has improved, although a significant number still lacks proper monitoring sites. Here, the WFD is complemented by the Groundwater Directive; which spells out in particular, the list of relevant pollutants, thresholds values and trends for the assessment of chemical status. Both Directives work in synergy also with other EU law, such as the Drinking Water (DWD) and Nitrates Directives. Chemical status monitoring is still substandard, with a large number of groundwater bodies either lacking or monitoring a limited part of the core parameters.

The exemptions foreseen in Article 4 of the WFD 14 currently cover around half of Europe’s water bodies. This mainly concerns natural water bodies, but increasingly also heavily modified and artificial water bodies, next to new physical modifications. Whilst the justifications for such exemptions have overall improved, their persistent wide use is an indicator of the significant efforts still needed to achieve good status or potential by 2027. However, and in line with what is required by that same Article, the reported data suggest that Member States need to better ensure that the exemptions applied for one water body do not permanently exclude or compromise the achievement of the environmental objectives in other water bodies (Article 4(8)), and guarantee at least the level of protection provided for in other EU environmental law (Article 4(9)).

The WFD requires Member States to identify a Programme of Measures (PoM) 15 to timely achieve good status. As regards water bodies affected by water abstraction, the key measures have generally been defined, but their implementation is uneven across Europe and thus pressures are only slowly reduced. The fact that most Member States exempt small abstractions from controls or registration is potentially problematic. A lack of control and registration can be of concern particularly in Member States that already have water scarcity problems and in water bodies that face quantitative problems.

Impacts from agriculture are amongst the most significant pressures identified by Member States in most RBDs as posing potential risk of deterioration or non-achievement of the environmental objectives, both in the form of over-abstraction or diffuse pollution. Basic measures 16 are usually in place. In half the cases no ex ante assessment is made of the extent to which the measures taken will be sufficient to close the gap to good status. Much will also depend on the effect of voluntary measures, often in the context of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). Aiming to increase the level of environmental ambition, the Commission's proposals for the new CAP set mandatory requirements 17 for farmers. In addition, the intervention strategy defined by Member States in their CAP strategic plan shall take into account the needs identified in the RBMPs and shall contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the WFD. If needed, Member States will have to offer additional support for further water protection interventions through various voluntary schemes 18 .

Basic measures to deal with pressures from sectors other than agriculture, such as industry or energy generation, are generally in place as well. These are, in most cases, specific measures to deal with pollutants which are causing failures of chemical or ecological status, such as, for example, measures to reduce or stop the release into water of certain pollutants. However, more progress is needed.

On existing physical modifications of water bodies, most Member States have reported measures (fish ladders, removal of structures, etc.) aimed at reducing the negative environmental impacts of significant hydromorphological pressures. There is also a clearer link between the measures, the pressures and the water uses or economic sectors. Minimum ecological flows need to be better defined and implemented and river continuity and appropriate sediments management needs to be ensured.

A number of Member States have upgraded their water pricing policies by fulfilling the ex‑ante conditionality for water under the Common Provisions Regulation for the European Structural and Investment Funds for the period 2014-2020. Steps were made in defining water services, calculating financial costs, metering, performing economic analysis and assessing both environmental and resource costs when calculating the cost recovery amounts for water services. However, significant gaps remain in translating these improved elements of economic analysis into concrete measures and achieving more harmonised approaches to estimate and integrate environmental and resource costs. Increased investments are essential to meet the objectives of the WFD. Further progress in the economic underpinning of the Programme of Measures would greatly facilitate water-related decisions and investments.

Little progress has been made with regard to protected areas for drinking water and for nature protected areas. The evaluation of the 1998 DWD assessed its coherence with the WFD and identified a missing link as regards protecting drinking water resources. Therefore, the 2018 proposal for a DWD recast introduces a risk‑based approach from abstraction to tap, whilst promoting better communication between Member States’ authorities and water suppliers to ensure a full governance cycle. The proposal aims to improve coherence between the two Directives and ensure the polluter pays and precautionary principles both apply.

For a large part of protected areas knowledge about, for example, status and pressures is lacking and no objectives are set. Reporting of monitoring specifically targeted towards protected areas, including for shellfish, is very limited and sometimes missing completely.

In about half of the Member States droughts were considered as a relevant feature for water management. One of the key measures to mitigate drought impacts is a Drought Management Plan, but this was not adopted in all relevant RBDs.

For the third RBMPs Member States should

·Continue improving stakeholder involvement, with active participation in the planning process and the integration of their contributions in the RMBPs.

·Clearly identify the gap to good status for individual pressures and water bodies and design, fund and implement targeted PoMs to close it.

·Reduce reliance on exemptions to ensure a timely achievement of the WFD objectives and improve transparency in relation to the justifications used.

·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environment and resource costs for all activities with a significant impact on water bodies and the economic analysis to underpin the PoM.

4.2Transboundary cooperation under the WFD

For river basins crossing national borders, the WFD requires Member States to coordinate amongst each other and make reasonable efforts also with non-EU countries, where relevant. Many European rivers flow beyond EU borders, including for example the Rhine and Danube. The degree of cooperation differs. Usually, an international agreement is in place, often also an international coordinating body and, less frequently, a joint RBMP. Only few basins in the EU have none of these.

Overall, compared to the first cycle, governance structures were further formalised, international RBMPs increasingly developed and comparability of findings improved as did the compatibility of approaches in response to pressures.

