EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 4.2.2025

SWD(2025) 13 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EU Overview







Third river basin management plans







Second flood hazard and risk maps and second flood risk management plans

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

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










Third river basin management plans






Second flood risk management plans

{COM(2025) 2 final} - {SWD(2025) 14 final} - {SWD(2025) 15 final} - {SWD(2025) 16 final} - {SWD(2025) 17 final} - {SWD(2025) 18 final} - {SWD(2025) 19 final} - {SWD(2025) 20 final} - {SWD(2025) 21 final} - {SWD(2025) 22 final} - {SWD(2025) 23 final} - {SWD(2025) 24 final} - {SWD(2025) 25 final} - {SWD(2025) 26 final} - {SWD(2025) 27 final} - {SWD(2025) 28 final} - {SWD(2025) 29 final} - {SWD(2025) 30 final} - {SWD(2025) 31 final} - {SWD(2025) 32 final} - {SWD(2025) 33 final} - {SWD(2025) 34 final} - {SWD(2025) 35 final}

1.Introduction

This Commission Staff Working Document accompanies the Commission’s 7th implementation report prepared as required by Article 18 of the Water Framework Directive 1 (WFD) and Article 16 of the Floods Directive 2 (FD) respectively. It is based on the Commission’s assessment of the third River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and second Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs), and second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs), prepared and reported by Member States for the period 2022-2027. This document is complemented by country-specific Staff Working Documents describing the results of the assessment by the Commission of the RBMPs and the FRMPs, and FHRMs, for each Member State that reported on time.

Twenty Member States have adopted and reported their third RBMPs and twenty-one Member States adopted and submitted their second FRMPs in time for this 7th implementation report (see more detail in section 2 below).

Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, and Portugal failed to submit both their RBMPs and FRMPs in time to be considered for the assessment in this report 3 . Slovenia and Ireland only reported their FRMPs, whilst Slovakia only reported its RBMPs. For Spain, RBMPs for the Canary Islands have not yet been reported. Therefore, the present report does not cover these countries or regions.

The State of European Waters 2024 report by the European Environment Agency (EEA) published on 15 October 2024 4  provides further insights on the status of Europe’s water bodies, as reported by the Member States. It should be noted however that the EEA report covers a slightly smaller (19 EU Member States) and different subset of Member States, since it is purely based on electronic data submitted in WISE as of a June 2024. –Additional information, including country dashboards, will be made available through the Freshwater Information System for Europe (WISE Freshwater) portal in the coming months 5 . WISE is a web-portal hosted by the European Environment Agency containing water-related information ranging from inland waters to marine.

1.1Approach to the assessment of the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs)

Both RBMPs and FRMPs are comprehensive documents, consisting of hundreds to thousands of pages of information, published in national languages. Their assessment, entailing processing extensive information in more than 20 languages, has been a very challenging and complex task.

Member States agreed that besides submitting their RBMPs and their FRMPs to the Commission they would report pre-defined key information electronically through the WISE Freshwater portal. 6  

The quality of the Commission assessments relies on the quality of the Member States' reports. Incomplete or deficient 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.

According to the Directives, the deadline for reporting was March 2022. Regrettably, many Member States adopted their Plans late and most reported with significant delays. This led the Commission to launch legal proceedings against all Member States in breach of their legal requirements. Even at the time of the finalisation of this assessment, not all Member States had adopted and submitted to the Commission their RBMPs and FRMPs. 7

While all FRMPs considered in this analysis were submitted by the Member States electronically, many Member States were late in reporting their third RBMPs through the WISE and some did not do it at all. As a result, the Commission had to rely for its assessment on a mixture of comparable and electronically submitted data and information manually extracted from the RBMPs, as well as other relevant sources. The reasons for this include technical challenges with the reporting platform, as well as limited progress in Member States as regards the digitization of water data. In the context of the preparation of its assessment, the Commission maintained regular contact with the Member States to validate its findings and to ensure that the assessment reflects reality.

2.Main elements of the WFD

The WFD introduced objectives to protect aquatic ecosystems in a more holistic way, considering all uses and users of water, and managing water on the scale of river basins. It included 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, or by 2027 at the latest 8 . 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 are the River Basin Management Plans and the accompanying Programs of Measures (POMs). The RBMP is a comprehensive document describing the implementation of water management and identifying all actions to be taken in the river basin district (RBD).

The PoMs reflect how the Member States respond to the relevant pressures identified at River Basin District level.

The first RBMPs covered the period 2009-2015. The Commission adopted its assessment of the first RMBPs in 2012 9 , while a dedicated report, in 2015 assessed the state of implementation of the associated 1st Programmes of Measures which were due in 2012.

The second RBMPs covered the period 2016-2021. The Commission adopted its assessment of the second RMBPs in 2019 10 , with an additional report in 2021 11 , on the implementation of the second Programmes of Measures which were due in 2018 12 .

Implementation of the WFD continues to be supported by an informal network of Member States, EEA/EFTA countries and stakeholders under the banner of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS), led by Water Directors of Member States and the European Commission, with participation from relevant stakeholders. The CIS has successfully delivered 38 guidance documents 13 ; served as a valuable platform for exchange of experience and best practice on implementation among Member States, but also for exploring common issues of concern and joint responses. All documents produced under the CIS are made public on CIRCABC 14 , a collaborative platform.

2.1Governance and horizontal aspects

2.1.1Governance

The WFD creates a robust framework for the integrated management of all aspects of water policy. The Directive defines the RBD as the main unit for management of river basins. Some of the key governance aspects are: an adequate territorial approach, the clear identification of responsibilities, coordination and cooperation across sectors, interests and borders as well as ensuring adequate human and financial resource are allocated.

Member States have designated a range of competent authorities for the implementation of the WFD 15 . Most have more than one competent authority.

Out of the 20 Member States assessed, significant changes in governance were reported in the third RBMPs only by 6 Member States (Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden).

In France, an important step has been taken to strengthen coordination at the scale of River Basin District 16 . Since 2014, France has undergone a significant reform of local authorities, aiming for a more efficient implementation at the local level and a better integration of the ecological and flood management aspects. This resulted in assigning a mandatory competence for the management of the aquatic environment and flood prevention to all municipalities 17 . In Italy, River Basin Authorities have now full competence to elaborate the RBMPs, while the Regions can elaborate regional plans (Piani di Tutela della Acque) which are now developed and adopted under the umbrella of RBMPs and constitute subplans of the RBMPs. In Estonia, while the Ministry of Environment has the overall coordination of the implementation, the number of authorities in charge of water management has risen from three to nine compared to the second RBMPs. Germany has streamlined its governance with the river basin approach by reducing the number of competent authorities to one for each of the 10 (instead of 16 before) RBDs thereby improving coordination arrangements between the German federal states (‘Länder’). This may be one reason why all 10 RBDs have been finalised and published on time. In Poland, the number of RBMPs published decreased from 10 to 9 for the third RBMPs. This is due to the new division specified in the updated Water Law from 2017. Poland did not provide further information on the reason of this change.  In Sweden, sub-plans have been produced for the third RBMPs regarding drought and water scarcity in the South Baltic due to the clear effects of climate change in this RBD. The other water basins did not proceed with a sub-plan regarding drought and water scarcity, but instead incorporated the issue as into the RBMPs.

Public consultation and the active involvement of stakeholders

Member States must ensure consultation and access to background information used for the development of RBMPs and to encourage active involvement of all interested parties.

This requirement was respected in almost all Member States that have generally undertaken considerable efforts in consulting stakeholders and the public and have used a variety of different outreach methods, which during the pandemic were adapted, exploring also new methods for online public consultations. However, there are also examples where consultation could have been better since in some cases incomplete set of documents were submitted for public consultation. For instance, in Latvia and Poland, there was no consultation on an overview of the significant water management issues. In France, for the Mayotte RBD, only the draft RBMP was made available for consultation and in Italy for the North Apennines RBD, the draft RBMP presented for consultation was incomplete and not comprehensive enough to allow proper public feedback. In Lithuania, the draft RBMPs were available for public consultation only for 5 months instead of the mandatory 6 months. In Croatia, no information is provided regarding the duration of the consultation of the timetable and work programme. In addition, a lack of actual engagement (diversity of sectors reached, activities put in place) was noted in some countries or RBDs.

Despite clear improvements, it is not clear for all Member States or RBMPs whether the stakeholder consultations significantly influenced the adopted RBMPs and whether this has contributed to enhanced ownership by all parties involved.

In line with the requirement of the WFD to involve all interested parties in its implementation, most of the Member States established advisory groups and involved stakeholders in the drafting. Stakeholder groups (such as water supply and sanitation, agriculture, local and regional authorities, non-governmental organisations and nature protection groups) were actively involved in all or some of the RBDs in all Member States assessed.

In Romania, the RBMP mentions that thematic meetings were held, in which ad hoc working groups were established, so that the most relevant stakeholders could actively participate in the consultation process. In Sweden, the mechanisms for active involvement were the establishment of Water councils, advisory groups involved in drafting of the RBMPs. In Finland organised feedback was sought from advisory groups (called “cooperation groups”) with a wide representation of key stakeholders from both governmental and non-governmental organizations. In Austria, mechanisms for active involvement of stakeholders included advisory groups (Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Regionen und Wasserwirtschaft), formation of alliances, regular exhibitions, digital tools, involvement in drafting, and other outreach activities such as stakeholder meetings and roundtables.

In some RBDs, participative activities were targeted to specific issues. In Belgium, the region of Flanders set up a co-creation process for the water scarcity and drought plans that are included in the RBMPs. In Estonia, four online meetings were held during the consultation period, together for all draft RBMPs on several thematic areas: flooding, water management, abstraction and wastewater, residual pollution; dams; marine environment; agriculture and land reclamation.

Coordination with the Floods Directive (FD)

Competent authorities under the FD may differ from the ones appointed under the WFD and in certain Member States “units of management” (UoMs) identified in accordance with the FD are not the same as the RBDs under the WFD. As required by Article 9 of the FD, Member States shall also take appropriate steps to coordinate actions under the Floods Directive and the WFD.

Overall, 15 of the 21 Member States assessed provided strong evidence in their Flood Risk Management Plans that coordination was ensured with the WFD, while the remaining six had at least some evidence.

The Figure 2-1 below shows that most Member States include coordination between authorities in all UoMs. Denmark was the only Member State not to report coordination between authorities, and is thus not shown in the figure, and Poland and Belgium reported it only for some UoMs.

We can distinguish two approaches to the synergies between WFD and FD implementation. Only in 2 Member States (Croatia and Latvia), the Flood Risk Management Plans are fully integrated as a single plan in all the RBMPs, while for Belgium this was done only for three out of seven RBMPs. The most integrated plan is the one from Latvia, where the RBMPs and FRMPs are now consolidated in one single plan for each RBD, which also includes mandatory measures from the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. They share a common PoM and undergo a joint public consultation. In the case of Croatia, the document includes separate PoMs for the RBMP and the FRMP. However, some of the measures (mainly measures related to hydromorphological issues) in the RBMP reference flood risk management among the relevant sectors.

Figure 2‑1: Number of Member States providing evidence of coordination between FRMPs and RBMPs

Source: MS reporting to EIONET

In a vast majority of Member States, RBMPs and FRMPs remain separate planning documents, whose elaboration has been coordinated to a different degree. In the Netherlands, the RBMPs and FRMPs are both annexes to the Dutch National Water Programme.

The great majority of the Member States has carried out a joint consultation of their RBMPs and the FRMPs for all RBDs (Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Spain) or only some RBDs (Belgium, Finland and France). 4 Member States did not carry out joint consultations (Italy, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Sweden) and 2 did not indicate this information in their RBMPs (Denmark, the Netherlands). The reasons why certain Members States or RBDs did not conduct a parallel consultation are mainly related to practical issues, such different timings of the two planning processes or delays. For instance, in Slovakia, RBMP and FRMP are no longer integrated in a single plan – as it was the case for the second cycle – and did not undergo a joint process of elaboration because flood risk maps were not ready soon enough to allow a joint process with the elaboration of the RBMPs.

Other ways to coordinate the implementation of the two Directives (see Figure 2-2 below) are:

1)inclusion of the FD objectives among the RBMP’s objectives (Estonia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Romania); and on the other hand, assessing and mitigating the potential impact of the FRMP measures on the RBMP’s objectives. As an example, in Belgium, the Wallonia RBMP indicate that 40% of the measures included in the FRMPs support the objectives of the WFD (e.g. hydromorphology and flow). Yet, 10% of the measures in the FRMPs have been identified with potential negative impact on the objectives of the WFD and for these, special attention is required to mitigate/compensate such impacts.

2)inclusion of measures related to the FD in the RBMPs’ PoMs. These measures often combine the aim of both ecological and flood management such as the case of Czechia.

Figure 2‑2: Integration of objectives in RBMPs and FRMPs

Source: Member State reporting to EIONET

All Member States reported to EIONET that their coordination with the WFD, included natural water retention and green infrastructure measures, (though for six Member States, this was in some but not always in all their UoMs (see the Figure 2-3 below). Drought management was identified by 11 Member States (Czechia, Finland, Croatia, Hungary, the Netherlands, one UoM in Spain and Sweden, three UoMs in France and Poland, five UoMs in Belgium and 29 UoMs in Italy). Overall, the assessment shows a significant increase in the number of measures reported as delivering on both WFD and FD objectives.

Figure 2‑3: Number of Member States reporting synergies between FRMP and RBMP measures 18

Coordination with the MSFD

The framework established by the WFD covers coastal waters and contributes inter alia to the protection of territorial and marine waters. It hence contributes directly to achieving the objectives of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and requires a more integrated approach between freshwater and the marine environment. This is particularly true for issues such as reduction of nutrient load and eutrophication, reduction of pollution source from the land, spread of invasive species, fish migration, and aquaculture.

The assessment highlights that the level of coordination on the implementation of the WFD and MSFD varies across Member States.

The strongest evidence of coordination on the implementation of the directives and of coordinated public consultations are shows in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia Sweden and France. In Lithuania, the National Water Plan for 2022-2027 integrates the objectives of the WFD, FD and MSFD. In Estonia, a joint consultation was held for the third RBMPs together with the FRMPs and the PoMs for the MSFD. Furthermore, the implementation of the MSFD and its PoMs is included in the Estonian RBMPs PoMs basic measures The French law provides that the RBMPs and the FRMPs must be compatible with the environmental objectives of the Action Plan for the Marine Environment (the operational plan for the implementation of the MSFD) and take into account the objectives and measures of the Strategic Coastal Plan (the strategic document for the implementation of the MSFD). In Sweden, the PoMs for the MSFD, the FRMP and the RBMP are coordinated. In Latvia mandatory measures from the MSFD are included in the joint RBMPs/FRMPs developed for each RBD.

Other Member States, such as Finland and Romania, have a clear integration of the objectives of the MSFD in their RBMPs. In these countries, as well as in those mentioned above, the objectives of the MSFD were clearly taken into account in the RBMP’s PoMs.

In Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium, there are differences across the RBDs in terms of modalities and extent of the coordination between WFD and MSFD implementation.

In Italy, the RBMP for the Po River makes the link between its measures and the environmental targets sets in the MSFD; the North Apennines RBMP includes a gap analysis based on existing measures which preliminarily identified 25 possible new measures aimed at reaching MSFD environmental objectives and to be included in the update of the MSFD PoM. However, the Sicily RBMP does not mention the MSFD.

In Belgium, the North Sea RBMP is coordinated with the plans established under the MSFD. The RBMP mentions the need to achieve targets defined for the WFD, MSFD and Natura2000, and acknowledges overlaps between the application area of the MSFD and the WFD. For the evaluation of chemical and ecological status, the intention is to streamline objectives and monitoring as much as possible. However, the Flanders RBMP does not contain information regarding coordination with the MSFD. Wallonia’s RBMPs refer to the specific RBMP that covers the coastal region of Belgium to which all three regions participate (i.e. Groupe directeur Mer du Nord). 

In Spain, there are difference across the RBMPs. For instance, the Ebro RBMP includes the objectives of the MSFD among its objectives. In the Segura RBMP instead, the MSFD it is not mentioned specifically, but the Marine Strategy of Levantino-Balear aiming to restore the Mar Menor is mentioned as a key challenge. The Guadiana RBMP does not refer to the MSFD specifically, however some of measures included would be also beneficial for the marine environment (e.g. restore marine ecosystems. reduce marine litter by 50 % and release of microplastics by 30 %). Positively, coastal and marine waters are considered in the methodology for ecological flows.

In Germany, for instance, the Weser RBMP does mention the MSFD and includes some of its objectives, as well as detailed interlinkage as regards substances to be measured that are included in both the WFD and the OSPAR agreement 19 . However, the Rhine RBMP does not name the MSFD directly when reporting on additional measurements from other regulations. The Elbe RBMP explains the interlinkages between the MSFD and WFD, but this is not translated into concrete action for the Elbe basin.

Some Member States or RBDs do not show signs of coordination between the RBMPs and the MSFD. For instance, the Danish RBMPs do not mention the MSFD. In Poland, the Oder and Vistula RBMPs mention the National Marine Water Management Plan, which is the plan at the national scale for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). However, no explicit link is made between this plan and the objectives or measures of the RBMPs. The situation is the same in Croatia, where the MSFD is mentioned only once in the RBMP as being under the responsibility of a different administration. Yet the RBMP contains several references to the Barcelona Convention and issues related to marine environment pertaining to coastal areas and rivers that discharge into the Adriatic.

Regarding the national RBMPs in the landlocked countries (Austria, Czechia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovakia), most of them do not refer explicitly to the MSFD. However, the Czech RBMPs’ PoMs include specific measures to prevent the pollution of marine waters. The Hungarian RBMP does not mention the MSFD, except in connection with the implementation of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, to mitigate eutrophication.

In the Baltic Sea basin

The Latvian RBMPs state that attention has been paid to the assessment of the state of the marine environment in the marine eutrophication status assessment, as it is in the area of eutrophication that measures to reduce pressures on (river catchments) are essential for improving the status of marine waters. The measures in the Programmes of the RBMPs are mandatory measures in the context of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and are therefore fully applicable to the Baltic Sea management. 

In Lithuania, the second objective of the National Water Development Plan 2022-2027 is to achieve and/or maintain good environmental status in the Baltic Sea. The priority is to reduce pollution reaching the Baltic Sea and the Curonian Lagoon through river runoff. Further objectives in the National Water Development Plan relevant for the MSFD include ensuring a more sustainable use of marine resources, continuing research and developing national action plans to improve the status of specific populations. This document states that improvement of the legal framework to reduce the release of hazardous chemicals into the marine environment is foreseen, as well as an increased focus on limiting the spread of invasive species, the problem of marine litter, and the negative impacts of noise and other forms of energy. 

The PoMs of the Estonian RBMPs include measures to reduce pollution and facilitate fish migration that are designed to achieve a good state of the marine environment.  

In Finland, the reduction of the nutrient load necessary to improve the state of the sea has been taken into account when designing the water management measures and their magnitude. On the other hand, marine management measures are designed to help achieve the environmental goals of water management set for coastal waters.

In the North Sea

In Germany, as mentioned earlier, the Weser RBMP elaborates on the interlinkages with the MSFD. It includes the nitrogen load reduction needed to achieve good ecological status in coastal waters. It also refers to substances to be measured, which are included in the WFD and the OSPAR-agreement. On the other hand, the Dutch RBMP only contains general references to coordination for some objectives of the MSFD (e.g. the objective to limit litter and microplastics).

The French Rhine-Meuse RBMP explicitly links its objectives and measures with the marine strategy of the Netherlands regarding migratory fishes, nutrients and pollutants loads, and macro-plastics.

In Belgium, the North Sea RBMP shows a clear alignment between the two policy areas and makes explicit references to the MSFD assessment for Phytobenthos, the impact of human activities on hydrology and hydromorphology. The PoMs are coordinated. The RBMP lists the measures from the MSFD PoMs which may contribute to achieving a good ecological status and contribute to the objectives of the WFD.

In the Black Sea

In Romania, the common objectives focus mainly on addressing impacts of wastewater (wastewater treatment measures), aquaculture industry and conservation of sturgeon species and of protected areas.

The coordination with the MSFD also takes place at the Danube International River Basin District level, with projects carried out by the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.

In the Mediterranean

In Italy, the Po RBMP states that wastewater treatment and chemical quality of water resources are, per se, directly linked to the environmental targets set in the MSFD. The North Apennines includes a table on the correspondence between WFD Key Type Measures and their relevance for the MSFD.

In Spain, for example, 492 measures outlined in the Ebro RBMP have been recognised for their role in advancing the achievement of environmental objectives in the second cycle of the Levantine-Balearic Marine Strategy and aim to effectively contribute to attaining good environmental status (GES).