4.3Issues which could not be dealt with at Member State level

The WFD Article 12 procedure for issues which cannot be dealt with at Member State level was invoked once. In 2016 Denmark stressed that, to meet the WFD objectives, other Member States need to take action to reduce their nitrogen load in shared water bodies. Asked to intervene, the Commission stressed that Member States are primarily responsible to secure WFD objectives and noted that Article 3 envisages coordination within RBDs, including international ones. It suggested to first exhaust bilateral cooperation opportunities including under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

FD - findings from first FRMPs

5.1 Assessment at national level

Human choices, historic but also still widespread today, have a significant effect on the occurrence and impacts from flooding 19 and there is evidence that the number of large flood events has increased over the years. 20 Projections are a cause for concern; under a no-adaptation scenario (i.e. assuming continuation of the current protection against river floods up to a current 100-year event), damages in the EU from the combined effect of climate and socioeconomic change are projected to rise from EUR 6.9 billion/year to EUR 20.4 billion/year by the 2020s, EUR 45.9 billion/year by the 2050s, and EUR 97.9 billion/year by the 2080s. 21 It is therefore logical that 27 out of 28 Member States included floods as a main risk in their national risk assessments. 22

Establishing FRMPs, a management tool employed for the reduction of potential adverse consequences from flooding, was the third step of the cyclical approach to flood risk management introduced by the FD. Previously, Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 23 were undertaken (in 2011) and Flood Hazard and Risk Maps prepared (in 2013) by the Member States.

In terms of completeness, almost all Member States reported the conclusions of their Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and Flood Hazard and Risk Maps in their FRMPs. All Member States set objectives for the management of flood risks, and in 20 of 26 Member States assessed, these are at the national level or by adapting national level objectives to regional/local circumstances. Some set a few broad objectives, others presented a larger number of more detailed ones. All Member States included measures for achieving the objectives. However, not all objectives are sufficiently elaborated to allow for implementation monitoring and not all measures are clearly linked to objectives; taken together, these deficiencies may pose a challenge for the second cycle (2016-21), when Member States are expected to assess progress.

The number of measures varies significantly across Member States, ranging from few individual measures to thousands of measure groups. About 50% of measures relate to prevention and preparedness, around 40% to protection from flood damage and the remaining 10% concern recovery. In terms of non-structural initiatives 24 , all assessed FRMPs refer to spatial planning. All 26 Member States’ assessed include nature-based solutions in some or all FRMPs, either as projects or preparatory studies. Although the FD does not mention insurance coverage against flood risks, more than half of the assessed FRMPs mention at least some related measures, including awareness raising.

All Member States reported on the prioritisation of measures, or provided a timeframe for their implementation. To illustrate, around 10% of the measures reported were of critical, 60% of very high or high, 20% of moderate and the remainder of low priority. 19 of 26 Member States assessed made some analysis of costs and benefits of measures. For nearly all, a national approach was developed 25 . Fewer (11) Member States used a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in all Units of Management (UoMs) 26 assessed. 21 of 26 Member States explicitly refer to coordination with the environmental objectives of Article 4 of the WFD in all or at least some UoMs.

About half of the Member States assessed made estimates of the costs of flood measures available, though, in many cases, not covering all FRMPs or measures. In 23 of 26 Member States, most of the FRMPs identified funding sources, however, in many cases this concerns possible funding mechanisms at large, e.g. the European Structural and Investment Funds.

A variety of consultation channels with the public and stakeholders was used and, overall, a broad range of stakeholders were involved in the preparation of the first FRMPs, however, it was not always clear how the contributions influenced the FRMPs which were adopted at various administrative levels and through various acts.

For the second FRMPs Member States should

·Clearly link the implementation of measures to the achievement of objectives to be able to assess progress from the second cycle onwards;

·Identify specific funding sources to secure the implementation of measures.

5.2 Impact of Climate Change

There is growing evidence that climate change will have a substantial impact on the occurrence and severity of floods in much of Europe 27 . Over half of the Member States considered climate change at the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and Flood Hazard and Risk Maps steps. From the FRMPs assessed and Member State reporting, 24 of the 26 Member States considered at least some aspects and ten provided evidence that climate change impacts were considered. Fourteen Member States discussed future climate scenarios in their FRMPs with varying time-frames (about half have scenarios for 2050, and scenarios for 2100 are also in about half). Less than half refer to the national adaptation strategies prepared by Member States under the EU Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. In about a quarter of Member States all FRMPs assessed referred to such national strategies; in a further few Member States some, but not all FRMPs assessed, had such references.

For the second FRMPs Member States should

·In accordance with Article 14 of the FD, factor in the likely impact of climate change on the occurrence of flooding and adapt measures accordingly making appropriate use of EU modelling tools such as those available through the Copernicus Climate Change Service 28 ;

·Consider national climate change strategies and coordinate with measures included therein.

5.3 Transboundary co-operation under the FD

Under the FD Member States are required to coordinate with each other in transboundary river basins and also make efforts to coordinate with third countries. Where coordination structures are established, the development of an international Flood Risk Management Plan (iFRMP) led invariably to common objectives for flood risk management and, in almost all cases, to the definition of a number of coordinated measures. Extensive public consultation took place for some of the basins where a river commission has been established, such as in the Danube, the Rhine, the Elbe and the Odra; consideration of climate change at the basin level is more developed where a river commission is tasked with coordination.

For the second cycle Member States with transboundary river basins should

·Further develop common approaches, taking account, at the basin scale, of the upstream and downstream effects of flood risk reduction measures not located in the vicinity of national borders and extend the practice of international public consultations.