In France, on the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD (FRD), objectives are coordinated with the MSFD, particularly for preserving the Mediterranean marine environment from the introduction of invasive exotic species and reducing land-based inputs of hazardous substances into the Mediterranean Sea.

2.1.2Characterisation of the River Basin District

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. They should identify all relevant categories and types of water bodies within the RBD. For surface waters, specific typologies and reference conditions have to be established. Characterisation also involves correctly identifying water bodies at risk of failing objectives.

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in third RBMPs

Delineation of surface and Groundwater bodies

Table 2- 1 provides an overview of the number of surface water bodies in each Member State for which third RBMP reporting was available. These numbers will change once all Member States have reported their third RBMPs. From the information available so far, covering 20 Member States, 78.4% of surface water bodies are delineated as river water bodies, 18.9% are delineated as lake water bodies, 0.5% are delineated as transitional water bodies, 2.1% are delineated as coastal water bodies and 0.1 % are delineated as territorial water bodies 20 . This is very similar to what was reported for the previous cycle.

Table 2-1 - Number of water bodies per water category in Member States 21

As regards surface water bodies, Figure 2-4 below shows that there are changes in the number of surface water bodies between the second and third RBMPs in all the Member States that were included in the assessment. Only in some cases, these changes are particularly significant. Reasons for changes are described in the RBMPs of some of the concerned Member States, but not all.

Figure 2‑4: Number of surface water bodies in Member States in the third and second RBMPs 22

As shown in Figure 2-5 below, between the second and third RBMPs there are also changes in the delineation of groundwater bodies in most Member State. This are particularly significant for countries such as Denmark and Sweden. Reasons for changes are described in the RBMPs of some of the concerned Member States.

Figure 2‑5: Number of groundwater bodies in Member States in the third and second RBMPs 23

Reference conditions

Member States are required to establish the ecological status of water bodies by comparing current status with near natural or undisturbed (reference) conditions which show no or only very minor evidence of distortion. Reference conditions have to be established for each of the surface water body types for biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements.

Notwithstanding significant progress made in most Member States with setting reference conditions for all quality elements, as well as improving coherence and comparability of biological quality elements in the so called intercalibration exercise at EU level 24 , there is still some lack of harmonization at EU level and room for improving the comparability of overall status assessment based on biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements. 

Pressures and impacts

The assessment of this ‘characterisation’ carried out by Member States confirms that European waters remain under significant pressure from pollution generated by both diffuse (e.g. agriculture, transport) and point (e.g. industry or energy production) source, as well as over-abstraction and hydromorphological changes 25 , stemming from a range of human activities.

As shown in Figures 2-6, 2-6a and 2-6b below , the most significant pressures for surface water bodies in the reporting Member States for which the data is available electronically are pollution from atmospheric deposition (affecting 59% of waterbodies), hydromorphological changes (57% - stemming from drainage and irrigation for agriculture, hydropower, flood protection, navigation or drinking water supply, and diffuse pollution from agriculture (32% of affected water bodies). Other main pressures across the Union include urban wastewater discharges (14%), discharges not connected to the sewage system (9%), and abstraction (9%) for multiple purposes. Other pressures most commonly identified in the RBMPs include pollution from urban run-off (8%) storm overflows (5%), as well as discharges from industrial installations (6%). It should be noted that the same water body can be subject to multiple pressures, so the total does not add up to 100%.

Regrettably, 13% of EU’s water bodies continue to be affected by yet unidentified anthropogenic pressures, which would indicate that the pressures and impacts have not been fully apportioned to activities or sectors, so there is still room for increasing our knowledge to better tackle such pressures. No significant pressure is identified in only 10% of the reported water bodies.

Aquatic ecosystems in Europe are also under increased pressure from invasive alien species affecting both freshwater and marine ecosystems and several of these species have been included in the list of invasive species of Union concern. Despite the direct impact that these species can have on the achievement of the WFD objective of ecological status, the issue is only identified as a significant pressure in 2.2% of surface water bodies and information on invasive alien species and the measures taken to tackle the problem is often totally missing or not very detailed in the RBMPs.

Figure 2‑6: Top pressures which have been reported in surface water bodies (from WISE Freshwater – only countries with electronic reporting)

Figure 2‑6a: Diffuse pollution pressures for surface water bodies in 3RBMPs (from WISE Freshwater – only countries with electronic reporting)

Figure 2‑6b: Point pollution pressures for surface water bodies in 3RBMPs (from WISE Freshwater – only countries with electronic reporting)

While a majority of groundwater bodies in the EU (71%) is reported as not being subject to any significant pressures, almost one third of groundwater bodies is affected by a range of pressures. As shown in the Figures 2-7, 2-7a and 2-7b below, the main pressures affecting groundwater bodies 26 across the EU are diffuse agricultural pollution (e.g. pesticides and fertilisers) which affect 59% of the impacted groundwater bodies and abstraction for public water supply (25% of the impacted groundwater bodies), followed by abstraction for agriculture (22%) industrial (12%) and other purposes (12%). Diffuse pollution from other sources, in particular urban run-off (16%) and discharges not connected to sewerage network (6%) are also important pressures, as are pollution from contaminated or abandoned industrial sites (17%) and historical pollution (13%).

Figure 2-7 – Top pressures reported for impacted groundwater bodies (from WISE Freshwater)

Figure 2-7a: Diffuse pollution pressures for groundwaters in the third RBMPs (from WISE Freshwater – only countries with electronic reporting)

Figure 2-7b: Point pollution pressures for groundwaters in third RBMPs (from WISE Freshwater – only countries with electronic reporting)

Programme of Measures (PoMs)

The WFD requires Member States to identify a Programme of Measures (PoMs)  27 to prevent or limit the identified pressures and timely achieve good status.

The reports by Member States confirm that a considerable number of measures announced in the second RBMPs could not be turned into action.

As it was the case for the 1st PoMs, insufficient funding of measures has been identified as the most significant obstacle for the implementation of measures in the second RBMPs (86%), followed by unexpected delays (81%), lack of mechanisms (70%, i.e. national regulations or other measures not yet adopted) and governance issues (57%). Difficulties in acquiring land required to implement certain measures is also regularly raised as key challenge.

As regards the third PoMs presented in the 2022-2027 RBMPs, it can be observed that Member States continue to have different approaches to the development and reporting of PoMs. The PoMs often contain a fairly long set of measures. While the use of Key Type Measures was intended to harmonize reporting, differences remain. There is no uniform definition of what count for one measure. Hence while some Member States may report granularly on individual measures (i.e. investment in an individual wastewater treatment plant), other Member States may include a single entry for multiple interventions in the same area. The number of measures is therefore not a very informative indicator for the effort. More importantly, not in all Member States the PoMs are based on clear assessment of the gap to be bridged to reach good status. In addition, there is generally limited information on prioritisation of measures based on the cost-effectiveness analyses.

Costs of the planned measures is also not clearly identified and considering the persistent funding challenges reported by Member States it can be understood that the required resources for the implementation of the PoMs are not always secured upfront. This severely hampers their effectiveness.

While limited information is provided in many of the RBMPs, it is worth noting that EU funding instruments including the Common Agricultural Policy, the Cohesion Policy and the Recovery and Resilience Facility played a significant role in supporting the implementation of RBMP and FRMP measures across Member States. Furthermore, the Commission through the Horizon Europe programme is providing extensive support for research to close the knowledge gaps and promote the deployment of innovative solutions, including through the Mission on Oceans and Freshwaters. Finally, through the Technical Support Instrument, the Commission is also supporting Member States in designing, developing and implementing reforms in water policy.

3.How the implementation of the third RBMPs have contributed to addressing the triple planetary crisis

3.1POLICY ELEMENTS CONTRIBUTING TO BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

3.1.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential

Introduction

The main objectives of the WFD include the achievement of Good Ecological Status (GES) or Potential (GEP) by 2015, or by 2027 at the latest. Member States must establish surface water monitoring networks to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of ecological (and chemical) status within each river basin district that allows for the classification of water bodies. The quality elements used for the classification of ecological status comprise biological quality elements (BQEs), hydromorphological quality elements supporting the BQEs; general physico-chemical quality elements and RBSPs supporting the BQEs.

Each Member State is required to develop methods to assess ecological status for all biological quality elements and apply them for the purpose of surveillance and operational monitoring 28 . Assessment methods for the supporting quality elements must be linked to the biological quality elements, according to the normative definitions given in Annex V of the WFD. 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.

Monitoring

The knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem health in EU rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters has generally improved significantly. This is the result of better monitoring and assessment of ecological status of surface water bodies which has been enabled by a general increased coverage of water bodies and water quality elements monitored 29 . This has allowed to better assess the status for an increased number of water bodies, reducing further the uncertainty present in previous cycle.

However, major gaps in ecological status monitoring remain, both in terms of spatial coverage and assessment confidence.

One of the most evident conclusions is that the monitoring approaches are very different between the Member States. This diversity can be seen in the practices, frequencies of monitoring and parameters measured by the Member States. It can also be seen in the very different approaches pertaining to grouping of water bodies 30  and the use of expert judgement replacing empirical and quantitative measurements.

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 and empirical assessment of each relevant water body under the specific WFD parameters. Modelling is increasingly being used by Member States, potentially contributing, if well done, to provide a robust picture for larger areas and longer time periods with connection to various hydrological conditions, as well as the impact of changing climate. However, models need regular maintanence to be kept updated as well as wide and frequent monitoring data of water quality and quantity to be calibrated and validated accordingly.

Selection of quality elements monitored

Despite improvements, there are still significant gaps in the quality elements monitored in each water category. This is particularly so for the hydromorphological quality elements, but there are still significant gaps also in the monitoring of biological and physico-chemical quality elements.

Overall, regarding biological quality elements, the largest gap in monitoring is seen for angiosperms and macroalgae in coastal and transitional water bodies, since only few Member States monitor these quality elements. As for hydromorphological quality elements, the largest gaps are noted in coastal and transitional water bodies. For example, more than half of the Member States with coastal waters do not monitor morphological conditions, and half do not monitor tidal regime. Lastly, for physico-chemical quality elements, the largest gaps are noted for thermal and salinity conditions 31 . A summary of the information reported is presented in Table 3-1 below.

Table 3-1. Member States that monitor each quality element within each surface water category (green indicates the quality element that is required by the WFD to be monitored for classification of each surface water category, grey indicates the quality element that is not required by the WFD to be monitored for classification of each surface water category)

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting by

(Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Romania)

Considering only the 13 Member States that reported information electronically for which the data is easily retrievable and comparable, Figure 3-1 reflects the number of Member States that monitor biological quality elements for different types of water bodies. It is clear that some aquatic plants (macrophytes, phytoplankton, invertebrates and fish) are the most monitored while large differences between Member States appear for other biological quality elements. It should be noted that, for the purpose of operational monitoring (used for status classification), Member States have to monitor the quality elements that are most sensitive to the pressures to which the water bodies are subject; whereas, for the purpose of surveillance monitoring (carried out during one year of the six year cycle, to determine changes in pressures and impacts and inform the operational monitoring programmes), all quality elements should in principle be monitored.

Figure 3-1. Number of Member States that monitor each biological quality element for rivers, lakes, coastal, and transitional water bodies

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting

Additionally, the coverage of the monitoring of biological quality elements, regarding the number of water bodies, is depicted in Figure 3-2 below. It is worth noting that there are some elements which are being monitored, i.e. fish in coastal waters and macroalgae in rivers and lakes, although it is not required by the WFD.

Figure 3.2. The average proportion (% of number water bodies) of the monitoring of biological quality elements for rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and transitional waters

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting

Figure 3-3 depicts the monitoring of hydromorphological quality elements for the 13 Member States that reported electronically.

Figure 3-3. Number of Member States that monitor various hydromorphological quality elements for rivers, lakes, coastal, and transitional water bodies (Note: Continuity conditions are mandatory for Rivers only)

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting

Finally, in relation to the monitoring physico-chemical quality elements, Figure 3-4 below depicts the number of Member States which are monitoring each physico-chemical quality element, depicted to water categories.

Figure 3-4. Number of Member States that monitor each physico-chemical quality element for rivers, lakes, coastal, and transitional water bodies.

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting

Status assessment

Overall, the ecological status or potential of EU water bodies has not significantly improved as compared to the previous cycles (Figure 3-5). Comparing the same set of (both electronically and PDF reported) Member States between the two cycles, the Commission concludes that in the third RBMPs, 39,5% of surface water bodies in Europe were in good ecological status or potential 32 which is about the same as in the previous report in 2015 (39.1%).

In general, lakes and coastal waters are in better status than rivers and transitional waters. The nutrient loads are causing a significant pressure on surface waters leading to eutrophication of wate bodies. According to the 2021 reporting on Nitrates Directive, at EU level, 36% of river stations and 32% of lake stations, 31% of coastal and 32% of transitional water stations are reported as eutrophic. 33

Unsurprisingly, the ecological status of natural water bodies is generally better than the status of heavily modified and artificial water bodies.

Figure 3-5. Change in ecological status assessment of EU’s surface water bodies from first, second and third RBMPs (source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

It must be noted that the comparability between cycles is hampered by the changes in the number and redelineation (e.g. new water body type) of water bodies, as well as in monitoring methodologies and parameters in many Member States.

When comparing the third RBMP with the second (see Table 3-2 below), the biggest improvement in ecological status has been observed in Latvia (+11.4%), Sweden (+4.2%), Hungary (+3%), Austria (+2.8%), Spain (+2,2%) and Finland (+2.1%). However, a significant reduction in the number of water bodies in good ecological status or potential was reported by Poland (-22.9%), Lithuania (-5.5%), Slovakia (-14.9%), Czechia (-13.3%), Croatia (-9.1%) and Estonia (-7.6%). These changes can partially be explained by changes in the number and in the characteristics of the water bodies as well as by a much better knowledge of the status of various quality elements of their water bodies compared to the second RBMPs rather than to an actual deterioration.

Table 3-2. Ecological status/potential of water bodies (% of all water bodies) in each Member State for both the second and third RBMPs. (Source: electronic reporting and PDF mining)

Notwithstanding the overall lack of progress, there is clear evidence of some improvement in some individual biological and chemical quality elements underpinning the good ecological status which may reflect the positive effects of measures taken during the previous planning cycles. According to the EEA State of European Waters 2024, the status of phytoplankton, benthic flora, and invertebrates has improved in lakes 34 , while rivers and transitional waters have seen improvements in benthic invertebrates 35 . This confirms that some of the key measures taken in the previous RBMPs, especially improving wastewater treatment which has contributed significantly to reduced organic pollution and nutrients, have had an immediate positive effect. At the same time, pressure caused by diffuse pollution remains significant, especially from agriculture, and there is growing concern on the impacts of emerging chemical pollutants on aquatic ecosystems and on the ecological status of surface waters. These partial improvements, while notable, are not sufficient to improve the overall ecological status of water bodies and to reduce the associated risk to health and environment. This also implies that these improvements tend to be overlooked since the WFD applies a “one out all out” approach which implies that a water body can only achieve good status if all biological and supporting quality elements are assessed at least as good.

This may explain, at least partially, why the assessment of the ecological status in the third RBMPs for the period 2022-2027 36 shows an overall limited improvement in comparison to the second RBMPs (covering the 2009-2015 period). In addition, as already outlined, this lack of progress can be due to:

·an increase in knowledge and accuracy,

·a possible exacerbation of pressures on water,

·inefficient or inadequate measures or

·lack of progress in putting the planned measures in motion.

It is difficult, on the basis of the information provided, to ascertain among these reasons which is the main one and this largely varies from country to country.

Comparability of results may also be affected by the fact that Member States use different approaches to river basin specific pollutants (RBSPs) which should be identified by individual Member States and should be used to support the assessment of ecological status. For instance, while the Netherlands is monitoring dozens of substances of national relevance, other Member States have only identified and monitor a much more limited subset of RBSPs and/or monitoring them in a small proportion of all water bodies. There is generally limited information in the reports on the subject and it is generally unclear to what extent these substances are considered in the status assessment.

As regards expectations in relation to the achievement of good ecological status by 2027, most Member States do not expect to meet the good ecological status or potential for all their water bodies. The more optimistic are Austria, Romania, and Spain, while Croatia, Czechia, Germany and the Netherlands have the lowest expectations. All these estimates are based on different assumptions of the achievement of WFD objectives and they already anticipate, to a certain extent, the intention of the Member State on making use of Article 4 WFD exemptions in the 4th RBMPs.

3.1.2Hydromorphological changes and artificialization (HMWBs and AWBs)

For hundreds of years, human activities in Europe have physically changed the shape of our rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters by eliminating natural features, introducing concrete infrastructures (i.e. heavily modified water bodies), or creating new canals or reservoirs (i.e. artificial water bodies) which all resulted in new, but non-natural water systems.

Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWBs) are bodies of water which, because of physical alterations by human activity, are substantially changed in character and cannot, therefore, meet "good ecological status" (GES). Artificial Water Bodies (AWB) are water bodies created by human activity. Instead of "good ecological status", the environmental objective for HMWB and for AWB is Good Ecological Potential (GEP) 37 . In addition, according to WFD Article 4(3), the designations of HMWBs and AWBs and the reasons for them shall be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs and reviewed every six years. 

All Member States describe a methodology for designating HMWB/AWB, albeit with different levels of detail. Many Member States (in particular Austria, Czechia, Finland, France, Hungary, Romania, Spain, and Sweden) made updates to the methodologies used for the designation.

The RBMPs show a very big difference among Member States on the degree of human intervention on surface waters. The proportion of heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies has slightly increased in third RBMPs, with 12.4% of water bodies designated as heavily modified and 4.4% as artificial in the 20 Member States considered in the analysis compared to 11.9% and 4.1% in the second RBMPs. Figure 3-6 below reveals the very high level of human intervention in some Member States (e.g. Netherlands, Hungary, Germany, and Belgium) and the pronounced naturalness remaining in some others (e.g. Finland and Sweden).

Three Member States (Austria, Croatia, Slovakia) reported significant increases in the number of HMWBs/AWBs. This could be partly due to changes in the classification of certain water bodies, rather than introduction of new alterations to the physical or hydrological characteristics. Designation of HMWBs/AWBs is still in progress in both Croatia and Slovakia, while Sweden has recently revised its methodology and an increase in the number of HMWBs is expected in Sweden’s 4th RBMPs.

Figure 3-6. Percentage of surface water bodies that have been designated as heavily modified or artificial in the third (2021) RBMPs by Member State

The main uses for which water bodies have been designated as heavily modified (see figure 3-7 below) are flood protection (37%), agriculture (land drainage 23%, irrigation 15%), hydropower (21%), drinking water supply (11%) and other urban development (10%). Other uses are represented in less than 10% of HMWBs. Uses behind designation of artificial water bodies are not reported in WISE. According to the electronic reporting which covering 13 Member States, the main physical alterations behind designation are channelisation, straightening, bed stabilisation, and bank reinforcement affecting 58% of water bodies designated as HMWBs, as well as weirs, dams, and reservoirs affecting 51%. These two main groups are followed by land reclamation (19%), dredging / channel maintenance (11%), land reclamation / coastal modifications / ports (7%) and locks (2%). Other physical alteration is reported for 9% of HMWBs.

Figure 3-7. Activities for which surface water bodies have been designated as heavily modified or artificial in the third RBMPs

Good Ecological Potential (GEP) - the objective to be reached in heavily modified or artificial water body - is a less stringent objective than GES 38 . Indeed, it caters for ecological impacts resulting from those physical alterations that (i) are necessary to support a specified use or (ii) must be maintained to avoid adverse effects on the wider environment. The assessment revealed some methodological improvements on the way Member States assess when a heavily modified water body or an artificial water body can be considered to have achieved Good Ecological Potential. Poland has developed a new methodology while improvements were made in other Member States (e.g. in Czechia and various French RBDs) by adding new quality elements or updating the class boundaries. It is noted positively that most Member States now report comparison of GEP and GES, while in the second RBMPs only half of them did so.

As regards the achievement of good ecological potential for heavily modified water bodies, based on the information reported to WISE by the time of preparing this report, it is noted that only 16.8% of these water bodies are in GEP. There are nevertheless big differences among Member States (ranging between none of the HMWBs reaching GEP in Belgium and the Netherlands to about half of the relevant water bodies in Spain and Romania).

Taking into account the estimations provided by Member States, GEP is expected in 53% of HMWBs in 2027, with very big differences among countries (from only 2% in the Netherlands to 100% in Estonia). That leaves around 40% for which GEP will be achieved beyond 2027. Some HMWBs are also reported in the “less stringent objective already achieved” and “unknown” categories.