6. Conclusions

Overall, knowledge and reporting on the Water Framework Directive have significantly improved compared to the previous cycle. More Member States reported in a timely manner and with more comprehensive, relevant and reliable information.

Compliance with the Water Framework Directive objectives is reported as increasing gradually. Although in a number of Member States good policy measures were taken and a number of financial investments made, in many river basins improvements in water quality will still take some time. Indeed, while a large majority of groundwater bodies has achieved good status, less than half of surface water bodies is in good status, although trends in several underlying individual quality elements and substances are more positive.

Much remains to be done to fully achieve the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and related Directives, first and foremost by the Member States. Member States will benefit from a greater involvement of all relevant market and civil society actors to secure a better enforcement of the polluter pays principle. EU funds will continue to support these implementation efforts, including funding of research and innovation and efforts 29 towards a Digital Single Market for Water Services 30 . The path towards full compliance with the WFD’s objectives by 2027, after which exemption possibilities are limited, seems at this stage very challenging. Reporting showed indeed that, although further measures will be taken until 2021, many others will be needed beyond 2021.

For the Floods Directive, very important steps have been taken. Although these are the first FRMPs, it is clear that all Member States have fundamentally embraced the concept of flood risk management even if the practical degree of elaboration varies. Achieving the key objective of the Floods Directive of reducing the potential adverse consequences from significant flooding will require sustained efforts from the part of the Member States in the following cycles.

The Commission will follow-up as relevant with the Member States on the recommendations contained in this report and its accompanying documents, to secure a better implementation of the requirements under the Water Framework and the Floods Directives. A stepped up enforcement of the legal obligations covering key pressures on the aquatic environment, such as those stemming from the Nitrates and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directives, will also be pursued.

Next to continue working with Member States, the Commission will further engage with citizens and all relevant stakeholders to promote compliance, also through the Environmental Implementation Review. Where possible, reporting will be further streamlined or simplified. Attention will be paid to new emerging pollutants, e.g. microplastics and pharmaceuticals.

The present report will feed into the ongoing Fitness Check of EU water law and the evaluation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. It also contributes to assessing progress made towards the achievement of the objectives of the EU's 7th Environmental Action Programme and the global 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

Europe’s waters are increasingly affected by climate change. Compliance with EU water law is already helping to manage the effects of a changing climate, by anticipating more droughts and floods. EU water policy holds considerable potential to mitigate climate change, provided effective action is taken now.

(1)

See report “Global Warming of 1.5 °C”, adopted at the 48th IPCC session (6 October 2018) for the expected effects and impacts of 1.5° C and 2° C scenarios.

(2)

2000/60/EC; supplemented by Groundwater (2006/118/EC) and Environmental Quality Standards (2008/105/EC) Directives.

(3)

2007/60/EC

(4)

E.g. slow recovery of ecosystems following the implementation of river restoration measures or low rates of reduction in concentrations of nitrate in groundwater.

(5)

E.g. through socio-economic changes such as the encroachment of assets into floodplains.

(6)

Spain notified the Commission that the RBMP for La Gomera was endorsed on 17 September 2018, Tenerife, La Palma on 26 November 2018, Fuerteventura, Lanzarote, El Hierro on 26 December 2018, and Gran Canaria on 21 January 2019.

(7)

The format for electronic reporting as well as reporting guidance was jointly elaborated by the Member States, stakeholders and the Commission as part of a collaborative process called the “Common Implementation Strategy” (CIS).

(8)

On Water scarcity and droughts of 30 October 2007; on Water scarcity, drought and adaptation to climate change of 11 June 2010; on Integrated flood management within the EU of 12 May 2011; on Protection of water resources and integrated sustainable water management in the EU and beyond of 21 June 2011; on a Blueprint to safeguard Europe's water resources of 17 December 2012; on EU water diplomacy of 22 July 2013; and sustainable water management of 17 October 2016

(9)

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water

(10)

Good Ecological Potential is the objective to be reached by a heavily modified or artificial water body.

(11)

Other ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances causing failure to meet good chemical status are pBDEs, tributyltin and certain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene).

(12)

Substances presenting a significant risk to or via the aquatic environment, listed in the Environment Quality Standards Directive.

(13)

Commission Decision (EU) 2018/229 of 12 February 2018.

(14)

Article 4(4) allows for an extension of the deadline for achieving good status or potential beyond 2015 (as set by Article 4(1)). Article 4(5) allows for the achievement of less stringent objectives. Article 4(6) allows a temporary deterioration in the status of water bodies. Article 4(7) sets out conditions in which deterioration of status or failure to achieve the WFD objectives may be permitted for new modifications to the physical characteristics of surface water bodies, alterations to the level of groundwater, or deterioration from high to good status as a result of new sustainable human development activities.

(15)

The next interim reports on the implementation of the planned PoMs should be reported to the Commission by 22 December 2018.

(16)

Within each RBD, a POMs is to be established to address the significant issues identified and allow the achievement of the Article 4 objectives. POMs shall include as a minimum 'basic measures' and where necessary to achieve objectives 'supplementary measures'.

(17)

Notably New Statutory Requirement No 1 related to Directive 2000/60/EC: Article 11(3)(e) and Article 11(3)(h) as regards mandatory requirements to control diffuse sources of pollution by phosphates, SMR 2 on Nitrates directive obligations, GAEC 2 on appropriate protection of wetland and peatland, GAEC 4 on buffer strips, GAEC 5 on the Use of Farm Sustainability Tool for Nutrients, and GAEC 7 on no bare soil in most sensitive period.

GAEC: Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/cross-compliance_en .

(18)

Member States will have to propose support to voluntary eco-schemes for farmers to carry out agricultural practices beneficial for the environment and the climate under the CAP first pillar. In addition, support to voluntary agri-environment commitments will remain obligatory under the second pillar.

(19)

Locating assets within floodplains or near the coast, the reduction of water-retaining surfaces, interventions to water courses or their surroundings and man-instigated climate change, all contribute to an increase in the likelihood and adverse impacts of flood events.

(20)

Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz, Iwona Pińskwar & G. Robert Brakenridge (2012): Large floods in Europe, 1985–2009, Hydrological Sciences Journal.

(21)

Rojas et al. (2013) Climate change and river floods in the EU: Socio-economic consequences and the costs and benefits of adaptation, Global Environmental Change 23, 1737–1751 available at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013001416#

(22)

Commission Staff Working Document – Overview of natural and man-made disaster risks the European Union may face{SWD (2017)176 final}; https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/285d038f-b543-11e7-837e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

(23)

There are nearly 8 000 areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFRs) in the EU.

(24)

Measures not involving civil engineering structures.

(25)

In November 2017, the European Commission proposed to strengthen the EU Civil Protection Mechanism by encouraging a stronger collective European response with the development of a reserve capacity (known as ‘rescEU’) to complement national capacities, and by stepping up disaster prevention and preparedness in Participating States to the Mechanism (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6766_en.htm).

(26)

UoMs coincide, in most Member States, with the River Basin Districts under the WFD. Member States have designated a total of 196 UoM for the implementation of the FD.

(27)

The October 2018 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mentioned that flooding is projected to be substantially lower at 1.5°C as compared to 2°C of global warming, although projected changes create regionally differentiated risks ( http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/ ).

(28)

https://climate.copernicus.eu/

(29)

Relevant projects developing solutions like decision support systems for the measurement of water quality and quantity, interoperability between water information systems at EU and national levels and efficiency of water resources management are represented in the ICT4Water Cluster: https://www.ict4water.eu/

(30)

As described in the Digital Single Market for Water Services Action Plan:

https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/ict4wateractionplan2018.pdf

Top

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 26.2.2019

COM(2019) 95 final

ANNEX

to the

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (200/60/EC) and Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans
First Flood Risk Management Plans

ANNEX

to the

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (200/60/EC) and Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans
First Flood Risk Management Plans

Commission recommendations on the second RBMPs and first FRMPs

[The full lists of recommendations are included in the national assessments accompanying this document]

Member State

Recommendations for the preparation of the 3rd RBMPs

Recommendations for the preparation of the 2nd FRMPs

Austria (AT)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Austria is particularly encouraged to:

·Secure the timely adoption of the 3rd RBMPs.

·Secure continuity, effectiveness and appropriate funding in implementing the measures needed for the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. Particular focus should be devoted to measures aimed to reduce the significant amount of hydromorphological pressures.

·Show ambition and pragmatism in tackling chemical pollution, moving away from mere knowledge-gathering measures.

·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Austria is particularly encouraged to:

·Develop measurable FRMP objectives and link the proposed measures to them, so as to be able to assess progress made.

·Explain how the proposed measures are selected and prioritised e.g. how the different factors influencing the choices made are weighted (including cost-benefit analysis, effectiveness and climate change).

·Develop a more detailed methodology for assessing the overall cost effectiveness of the proposed measures, whilst providing more information on costs and relevant funding sources.

·Secure appropriate cross-references between FRMPs, PFRAs/APSFRs and FHRMs, whilst making sure they are continuously available to all interested parties and the public in an accessible format, including digitally.

Belgium (BE)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Belgium is particularly encouraged to:

·Stipulate clear financial commitments for the implementation of the Programmes of Measures.

·Fine-tune its strategy for achieving the WFD objectives and enhance the technical feasibility of its next RBMPs, by working in close cooperation with the farming community and the authorities in charge with the national implementation of the CAP as well as by securing greater synergies between the WFD goals and all relevant policies and instruments (e.g. RDP, CAP Pillar 1, Nitrates Directive, etc.) as implemented nationally.

·Show ambition and pragmatism in tackling chemical pollution, by developing a more substance-specific approach both in surface and groundwater, with focus on Priority Substances, river-specific and groundwater-specific pollutants.

·Carry out, where relevant and based on a clearly explained methodology, cost-benefit analysis for the proposed measures and explain how this has led to the selection and prioritisation of those measures.

·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Belgium is particularly encouraged to:

·Provide a more detailed description of the expected impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods, based on the available studies.

·Provide an overview of the costs of measures and the expected funding sources.

·Incorporate cost-benefit analysis (e.g. for the prioritisation of measures that lend themselves to it) in the FRMPs and provide a clear description of the methodology used.

·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Bulgaria (BG)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Bulgaria is particularly encouraged to:

·Further improve international cooperation, by developing more harmonized approaches for assessing the status of shared water bodies and deliver better coordinated assessments and Programmes of Measures to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives.

·Improve its own monitoring capacities with a view to lower its dependence on expert judgment for assessing the ecological status/potential of its water bodies.

·Base the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) on a thorough assessment of all the steps as required by the WFD and transparently indicate, in all RBDs, which are the justifications for invoking the exemptions under Article 4(7) WFD.

·Secure better compliance, especially in big cities, with Article 5 of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, in relation to the requirement of more stringent treatment of wastewaters for discharge into sensitive areas.