As regards artificial water bodies, GEP is already achieved in 16% of these water bodies. Again, difference among countries are significant with 0% in the Netherlands to 88% in Estonia. In 2027, GEP is expected in 29% of AWBs (ranging from only 4% in Belgium and to 100% in Estonia and Spain), while in 61% GEP is expected to be achieved after this date. Some AWBs were also reported in the “less stringent objective already achieved” and “unknown” categories.

Measures for achieving GEP are reported in all Member States where GEP has been defined. They relate to “restoration of bank structure”, “fish ladders”, “setting of ecological flows” and “removal of structures” that are applied to more than 40% of RBDs . More than 30% of RBMPs also reported “habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas”, “restoration of modified bed structure” and “sediment/debris management”. Some Member States provided information in their RBMPs or background documents regarding the expected ecological improvements, though these are mainly qualitative given the persistent challenge faced by Member States as regards the quantification of the expected impacts of measures.

3.1.3Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status

The Water Framework Directive establishes several criteria to define when a groundwater body is in good quantitative status. These are:

·the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long-term annual average rate of abstraction; and 

·the groundwater levels and flows are sufficient to meet environmental objectives for associated surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWAAES); and 

·anthropogenic alterations to flow direction resulting from level change does not cause saline or other intrusion. 

Monitoring

Also as regards the monitoring of the quantitative status of groundwater bodies, the assessment confirms a general improvement with an increased coverage of the number of water bodies and in some cases also an increase in the number of monitoring sites. Monitoring is very often done in situ, rather than through modelling or expert judgement as it is the case for other types of monitoring. This shows the importance is given by the Member States to have an accurate picture of the reserves they have of groundwater to feed the different societal needs.

Status Assessment

As regards the quantitative status of groundwaters, comparing the same set of Member States, it is encouraging to observe a small improvement with 95% of groundwater bodies being reported in good status as compared to 92.4% in 2015. The data reported shows that largely the replenishment of groundwater bodies, a big share of the EU’s reserves, appears mostly secured. It needs to be stressed however that not all Member States adequately consider the needs of groundwater-dependent ecosystems, and that this picture taken in 2021 does not capture the impacts of subsequent years which have been the driest this century.

Figure 3-8. Change in the quantitative status assessment of EU’s groundwater bodies from first, second and third RBMPs (source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

This may be an indication that climate change has not (yet) affected the groundwater across the EU. There are nevertheless significant geographical variations across the EU which can be seen in Figure 3-9 below. Furthermore, it is important to flag that this analysis does not cover countries such as Cyprus, Greece and Malta where achieving good quantitative status was a challenge in the second RBMPs.

 Figure 3-9. Overview quantitative status for groundwater bodies by Member States in 2021

When comparing the data from the third RBMP with the ones from the second (see Table 3-3 below), it can be observed that 5 Member States (Austria, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Latvia and Romania) confirmed that 100% of their groundwater bodies were in good quantitative status. As regards other countries, the biggest improvement in the quantitative status has been observed in Czechia (+24,7%), Slovakia (+20%), and Italy (+18,4%), while a noticeable worsening is reported by the Netherlands (-4.3%), Estonia (-3.9%), Belgium (-2.3%). The situation remained largely stable for most of the other Member States with either a slight improvement or reduction of the share of the bodies in good quantitative status. However, even countries which report that all their GWBs have sufficient water for the moment, they also report pressures are increasing for some water bodies and that they are at risk of failing to achieve good status in the future.

Table 3-3. Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in each Member State for both the second and third RBMPs. (Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting and PDF mining)

There are different reasons which lead to failing to achieve good status and these are depicted in Figure 3-10 below.

Figure 3-10. Mains reasons for failing good quantitative status for groundwaters

It must be noted, that at this point an assessment of the impacts of current and future climate change is not part of the tests for good quantitative status.

Almost all MS undertook a water balance assessment 39 for the third RBMPs, apart from Luxembourg which reports that this test will be completed by the end of the period.

The assessment of long-term trends in groundwater levels was undertaken by the Netherlands, Austria, Luxembourg, Germany, Spain, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Belgium, Croatia and Romania. Czechia, Lithuania and Latvia did not carry out this part of the groundwater quantitative status assessment tests, and it was not mentioned by Denmark, Estonia and Sweden.

However, contrary what the WFD requires, when assessing the quantitative status of groundwater bodies Member States do not always consider the needs of the groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems (GWAAEs) and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs). This is very important for ecosystem and species conservation and for stopping biodiversity loss. However, while some Member States did consider GWAAEs, GWDTEs and saline or other intrusions, others did so only partially or only in some RBDs, and many Member States have not taken all these factors into account when determining quantitative status. This represents a major gap that neglects the water needs of nature, since manmade alterations of groundwater levels may have major impacts on the status of surface water bodies or damage precious ecosystems such as wetlands.

It needs to be pointed out that throughout the past three implementation cycles Member States reported a high proportion of groundwaters , as being in good quantitative status. However, this sits in contrast with the increase in water scarcity across the EU and the observed increased reliance on groundwater bodies as source of supply for public services and irrigation which is leading to increased abstractions 40 . This stresses the importance for Member States to better apply agreed methodologies for the assessment of quantitative status to adequately consider seasonal variations and the impacts of climate change, while relying less on historical trends and fully considering the role of groundwater contribution to support rivers and ecosystems. An assessment solely relying on groundwater levels is not sufficient 41 . It also indicates, as also suggested by the EEA, the potential need to revise existing methodologies.

Significantly, the number of groundwater bodies reported by Member States as at risk of not achieving good quantitative status by 2027 reflects an expected worsening of the situation by several Member States (see figure 3-11 below).

Figure 3-11. Percentage of groundwater bodies that Member States report as at risk of not achieving good quantitative status by 2027 (only countries with e-reporting)

3.1.4Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures)

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 relevant EU legislation and where additional or more stringent objectives may be needed to achieve its objectives, as well as the objectives enshrined in other relevant EU legislation.

All 20 Member States have reported the number of water bodies associated with protected areas according to a range of relevant Directives, as presented in the table 3-4 below.

Overall, in this reporting cycle most Member States have reported a higher number of water bodies associated with protected areas designated under other EU legislation and have in place a register of protected areas which has been updated in the third RBMPs. Yet, most Member States provided only general information.

However, the comparison between the number of protected areas with the previous cycle, is somewhat difficult. In the second RBMPs Member States reported the number of protected areas, whereas in the third RBMPs the focus has been on the number of water bodies associated with protected areas.

Table 3-4 Overview of the number of water bodies associated with protected areas per Member State

Monitoring

All 20 Member States convey that protected areas are monitored. With some exceptions, there seems to be better monitoring of these areas, which in most cases is probably linked to the general improvement in monitoring under the WFD.

In particular, Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Latvia, Spain, and Sweden have implemented a wide coverage of monitoring sites that appear to provide ample coverage to the number of protected areas within their country. No information has been identified for Denmark, Finland, or Slovakia regarding the number of monitoring sites.

Yet for most, it is unclear whether the monitoring network used for protected areas is the same than for WFD monitoring or it is additional. Sweden, Slovakia, Netherlands, and Luxembourg have indicated that the monitoring of protected areas is additional to the monitoring networks used for the implementation of the WFD.

Status assessment of protected areas

The status of protected areas could be assessed only for 13 Member States (out of 20 covered by this assessment) due to the absence of electronic reporting for the other reporting Member States. As it can be seen in the Figure 3-12 below, data shows an increase in the number of water bodies associated with protected areas in bad status as compared to the previous cycle.

This could partly be linked to the significant reduction of areas with unknown status since the share of water bodies with an unknown status has reduced considerably, especially for groundwater bodies.

There has been a 10% increase in the bad ecological potential of surface water bodies, as well as a reduction of just under 5% in the number of water bodies rated as being in high status since 2015. There has also been a slight increase in the number of water bodies designated as poor or moderate status since 2015. Again, an increase of roughly 5% for both.

For chemical status of surface water bodies designated as protected areas, 15% are in unknown status, approximately 48% in good chemical status and around 36% in bad chemical status. For chemical status of groundwater bodies unknown status has decreased by roughly 5% most likely due to increased monitoring within EU Member States since 2015. Good status has also decreased by nearly 20% which again could be due in part to an increase in monitoring. For quantitative status of groundwater bodies, the unknown status of water bodies has been significantly reduced and poor status of groundwater bodies has increased by about 5% in protected areas.

In the vast majority of Member States hence the designation of protected areas does not seem to bring about the expected improvements on the state. This suggests that, regrettably, the designation as “protected area” does not lead Member States to enhance efforts to protect the surface and ground waters which these areas need to flourish. This confirms limited progress in implementation of the Nature Directives compared to the 2013-2018 period assessed in the 2020 ‘State of Nature’ report, according to which only 17% of protected river, lake, alluvial and riparian habitats were in good conservation status and a large majority of protected fish and amphibian species were in poor or bad conservation status (respectively 80% and 60% of the population) 42 .

Figure 3-12. Status of water bodies in protected areas in second and third RBMPs (Source: third RBMP electronic reporting)

Additional objectives

Water bodies associated with protected areas may need to achieve more stringent or specific objectives compared to the good status objectives set by WFD in order to achieve the level of protection required under the relevant legislation for protecting of specific ecosystem, species, drinking or bathing water.

As required by the Nature Directives, Member States have predominantly set up specific objectives for habitats and species protected areas (Natura 2000 sites), although in some cases work is ongoing to establish the exact needs. In some cases, Member States have also set additional objectives and measures for sensitive areas under the urban wastewater treatment directive, bathing waters and drinking water safeguard zones, although the objectives or measures are often reported in somewhat general terms 43 . Some Member States with a commercial interest in shellfish production (or less often in freshwater fish) have designated protected areas for economically significant aquatic species. These are Croatia, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and Sweden for shellfish and Croatia, Finland, Italy, Latvia and Sweden for freshwater fish.  For the shellfish areas, some Member States (Croatia, the Netherlands Romania and Sweden) have set the same objectives that were in the Shellfish Directives, which has since been repealed 44 . One Member States (France) applies different microbiological standards as compared to the repealed directives for all these areas. While Italy and Spain apply the same standards in some areas and different standards in other areas. For Poland, the information on standards is unclear.

Figure 3-13. Objective setting in protected areas per category of protected area

Source: third RBMP electronic reporting

Where additional objectives have been set, they have been achieved predominantly for drinking water safeguard zones, shellfish designated areas and bathing waters, while only a minimal part of the objectives set for Natura 2000 sites have been achieved. See figure 3-14 below outlines the number of met objectives per type of protected area.