·Provide a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads from agriculture (nutrients, agri‑chemicals, sediment, organic matter) across all waters in all its RBDs and link it directly to the proposed mitigation measures (as per Article 11(3)(h) WFD). These measures should be specific, have a clear legal basis and include appropriate monitoring and inspection regimes.

·Ensure that a clear distinction is made between water scarcity and drought in water policy and that a Drought Management Plan or a Water resource allocation and management plan is adopted.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Bulgaria is particularly encouraged to:

·Improve the elaboration of objectives and measures by clearly indicating the timeline for achievement and implementation.

·Provide a more detailed description of the expected impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods and ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy once adopted.

Cyprus (CY)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Cyprus is particularly encouraged to:

·Further improve its capacity to assess the status of all water categories (including territorial waters), with a view to reduce the proportion of unknown status and secure better assessment as to the presence of any of the Priority Substances.

·Monitor its water bodies in a way to provide sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage to classify them all (possibly combined with robust grouping /extrapolation methods).

·Step up its use of metering (especially for agriculture) to better determine the quantitative status of water bodies and reduce the over-abstraction of groundwater, mainly due to unregulated self-abstractions and permits insufficiently aligned with environmental requirements.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Cyprus is particularly encouraged to:

·Explain how it selects and prioritises the proposed measures, e.g. how the different factors influencing the choices made (including cost-benefit analysis, effectiveness and climate change) are weighted.

·Establish a baseline and relevant indicators to assess the progress achieved in implementing the proposed measures.

·Systematically consider opportunities to implement nature based solutions (incl. NWRM), as alternatives, wherever possible, to dredging and ‘grey infrastructure’ modifications of river banks and river beds.

Czech Republic (CZ)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, the Czech Republic is particularly encouraged to:

·Secure better monitoring, in particular a sufficient number of water bodies and appropriate coverage of all relevant quality elements. Operational monitoring of lakes should be improved and better linked with the pressures and impacts analysis. Hydromorphological quality elements should be monitored in all water categories.

·Improve the reliability of the assessment of ecological status/potential and in particular, improve on assessment methods for hydromorphological elements, and link physico-chemical boundaries to the relevant biological quality elements in rivers.

·Provide better justification for the use of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions; and distinguish clearly between these. This is particularly important as a significant number of water bodies are expected to achieve the WFD objectives only beyond 2027 and exemptions are widely applied.

·Quantify the reduction in pollutant load needed to achieve WFD objectives; the basin-wide impact of mitigation measures related to agricultural water pollution sources and the extent to which the measures already taken under the ND and UWWTD contribute and identify additional measures to be taken to achieve fully the objectives.

·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, the Czech Republic is particularly encouraged to:

·Develop measurable FRMP objectives and link the proposed measures to them, so as to be able to assess progress made.

·Provide a cost estimate for each measure and an overall budget for all measures, indicating whether it covers both investment and operational costs.

·Describe the method for the prioritisation of measures and provide clear information on the methods used to assess costs and benefits of measures.

·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

Germany (DE)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Germany is particularly encouraged to:

·Improve for all RBDs trend monitoring for all relevant substances, in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage.

·Justify better the application of exemptions under Article 4(4) and Article 4(5), in particular the justification on disproportionate costs.

·Complete a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads from agriculture across all waters in all RBDs and link it directly to mitigation measures. Additional actions are needed to prevent pollution induced by nitrates from agricultural pressures.

·Consider developing Drought Management Plans for areas more at risk of drought.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Germany is particularly encouraged to:

·Develop measurable objectives (timeframe, indicators) and define clear criteria of what significant adverse impacts of flooding are.

·Define the measures in more detail in the plans, including how much they will contribute to the objectives and how they are funded.

·Explain how the proposed measures are selected and prioritised, e.g. how the different factors influencing the choices made are weighted (including cost-benefit analysis, effectiveness and climate change).

·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

Denmark (DK)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Denmark is particularly encouraged to:

·Clarify the apportionment of significant pressures among different sectors in order to be able to identify the appropriate mitigation measures.

·Improve monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements in all water categories and increase the proportion of water bodies covered by monitoring for River Basin Specific Pollutants.

·Complete the development of assessment methods for all biological quality elements in all water categories, including methods that are sensitive to nutrients in rivers and include hydromorphological quality elements in the classification of ecological status.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Denmark is particularly encouraged to:

·Provide further and more consistent information on the process for the development of the FRMPs, including how the PFRA and FHRMs were used in their preparation. Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

·Consider a more uniform approach to the different FRMPs, as they currently are quite different in nature (in terms of strategy and level of detail). For this, consider greater information exchange among the various administrations.

·Provide more details about the costs and funding sources for measures and carry out cost benefit analysis wherever possible. Provide further information on the prioritisation of measures, including the criteria used. Provide information in all FRMPs about the mechanisms to be used to monitor the implementation of their measures.

Estonia (EE)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Estonia is particularly encouraged to:

·Ensure that reference conditions are established for all relevant Quality Elements for all surface waters.

·Complete inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances.

·Step up efforts to assess the status of all water bodies, increasing the confidence in the assessment of status and reducing the proportion of unknown status. Monitoring should provide sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage (including in biota).

·Better justify exemptions by developing and applying clear criteria for the application of Article 4(4) and distinguish these clearly from the criteria and justifications used under Article 4(5).

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Estonia is particularly encouraged to:

·Develop specific and measurable FRMP objectives and describe the process for setting objectives.

·Provide more detailed information on how much the implementation of measures would cost in each UoM and about their timetables. Provide also indicators of progress. Describe in the FRMPs the methodology used for cost-benefit analysis and present the results.

Greece (EL)

The RBMPs were not reported on time, and have therefore not been included in the Commission's assessment.

The FRMPs were not reported on time, and have therefore not been included in the Commission's assessment.

Spain (ES)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Spain is particularly encouraged to:

·Ensure that the next RBMPs are adopted on time, respecting the requirements concerning public consultation.

·Make more use of flow meters, to ensure that all abstractions are metered and registered, and that permits are adapted to available resources, and ensure that users report regularly to river basin authorities on the volumes actually abstracted, especially in those river basin districts which present significant abstraction pressures.

·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs.

·Ensure that quantitative and qualitative needs for protected habitats and species, are specified and translated into specific objectives for each Protected Area, and specify also relevant monitoring and measures.

·Ensure that new Drought Management Plans are adopted.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Spain is particularly encouraged to:

·Adopt urgently the FRMPs for the Canary Islands and ensure that the next FRMPs are adopted on time.

·Better explain and document the process of prioritization of objectives, e.g. explain which institutions and stakeholders have taken part in it, and which reasons have been argued to decide on high or low priorities for the different objectives. Develop measurable objectives and indicators for the impact of measures to aid the process of assessing progress.

·Present the methodology for assessing measures in terms of costs and benefits as well as the application and results of this analysis.

·Consider climate change, including systematic consideration with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Finland (FI)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Finland is particularly encouraged to:

·Ensure better monitoring of surface waters, to cover all water bodies for all relevant quality elements, including hydromorphological quality elements and River Basin Specific Pollutants in coastal waters.

·Improve for all RBDs trend monitoring for all relevant substances, in a way that provide sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage.

·Ensure a thorough assessment of proposed new modifications in line with the WFD requirements, in light of the expectation that deterioration from high to good status may not trigger an Article 4(7) assessment.

·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs.

·Based on the prevalence of local or sub-basin drought spells as one of the effects of climate change, re-consider preparing Drought Management Plans where appropriate.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Finland is particularly encouraged to:

·Set a clear time frame in the FRMPs for the achievement of objectives.

·Establish a stronger connection between the objectives and measures and clearly state whether the planned measures are sufficient to reach the objectives.

·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

France (FR)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, France is particularly encouraged to:

·Better justify the application of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions and review and update justifications to ensure that all possible measures are implemented.

·Improve on tackling nutrient pollution, and assess and report the expected effect of the measures.

·Step up efforts to implement and report hydromorphological measures for all water bodies affected by hydromorphological pressures, and for all RBDs, also to meet international commitments to remove obstacles to river continuity.

·Consider developing Drought Management Plans for areas more at risk of drought.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, France is particularly encouraged to:

·Provide more detailed information on the prior steps to the FRMPs, including summary maps and text regarding the APSFRs, and references where they can be accessed. Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

·Develop objectives with specific and measurable elements to the extent possible and maintain a clear link between higher and lower level objectives and between measures and objectives.

·Provide greater information in the FRMPs on measures, including costs and funding sources, details on location and information on prioritisation and monitoring progress.

Croatia (HR)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Croatia is particularly encouraged to:

·Step up work on the identification of pressures, in particular in transitional and coastal waters.

·Develop an appropriate methodology for the designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies. The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3), and establish a methodology for defining ecological potential.

·Provide all relevant information on the level of compliance and the timing to reach compliance of agglomerations in accordance with Directive 91/271/EEC: Ensure also compliance with Article 5 UWWTD for more stringent treatment, especially in big cities.

·Consider additional measures on point source pollution beyond the requirements of the UWWTD and IED to fulfil the WFD objectives, and complete the identification of Key Types of Measures for diffuse sources.

·Ensure that abstraction controls are in place and that information on uses, water exploitation and trends is collected and reported; consider use of natural water retention measures to mitigate risk to water quality from agricultural pollutants, consider adopting Drought Management Plan(s) and continue revising existing controls to ensure that agricultural practices do not cause hydromorphological pressure and update controls where necessary.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Croatia is particularly encouraged to:

·Present specific and measurable flood management objectives and clearly link measures to the objectives. Indicate the baseline against which progress can be monitored.

·Provide further details on the approach to public consultation and the active involvement of stakeholders.

Hungary (HU)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Hungary is particularly encouraged to:

·All Priority Substances should be considered in the assessment of status, in the relevant matrix. If a different matrix is used, explanations should be provided.

·Tackle uncertainty in the designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies through better monitoring, improved data on hydromorphological pressures and improved understanding of the effects on the biological quality elements. Ensure that the designation of HMWBs complies with all the requirements of Article 4(3).

·Ensure that abstractions are subject to effective permits, metering and controls.

·Ensure that a clear distinction is made between water scarcity and drought in water policy and that a Drought Management Plan is adopted.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Hungary is particularly encouraged to:

·Develop objectives that are more specific in terms of quantitative targets, locations and timeframes for achievement.

·Provide more clarity on the number of measures, the relationship between the FRMP’s measures and other measures identified as preliminary and their prioritisation.

·Include an estimation of the cost of all measures in the next FRMP.

·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Ireland (IE)

The RBMPs were not reported on time, and have therefore not been included in the Commission's assessment.

The FRMPs were not reported on time, and have therefore not been included in the Commission's assessment.