For the Nitrates Vulnerable Zones, the additional measures are rather included in the Action Plans (which must be reviewed every 4 years) pursuant to the Nitrates Directive rather than in the RBMPs. About half of the Member States designate the whole country as a Nitrates Vulnerable Zones to make the provisions of the Nitrates Action Plans mandatory across the whole national territory.

Figure 3-14. Objectives met within different types of protected areas for surface waters

Source: third RBMP electronic reporting

3.1.5What is being done to reduce hydromorphological pressures and restore nature? 

The WFD explicitly requires Member States to manage the effects on the ecological status of water which result from changes to physical and hydrological characteristics of water bodies. Significant hydromorphological pressures have been identified in all Member States. Physical and hydrological alterations (e.g. abstractions and impoundments) of water bodies as well as barriers are seen as a significant pressure in almost all RBDs. Half of surface water bodies (59% of river length and 56% of lake area) are affected by significant hydromorphological pressures. Similarly, hydromorpholocial pressure affect 50% of transitional water area and 14% of coastal water area.

The most frequently reported alterations are “physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore” in 96% of RBDs that reported significant pressures, “dams, barriers and locks” (95%), “hydrological alteration” (84%) and “other hydromorphological alteration” (44%).

Hydromorphological pressures should be clearly linked to the main sectors causing them. Figure 3-15 depicts that for the electronically reporting Member States these include in particular land drainage in agriculture sector, very closely followed by hydropower, flood protection, navigation, irrigation and drinking water, while other sectors are represented in less than a quarter of RBDs reporting. However, the pressures are not always apportioned to specific sectors. For a third of the electronically reporting Member States (Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Italy, Latvia), the cause of the majority of the significant hydromorphological pressures remains “unknown” or unqualified (“other”). This shows that understanding such pressures remain a challenge in a considerable number of Member States.

Figure 3-15. Water sectors/uses causing hydromorphological pressures, percentage of RBDs

Source: Electronic reporting

Measures

All Member States 45 have reported a variety of measures aimed at reducing the negative environmental impacts of significant hydromorphological pressures in all their RBDs by improving flow regime, restoring river continuity and/or ensure ecological flows.

Figure 3-16. Key Type Measures (KTMs) targeting hydromorphological pressures, percentage of RBDs

Source: Electronic reporting

Almost all assessed Member States also have registers of physical modifications in place in all their RBDs or at least in a few of their RBDs. In two Member States (Czech Republic, the Netherlands), such register is not reported. A register of physical barriers is under compilation in the Netherlands, while such a register exists in the Czech Republic, but is not referenced in the RBMPs nor reported.

As foreseen by the WFD, there must be a periodic revision of permits for abstractions, impoundments and other activities causing hydromorphological alterations. All Member States assessed have a permitting regime, but not always there is a mandatory regular review of permits.

Measures to improve longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams and removing other type of barriers) and other hydromorphological conditions (e.g. river restoration, improvement of riparian areas, removal of hard embankments, reconnecting rivers to floodplains) are reported in virtually all the Member States. Improving longitudinal continuity is planned in 91% of RBDs and improving other hydromorphological conditions in 79% of the RBDs. According to Dam Removal Europe 46 – a coalition of non-governmental organizations – 487 barriers were removed in 15 European countries in 2023, a 50% increase on last year’s record number. France appears to be the trailblazer, followed by Spain, Sweden, Denmark, and Estonia. While river fragmentation remains a big problem, these measures can also contribute to the 2030 target of 25 000 km free-flowing rivers set under the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the new Nature Restoration Law.

While not all the barriers in rivers are related to hydropower production, hydropower plants (HPPs) continue to be a significant pressure on ecological status in several Member States, due to disruption of river continuity with major impacts on fish migration, fish mortality and changes in the hydrological flows and sediments movement. If the removal of existing HPP is not possible, because of no other technically feasible and proportionate alternative to achieve the benefits of the existing HPP to the society, refurbishing existing HPPs, including win-win solutions for hydropower production and the aquatic environment, should be generally prioritised over new HPPs. In the light of the climate change, the operations of such plants should also be made more sustainable and adapted to evolving hydrological conditions. This includes the periodic review of permits including all mitigation measures to tackle the adverse impacts of HPPs.

Defining and implementing minimum ecological flows (e-flows) 47  is essential for safeguarding the ecological status of surface water bodies. Measures to improve the flow regime, and/or establishment of ecological flows are reported by all Member States and cover 79% of the RBDs. However, it seems that the work on defining and implementing minimum ecological flows is progressing slowly and that notwithstanding guidance available at EU level, there is still a heterogenous picture in how e-flows are defined (see Table 3-5 below). With some exceptions, in the majority of Member States, the definition of e-flows is still being developed/studied . Regrettably, only in some cases, ensuring e-flows seems to be clearly linked to the granting and review of abstraction permits.

Table 3-5. Overview of MS implementation of ecological flows

Natural water retention measures and nature-based solutions 48 may deliver multiple benefits, including increasing infiltration and reducing run-off, but also alleviate pressures from hydrological alterations, abstractions and flow diversions, and provide natural storage of water for dry periods. Natural water retention measures and other nature-based solutions specifically addressing hydromorphological pressures are reported in RBDs of about half of Member States that reported in WISE (Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania). 

Only few Member States (Austria, Belgium, France, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania) report specifically a national policy to prioritise nature-based solutions over other measures. These measures are also reported in the programmes of measures in all assessed Member States as win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of both the WFD and Floods Directive, as well as for drought management.

3.1.6What are Member States doing to reduce abstractions and tackle water scarcity?

Introduction

The Member States are required to report under the WFD, if water abstraction causes significant pressure on individual water bodies and at RBD level or in significant portions of an RBD. The assessment is based on the Water Exploitation Index plus (WEI+), which estimates net consumption 49 as a percentage of renewable freshwater resources in an RBD. If water consumption exceeds 20% of renewable freshwater resources in a RBD over a long period of time, this may signify the occurrence of water scarcity conditions and, if it exceeds 40%, water scarcity may be characterised as severe.

It should be noted that water scarcity is a permanent or seasonally recurrent imbalance of water supply and demand that may arises irrespectively of droughts due to unsustainable use of water resources (e.g. over-allocation / over-abstraction). As such, water scarcity shall be distinguished from droughts, which are a temporary natural phenomenon, occurring when precipitation, flow and/or soil moisture deviate significantly from their long-term average conditions in a region.

There are significant differences in water use across different regions in the EU. EEA’s analysis of water abstractions over the period 2000-2019 50  shows that water abstraction declined overall 51 , reflecting policy measures implemented under the WFD. However, while abstraction declined in some sectors, such as for cooling in electricity generation (-27%), it increased in others. For instance, water abstraction for cooling in manufacturing almost tripled, while abstraction for public water supply increased by 4%, with a particularly sharp increase since 2010 (14%). Water abstraction for agriculture decreased overall between 2000 and 2019. However, since 2010 it has increased by 8%, mainly because of the increasing demand for irrigation in southern Europe where water scarcity is exacerbated by climate change.

In 2019, at EU level, abstraction for cooling in electricity generation w the largest contributor to total annual water abstraction (32%), followed by abstraction for agriculture (28%), public water supply (20%), manufacturing (13%) and cooling in manufacturing (5%), with mining and quarrying, and construction accounting for only 1% of total abstraction each. Looking at net consumption, however, the economic sector agriculture is the largest net consumer, as most water abstracted is either consumed by the crop and farm animals or evaporates (59% of EU water consumption in 2019 52 ), rather than being returned to the same source it was abstracted from. Other main water consuming sectors are cooling for manufacturing and electricity generation (17%), households and services (13%) and mining, quarrying, construction and manufacturing (11 %).

Figure 3-17. Water abstraction by economic sector in the 27 EU Member States, 2000-2019 (EEA, 2022)

It should also be noted that the EEA also shows that the relative contributions of surface water and groundwater to the total volume of water abstracted have changed during this period: in 2000, surface water accounted for 81% of abstraction and groundwater for 19%, while, in 2019, surface water accounted for only 77% and groundwater for 23%.

Figure 3-18. Share of total annual water abstraction by source in the 27 EU Member States, 2000-2019 (EEA)

The increase in water abstraction from groundwater can largely be explained by increasing demand in the public water supply and agriculture sectors, with groundwater meeting almost 65% of total public water supply and 25% of agricultural water demands in the EU-27 in 2019. Climate change exacerbating seasonal variability in surface water availability is likely to have contributed to this, as demand for water has increased during spring and summer months when availability of surface water is limited, particularly in southern Europe, causing competition between sectors and driving a shift in water abstraction from surface water to groundwater.

Unsurprisingly, water scarcity is perceived as a growing issue in most Member States. Water abstraction and alteration of groundwater level/volume are reported as significant pressures causing failure of good quantitative status in 450 out of the 3 577 (12.6%) groundwater bodies and ecological status in 5 174 out of 52 718 (9.8%) of total surface water bodies for the thirteen Member States for which information was available through the e-reporting. However, as already outlined earlier, the pressure to the environment could be underestimated, as various Member States do not yet consider the needs of GWAAEs and GWDTEs in the assessment of good quantitative status.

The proportion of groundwater bodies failing to achieve good quantitative status due to significant pressure from water abstraction and/or alteration of groundwater level/volume is the highest in Spain (25%), Hungary (20%), Italy (19%), France (11%) and Belgium (11%). In addition, the proportion of surface water bodies failing to achieve good ecological status/potential due to significant pressure from water abstraction is higher in France (17%), Austria (12%), Spain (11%), Italy (9%) and Croatia (8%). While they failed to submit their third RBMPs, this is known to be a significant issue also in Cyprus, Greece, and Malta based on the previous RBMPs.

It should be noted that the estimations on the volumes of water abstraction / use vary considerably depending on the source of the data. and that water abstraction is largely estimated based on indirect evidence, such as issued permits, conducted surveys, and assumptions / approximations (e.g. based on cropping patterns and assumed need for irrigation). Direct monitoring and metering are more frequent in specific water uses (e.g. public water supply). This leads to significant degree of uncertainty on the actual pressures asserted on water bodies. The degree of such uncertainty is even higher, considering that unauthorised/illegal water abstraction (i.e. abstraction either without a permit or in excess of the permit conditions) occurs in various sectors (e.g. more frequently in agriculture, but not limited to this sector) and is reported in the third RBMPs of certain Member States (see further below).

Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity

The WFD explicitly requires controls over the abstraction of 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. These permits have to be periodically reviewed and, where necessary, updated. Measures to address abstraction and water scarcity have generally been planned in the PoMs in all RBDs where water abstraction has been identified as a significant pressure. These measures focus on control of abstractions, water efficiency and reuse, natural water retention, e-flows, research and knowledge building.

However, implementation of these measures is uneven because Member States dedicate different resources to such task. As also found by the European Court of Auditors 53 , Member States have made progress in setting up prior authorisation systems for water abstraction, systems for detecting illegal water use and pricing mechanisms with the potential to incentivise water efficiency. However, the fact that most Member States exempt small abstractions from controls or registration is potentially problematic, as the accumulation of such small abstractions over the whole river basin can have negative impact on the status of surface and groundwater bodies. 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. In addition, it is noted that the frequency with which Member States review the abstraction permits, as required by the WFD 54 , is ranging from 6 years to several decades or even indefinite periods of time. This situation makes it very difficult and sometimes impossible to properly factor in the evolving situation in water bodies, including from a climate change perspective. The Commission is currently involved in enforcing the obligation to review such permits to ensure its correct implementation across Member States 55 .

The issue of over-allocation of water rights compared to available water resources, excluding e-flows, is not explicitly mentioned in the assessed third RBMPs documents. However, indirectly, this is acknowledged as an issue in Member States that report restrictions in the issue of new permits and/or include in their PoMs the purpose to review existing permits to support the achievement of environmental objectives (i.e. Belgium, France, Hungary, Italy, Spain).

The issue of unauthorised/illegal water abstraction (i.e. abstraction either without a permit or in excess of the permit conditions) is explicitly mentioned only in some of the third RBMPs documents of 4 Member States (e.g. Flanders RBDs of Belgium, Mayotte and Guadeloupe RBDs of France, Hungary, South Apennines RBD of Italy). Nevertheless, the issue is also known to exist in other areas of Europe (e.g. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Spain), according to the special European Court of Auditors’ report on ‘Sustainable water use in agriculture’. However, even where mentioned, these references usually miss a quantification of the current issue and trends from the second RBMPs. In some of these countries, efforts are on-going to close the illegal wells to prevent such unlawful appropriation of this common good. In all MS, inspection mechanisms are in place to prevent cases of unauthorised / illegal abstractions or violation of permit conditions, including sample checks by national authorities after authorisation or targeted checks after submission of complaints.

Eleven Member States (i.e. Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Romania, Spain) also plan basic measures for water efficiency, including technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households, while 4 Member States (Belgium, Estonia, Netherlands and Italy) also plan basic measures for groundwater recharge and / or augmentation of groundwaters. Other types of basic measures planned for the 2021-2027 period include measures relevant with research, improvement of knowledge base and reduction of uncertainty, measures for drinking water protection, climate change adaptation measures and measures for cost recovery and incentive water pricing.

As in the past, several Member States focus their measures to address water scarcity on increasing supply, such as drilling new wells, constructing new dams and reservoirs, expanding irrigation infrastructure for agriculture, constructing large-scale water transfer infrastructure and desalinisation plants. In the PoMs of the third RBMPs, such measures are planned in 8 Member States (i.e. Austria, Croatia, Czechia, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain) without providing a lot of information. In a context of increasingly felt impacts of climate change, it is important to ensure a robust assessment of the environmental impacts of such measures.

In the PoMs of the third RBMPs, 11 Member States plan natural water retention measures (i.e. Croatia, Belgium, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain) and 9 MS plan water reuse schemes (i.e. Croatia, Belgium, Czechia, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain). As noted by the ECA, natural water retention measures may deliver multiple benefits, including groundwater recharge, drought management and flood risk reduction, but their effectiveness is limited if they are used in a small area 56 . Overall, in tackling water abstraction and water scarcity issues and risks, all MS, including those that do not currently consider water abstraction as a significant pressure, need to adopt a more proactive and forward-looking approach that goes beyond the 6-year WFD cycles. Climate change scenarios and long-term water supply and demand forecasts should be explicitly integrated in WFD planning and permitting of all Member States.

3.1.7Adaptation to climate change

As outlined in the European Climate Risk Assessment (EUCRA) 57  and as recognized by the Commission in its Communication on managing climate risks 58 , the EU and its Member States must become significantly better at preparing for and effectively addressing climate risks 59 . The evidence that climate change is having a substantial impact on the occurrence and severity of water-related risks such as droughts and floods in much of Europe is mounting 60 .

In the EU, according to the EEA 61 , water stress currently affects 20% of the European territory and 30% of the European population, with droughts causing damage of up to EUR 9 billion/year and unquantified damage to ecosystems and their services. Damages from drought alone could ramp up to EUR 40 billion/year, in the extreme scenario of a global warming of 3°C which, unfortunately, appears increasingly possible. The EUCRA highlights a growing risk of megadroughts that span large regions and last for several years, and that are even more severe than recent drought events in Europe. Prolonged droughts cause large economic damage across many sectors and can severely degrade the water resources that people, agriculture, industry, power plants, river transport and ecosystems depend on.

On the other hand, the EUCRA shows also that extreme precipitation has increased in large parts of Europe, leading to growing flood risks and devastating floods in recent years. This trend is expected to rise further in a warming climate. In addition, rising sea levels increase the risk of coastal floods and storm surges, coastal erosion and saltwater intrusion into groundwater. This presents an important threat to many coastal cities, regions and ecosystems in Europe.

Effective implementation of the WFD, as well as of the Floods Directive is essential to enhancing EU water resilience and ultimately a pre-requisite to achieve climate resilience objectives of the EU climate law 62 and the EU adaptation strategy 63 . At the same, the objectives of the WFD and the FD can only be achieved by taking into full consideration the impacts of climate change in their implementation.

Although the obligation to adapt the RBMPs to climate change is not explicitly included in the text of the WFD, the stepwise and cyclical approach of the river basin management planning process is well suited to adaptively manage climate change impacts, building on climate adaptation plans in the member States.

The Floods Directive on the other hand explicitly requires considering the impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods, and therefore in the preparation of Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments, which are elaborated into Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs), and Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) which are assessed in the dedicated Section B of this document. However, considering the close relationship between overall water management and flood risk management and the importance of climate change effects on both, climate change effects are jointly addressed in this section.

Climate resilience and Drought risk management in the RBMPs

An increasing number of Member States reported a systematic consideration of climate change impact and an effort to align their programme of measures with National Climate Adaptation Plans. For well over half of the Member States, National Climate Adaptation Plans provided important information for river basin management plans; however, most RBMPs are not explicit in how climate change impacts were considered and integrated.

Fourteen of the 20 Member States reported completing analysis of climate change on main pressures to water bodies. For some, this analysis was limited to only a few sectors. The majority of Member States, however, do not provide details on the methodology used in this assessment. Climate-proofing of measures proposed in the PoMs was reported by 11 of the 20 Member States analysed. However, it is often unclear how the result of this study impact on their analysis of pressures and the definition of measures.

Adaptation measures are integrated into RBMPs in 14 Member States, yet in some cases this is only done in a very general manner. Such adaptation measures cover areas such as water management, habitat protection, and pollution control. Some measures pertain to land conversions, modifications of water allocations, and water management practices to rehabilitate surface and groundwater connectivity, maintaining ecological flow, and ensuring continuity for migratory species.

Even if floods continued to remain a major concern, in the third RBMPs, effects of climate change were mostly linked to droughts and lower water availability and focused often on their effects on agriculture, inland navigation and energy generation. Sixteen of the analysed 20 Member States reported droughts as significant occurrence in the planning period. This is a marked difference compared to the second RBMP, where excess water (i.e. floods) was highlighted as key impact of climate change.

The analysis shows that progress was achieved in relation to drought management in several Member States. The development of a genuine “drought management plan” is an important step to evolve from crisis management towards risk management. 64  As recommended by the Commission 65 , 9 Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Spain) reported in their third RBMPs the existence of distinct Drought Management Plans at national, river basin or regional levels. Such plans map areas at risk and determine alert levels, foresee warning systems, and clarify upfront water allocation priorities during a prolonged drought. Other Member States reported somewhat less comprehensive plans which mainly focus on mapping risks, and making broad recommendations, without however determining a response mechanism (e.g. water allocation priorities). Two Member States have plans that come close to fully-fledged Drought Management Plans (Czechia, Poland) and two more (Finland, Luxembourg) declared that they are in the process of finalising such a plan. Overall, Nordic and Baltic Member States seem less prepared for droughts than Mediterranean Member States with Western and Central European Member States going through a transition.

Drought management measures were integrated in the Programme of Measures for 10 Member States; when these Member States also have drought management plans, then these measures are aligned with those (i.e. they are in both plans).

The effects of climate change are also felt on water quality in several Member States. Four Member States (Belgium, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands) invoked Article 4(6) exemption due to prolonged droughts that prevented the achievement of good ecological status in a total of 118 water bodies. This is an increase compared to the second RBMPs, potentially signalling a new trend in negative impacts of climate change on quality of water resources.

Climate resilience and Floods Risk Management under the FD

The assessment of the second Floods Hazards and Risk Maps (FHRMs) and second Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) shows a significant improvement in the integration of climate change consideration in the implementation of the Floods Directive.

Although not explicitly required by the FD, 23 Member States considered climate change for the preparation of their second Floods Hazards and Risk Maps (FHRMs). This is an increase compared to the the first FHRMs where only 16 Member States did so. Of these 23 Member States, 15 Member States considered climate change for coastal flooding. Sixteen out of the 23 Member States considered climate change for the medium probability scenario 66 ; for the other two scenarios this was done less often; 13 Member States for the low probability scenario 67 and 11 for the high probability scenario 68 . 13 Member States obtained climate change trend scenarios from the IPCC or other international and EU sources 69 and 15 from national research programmes 70 . Nine Member States used both sources 71 .

As regards the FRMPs, all the assessed 21 Member States, compared to one third in the past, provide strong evidence that climate change was addressed in their Plans. Almost all the FRMPs assessed refer to the national adaptation strategies prepared by Member States under the EU Adaptation Strategy, though in some Member States this was not the case for all FRMPs. In all the Member States considered, the FRMPs present the potential climate change impacts on flooding. These Member States consider a potential shift in the occurrence (or intensity) of extreme events and/or changes in the main source of flooding. The level of detail varies significantly though, with some Member States providing a short, general discussion of potential impacts of climate change on flooding events, with others providing potential flood event detail, including quantitative information for the areas potentially affected. Most of the Member States assessed make an explicit reference to the scenarios provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) within their FRMPs, indicating alignment with internationally recognised climate change projections. More than half of the Member States assessed present findings from national or regional studies, some of which are based on the IPPC scenarios, into their FRMPs. In a few Member States, an explicit reference to climate change scenarios and their impact on floods is also included in the Strategic Environmental Assessments for the FRMPs.