Italy (IT)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Italy is particularly encouraged to:

·Harmonise different regional approaches, in particular for the definition of the significance of pressures.

·Provide meaningful information about the scope and the timing of the measures in the Programme of Measures so it is clear how objectives are to be attained. RBMPs should indicate a systematic prioritisation of measures.

·Ensure that information on funding sources of the Programme of Measures is more clearly described in the third RBMP.

·Reinforce metering for all abstractions, and review abstraction permits systems. Ensure that action is taken to address illegal abstractions especially in RBDs with relevant water scarcity problems.

·Tackle urban waste water discharges, and make sure that the measures planned are sufficient to meet the WFD objectives (as well as the UWWTD) in all RBDs.

·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs.

·Ensure that a Drought Management Plan is adopted also for the Sicily RBD.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Italy is particularly encouraged to:

·Develop specific and measurable FRMP objectives and establish a link between objectives and measures.

·Consistently explain in the FRMPs how the monitoring of measures will be carried out and provide greater detail on how measures will be funded.

· Expand the use of cost-benefit analysis in the selection and prioritisation of measures where possible.

·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Lithuania (LT)

The RBMPs were not reported on time, and have therefore not been included in the Commission's assessment.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Lithuania is particularly encouraged to:

·Clarify the legal status of the FRMP. Ensure that FRMPs, PFRAs/APSFRs, and FHRMs refer to each other as appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an accessible format.

·Clearly link the proposed measures to the objectives, so as to be able to assess progress made.

·Dedicate space to climate change issues in the FRMPs and coordinate with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Luxembourg (LU)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Luxembourg is particularly encouraged to:

·Improve designation of heavily modified water bodies needs by developing and applying clear criteria to establish significant adverse effects in a transparent manner. Apply a more refined methodology for the definition of ecological potential.

·Ensure a thorough assessment of possible new modifications in line with the requirements of the WFD.

·Review and develop the strategy for achieving the WFD objectives and enhance the technical feasibility of its next RBMPs, in cooperation with the farming community and the authorities in charge of the national implementation of the CAP, to ensure all relevant policies and instruments (e.g. RDP, CAP Pillar 1, Nitrates Directive, etc.) contribute significantly to RBMPs.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMP, Luxembourg is particularly encouraged to:

·Develop specific and measurable objectives to the extent possible, which would then allow clear targets to be set and achievements to be measured; link objectives to measures.

·Include cost estimations of measures and specify funding sources in the FRMP.

·Set out a clearer timeline of implementation of measures in the FRMP.

Latvia (LV)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Latvia is particularly encouraged to:

·Identify sources of funding to facilitate the implementation of the WFD objectives.

·Complete the development of assessment methods for all biological quality elements. Methods for the assessment of the hydromorphological quality elements should be developed for transitional and coastal waters.

·Ensure that for potential future application of Article 4(7), a thorough assessment of possible new modifications is made.

·Ensure adequate co-ordination of the RBMPs with the Floods Directive and Flood Risk Management Plans.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Latvia is particularly encouraged to:

·To the extent possible, develop measurable FRMP objectives and link the proposed measures to them, so as to be able to assess progress made.

·Specify sources of funding for the measures.

·Present and apply a methodology for assessing measures in terms of costs and benefits where relevant and provide its results.

·Explain in the second cycle how the climate change impacts have been considered and ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy once adopted.

Malta (MT)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Malta is particularly encouraged to:

·Ensure apportionment of pressures among sources, so that adequate measures can be identified.

·Continue to work on completing the monitoring schemes for quantitative status of groundwater..

·Ensure that possible new modifications are in line with the requirements of the WFD.

·Better tackle the problem of water scarcity and over-abstraction.

·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Malta is particularly encouraged to:

·To the extent possible, develop measurable FRMP objectives and explicitly link the proposed measures to them, so as to be able to assess progress made, including the mechanisms and indicators for monitoring their implementation.

·Provide information on the estimated cost of all flood risk mitigation measures, their prioritisation and the methods for prioritisation.

The Netherlands (NL)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, the Netherlands is particularly encouraged to:

·Complete the assessment of the effectiveness of the existing agricultural measures and identify which additional measures are needed to achieve the objectives of the WFD.

·Ensure that, for chemical pollution from non-agricultural sources, the Programmes of Measures is based on reliable assessment of the pressures.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, the Netherlands is particularly encouraged to:

·Define objectives in an as specific and measurable way as possible and explain the process. Describe the links with other prior and ongoing Dutch flood programmes and legislation in the FRMPs.

·Provide information on the estimated costs of the measures in the FRMPs and indicate whether a baseline is used for monitoring progress, or develop a baseline.

·Provide clear information on the organisation of public participation and the active involvement of stakeholders.

Poland (PL)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Poland is particularly encouraged to:

·Strengthen monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories.

·Provide a complete assessment of ecological status for all categories of water, including assessments of all relevant quality elements.

·Increase efforts to develop a consistent methodology for the designation of heavily modified water bodies for all relevant water categories.

·Ensure that the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) is based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as required by the WFD.

·Derive and implement ecological flows.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Poland is particularly encouraged to:

·Consider conclusions from the finalised flood hazard and risk mapping of the 1st cycle for the 2nd cycle PFRA, FHRM and FRMP steps.

·Explain in the second cycle how the climate change impacts have been considered.

Portugal (PT)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Portugal is particularly encouraged to:

·Improve monitoring of surface water by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories. Include in operational monitoring all water bodies which are subject to significant pressures, including in coastal waters.

·Further strengthened justification for the use of Article 4(7) by ensuring that each project is assessed at water body level in addition to strategic level assessments.

·Continue updating licenses and permits for all abstractions and flow regulations.

·Ensure that island RBDs provide more information on the pressures from Priority Substances and (potential) River Basin Specific Pollutants in order to determine adequate measures.

·Ensure that the specific objectives for Shellfish Protected Areas, including the guidance values for microbiological standards, are consistent with the repealed Shellfish Waters Directive.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Portugal is particularly encouraged to:

·Develop measurable objectives of the FRMP to the extent possible And link measures to objectives

·Ensure that FRMPs, APSFRs, and FHRMs refer to each other as appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an accessible format, including digitally.

·Identify funding sources for measures more concretely. Select and prioritise measures considering costs and benefit where relevant.

Romania (RO)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Romania is particularly encouraged to:

·Work further on the apportionment of pressures among sectors.

·Strengthen monitoring of surface water by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories, including hydromorphological quality elements and improve quantitative and chemical groundwater monitoring.

·Base use of exemptions under Article 4(7) on a thorough assessment of all the steps as required by the WFD.

·Improve the implementation of the requirements under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in relation to the requirement of more stringent treatment of wastewaters for discharge into sensitive areas, and ensure investments to allow for appropriate treatment of waste water from big cities.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Romania is particularly encouraged to:

·Establish a stronger link between the objectives and measures and indicate whether planned measures, when completed, will be sufficient to achieve objectives.

·Provide cost estimates with a clear explanation of the sources of funding for the measures in the FRMPs.

·Ensure that FRMPs, APSFRs, and FHRMs refer to each other as appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an accessible format, including digitally.

Sweden (SE)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Sweden is particularly encouraged to:

·Ensure that Environmental Quality Standards are available and adequate for all relevant River Basin Specific Pollutants.

·Progress in the justification of exemptions by further substantiating the related assessments with additional data and information and by reducing the remaining degree of uncertainties. Take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions as much as possible for the next cycle in order to ensure a timely achievement of the WFD objectives.

·Consider preparing Drought Management Plans where appropriate, particularly in RBDs with local drought phenomena.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Sweden is particularly encouraged to:

·Provide specific and measurable information in the FRMPs on their measures, including on estimated costs and funding; also provide information on priorities across measures and the methods used for prioritisation.

·Better reflect how potential impacts of climate change were considered in the 2nd cycle, including coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

·Reinforce coordination between FRMPs and RBMPs.

Slovenia (SI)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Slovenia is particularly encouraged to:

·Continue to improve monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories and complete the development of assessment methods for all relevant biological quality elements in all water categories.

·Make a clear distinction between the designation of heavily modified water bodies and the application of exemptions. Base the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) on a thorough assessment of all the steps as required by the WFD.

·Ensure the implementation of measures to address hydromorphological pressures, if necessary by reviewing permits/concessions and allocating the necessary resources.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Slovenia is particularly encouraged to:

·Better explain and document the process for the development of objectives. Develop specific and measurable objectives, so their achievement can be ascertained;

·Present and explain in the FRMPs the baseline for implementation of the measures to be used in monitoring progress.

·Ensure that FRMPs, APSFRs, and FHRMs refer to each other as appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an accessible format, including digitally. Present the results of the active involvement of stakeholders in the preparation of the FRMP and of public consultation in the FRMPs.

·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Slovakia (SK)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Slovakia is particularly encouraged to:

·Establish reference conditions for all types of Quality Elements, in particular hydromorphological Quality Elements and improve the assessment of pressures and impacts.

·Complete the monitoring framework, needed to design effective Programmes of Measures.

·Treat measurements of Priority Substances lower than the limit of quantification in the way specified in Article 5 of Commission Directive 2009/90/EC.

·Base use of exemptions under Article 4(7) on a thorough assessment of all the steps as required by the WFD.

·Ensure that measures reported for individual substances causing failure are sufficient to reach the WFD objectives. Implement and clearly report measures to suppress emissions from priority hazardous substances.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Slovakia is particularly encouraged to:

·Develop specific and measurable FRMP objectives, as well as links with measures that show how FRMP objectives will be achieved by the implementation of measures. A baseline should be defined.

·Present measures more clearly in the FRMPs.

·Strengthen the presentation of public consultation and stakeholder participation in the FRMP.

United Kingdom (UK)

Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, the United Kingdom is particularly encouraged to:

·Ensure that, in the preparation of the next RBMPs, the public is duly consulted taking into account these document’s purpose and complexity.

·Address the large uncertainties reported in relation to the assessment of the status, the pressures and the effect of potential measures for groundwater bodies.

·Continue to improve justifications for the application of exemptions in relation to Article 4(4) and 4(5) and make them more transparent in all RBMPs. Reconsider particularly the criteria used for the justification of Article 4(5) exemptions.

·State clearly for all RBDs, to what extent, in terms of area covered and pollution risk mitigated, basic measures or supplementary measures will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives. Identify sources of funding to facilitate successful implementation of measures in all RBDs.

Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, the United Kingdom is particularly encouraged to:

·Develop measurable objectives of the FRMPs to the extent possible.

·Present the methodology for assessing measures in terms of costs and benefits as well as its application and results of this analysis. Better document the prioritisation of the measures, including the process.

·Include an estimation of the cost of measures in all FRMPs and provide an explanation of how a lack of funding may impact the implementation of the measures.

·Ensure systematic coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

Top

Choose the experimental features you want to try