As regards the integration of climate adaptation measures included in FRMPs, over half of the Member States reporting 72 prioritise measures that are adaptable to changing conditions, reflecting a consideration of climate change criteria in their FRMPs. The FRMPs in a few Member States 73  described methods to assess the effectiveness of measures in the face of climate change. The vast majority of the Member States assessed included in their FRMPs at least a few specific measures to address climate change or refer to climate change in the context of some of their measures.

Nearly all Member States include nature-based solutions in their FRMPs, and many plans mention their positive role for adaptation. While some FRMPs do not specifically refer to adaptation in the context of their nature-based solutions, these are likely to strengthen resilience, as highlighted in the EU’s 2021 Adaptation Strategy.

Similarly, nearly all Member States include land use and spatial planning measures in their FRMPs. Some refer to their role in adaptation. On the other hand, while a few Member States refer to the role of insurance in flood risk management, references to its role in supporting climate resilience and adaptation were not found.

3.2 POLICY ELEMENTS CONTRIBUTING TO ZERO POLLUTION

3.2.1Surface Water: what is their chemical status

Good chemical status of surface waters is the chemical status achieved by a body of surface water in which concentrations of priority substances do not exceed the concentrations established in the law.

The EQSD initially identified 33 priority substances, and eight other pollutants and set up related limits value. In 2013, twelve new priority substances and their limits were added to the list, and good status for these substances must only be achieved by 2027. In addition to reaching good chemical status for all priority substances and the eight other pollutants, Member States are also required to assess long-term trends and to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all substances identified in the Directive, for each national river basin district.

Monitoring

Overall, there has been further improvement in monitoring across the EU, but there continue to be a huge variation in the monitoring of Priority Substances 74 , both in terms of the percentage of water bodies and the number of substances.

Most Member States have expanded the (geographic coverage) of monitoring networks since the second RBMPs 75 . Figure 3-19 below provides a comparison per Member State to illustrate the proportion of water bodies included within the monitoring network to determine the chemical status. For a small number of Member States, the information provided within the third RBMPwas insufficient to reach a conclusion.

Figure 3-19. Evolution of geographic scale of monitoring networks between the second and third RBMPs

In terms of frequency of monitoring, the majority of Member States 76 comment that operational monitoring for surface water is undertaken on a monthly basis, and annually for sediment and biota. There are examples where mixed approaches are used. There is also a diversity of approaches to monitoring frequencies across locations, often based on the risks and probability of finding the pollutants given the available resources and perceived high risk/low risk locations across different water bodies. This means that the geographic scale of the monitoring network alone may not tell the full story for how complete the monitoring programme is in practice.

Most Member States monitored all Priority Substances identified as discharged into their RBDs. While in some cases uncertainty remains as regards which substances are included in the monitoring programmes, it would appear that in half of the Member States covered (Austria, Belgium (Flanders and Brussels), Croatia, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden) all 45 priority substances are included within the monitoring programme at national level, while the others (France, Latvia, Romania, and Slovakia) indicated that they monitored between 40 and 44 priority. Several MS (e.g., Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Finland, and Hungary) indicate that they have increased the number of priority substances included in their monitoring programmes to close gaps from the second RBMPs (these increases go beyond the 12 new substances added to the EQSD in 2013). Denmark reported monitoring only 25 priority substances 77 , while no information was provided by Czechia about which priority substances are included within the monitoring programme.

Figure 3-20. Coverage of monitoring for priority substances across the Member States for the third RBMP*

*Note that Wallonia monitors 44 out of 45 priority substances. The other parts of Belgium monitor all 45 priority substances. The graph above counts Belgium as a whole in the ‘all 45 priority substances’ category.

Member States are required to undertake monitoring in biota and sediment for 20 priority substances to complete long-term trend assessments. Unfortunately, as shown in Figure 3-21 below monitoring in sediment and biota for long-term trend assessment looks variable and largely incomplete. This aspect of the WFD compliance for chemical status was the weakest in the assessment and represents the biggest gap. The results of the trend analysis look significantly underdeveloped and are actually missing for most Member States.

Figure 3-21. Surveillance monitoring in sediment and biota – number of MS per substance that monitor each substance at 10 or more sites*

Status Assessment

It should be noted that the proportion of water bodies in unknown chemical status across all Member States has improved. Yet three countries really stand out with still very significant proportions of their surface water bodies nationally at unknown status, Lithuania (94.6% of surface waters in unknown status), Denmark (92.5%), and Estonia (82.7%).

The assessment shows a significant decrease in the number of surface waters bodies at EU level in good chemical status.

Only 26,8% of surface waterbodies were in good chemical status in 2021 as compared to the second RBMPs in 2015 when the share of surface water bodies in good chemical status was 33,5%.

The lack of progress is largely due to the presence of few individual compounds that are called “ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic” substances (uPBTs), for which there is also improved monitoring and better knowledge of the status of water bodies in several countries leading to significant changes in the result of the chemical status assessment in a number of countries (see more information below).

The most common of these compounds are mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene, that mainly enter the aquatic environment following atmospheric emissions resulting from combustion processes of fossil or other fuels, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are heavily used in paints, plastics, foam furniture padding, textiles, building materials and industrial processes. These “usual suspects” have a very dominant effect in the chemical status. Without these very frequent and persistent compounds, we would observe that 81% of the surface water would have reached good ecological status. This represents largely the same proportion as in the last cycle.

It should be noted that uPBTs continue to be responsible also for failure to meet the good environmental status objective for contamination under the MSFD for 80% of the sea area 78 .

Figure 3-22. Change in the chemical status assessment of EU surface water bodies from the first, second and third RBMPs (all substances including uPBTs) (source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

Figure 3-23. Change in chemical status assessment of EU surface water bodies from the second and third RBMPs (without uPBTs) (source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

As shown in the table 3-6 below, while the share of surface waters in good status has remained stable or slightly improved in some Member States compared to the 2016-2021 period, it has significantly decreased in others. In all these Member States the primary reason for such widespread chemical status failures relates to uPBT substances. As mentioned above, this deterioration may be largely due to improved monitoring and better knowledge of the status of water bodies in these countries, particularly in relation to widespread uPBTs, major changes in the delineation of water bodies and more stringent standards for some substances.

Furthermore, it should be noted that some Member States have assessed the original list of priority substances from 2008 whilst others included already in the assessment the new priority substances added to the Directive in 2013 although legally the compliance deadline to meet the quality standards for these new substances is only 2027.

Table 3-6. Overview of status assessment from third RBMPs (all substances including uPBT)

Overall, as already mentioned above, the substance responsible for the greatest number of failures is mercury, followed by polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Nationally, the other substances that cause EQS exceedance and failure to achieve good chemical status vary, but metals (e.g. lead, cadmium, nickel which are typically linked to mining waste, municipal and industrial wastewater, urban runoff), biocides and pesticides (tributyltin, chlorpyrifos), and some Persistent Organic Pollutants (e.g., hexachlorobenzene, , which still persist although banned for use in the EU since many years, continue to commonly feature in the top of the list of substances leading to failure (see Figure 3-24 below).

Figure 3-24. Top Priority substances (initial 33 priority substances) causing failure to achieve good chemical status (count of SWBs) – electronic reporting only.

When considering also the additional 12 priority substance added in 2013, PFOS (a type of PFAS) and its derivatives, heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide (an insecticide) have made their entry in the top ten. However, it must be noted that while monitoring of these new substances has become mandatory, the deadline for compliance as mentioned above is 2027.

Figure 3-25. Top Priority substances (revised list of 45 priority substances) causing failure to achieve good chemical status (count of SWBs) – electronic reporting only.

3.2.2Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status

The monitoring and assessment of the chemical status of groundwater bodies has improved, although a significant number are still not covered or are subject to limited monitoring of some core parameters only.

Status Assessment

It is noted positively that the assessment shows an improvement in the overall chemical status with 86% of groundwater bodies in good status in 2021 as compared to the previous cycle when the share was 82.2%.

Figure 3-26. Change in the chemical status assessment of EU groundwater bodies from the first, second and third RBMPs (source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

Lithuania is the only Member State that reported all groundwater bodies at good chemical status, with none at risk of poor status by 2027. Seven Member States (Austria, Croatia, Finland, Poland, Romania, and Sweden) report that at least 90% of their groundwater bodies are at good chemical status, whereas this amounts to 70-90% for 6 Member States (Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Slovakia), to 60-70% for 3 Member States (France, Germany and Spain) and to below 54% for 4 Member States (Belgium, Czechia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands). However, only 2 Member States reported 100% high confidence in the status assessment, while for the rest there were mixed trends towards a decreased and an increase level ofconfidence.

Table 3-7. Groundwater chemical status in EU Member States, comparison between second and third RBMPs.

The most commonly reported pollutant leading to poor chemical status of groundwater bodies is Nitrates 79  coming mainly from intensive agriculture and livestock farming through the improper or excessive application of fertilizers and slurries/manures. This is the case for 17 out of the 20 Member States. Only Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania do not report nitrates as causing chemical status failure in their groundwaters. Pesticides and their metabolites are responsible for the failure to achieve good chemical status by 9 Member States (Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Spain). Phosphate and ammonium, mainly stemming from intensive agriculture and livestock farming, also lead to poor chemical status with a particular impact in countries such as Slovakia and Czechia. Other substances mentioned as leading to a smaller proportion of groundwater bodies at poor chemical status (i.e. less than 10% by MS) including naturally occurring pollutants such as chloride, sulphate, potassium, iron and total organic carbon. Industrial solvents, PAHs, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE - primarily used as a fuel additive) and anionic surfactants (frequently present in soaps and detergents) are less commonly pointed as the cause of poor status.

Substances featuring a sustained and significant upward trend include nitrate, pesticides, chloride, sulphate, arsenic, nickel, cadmium, potassium phosphates, nitrite and ammonium.

3.2.3What is being done to combat pollution from agriculture

Pollution from agriculture is the top pressure identified by all Member States in almost all RBDs and is relevant for both surface and groundwater bodies. This is essentially due to unsustainable land management practices and excessive and improper use on one hand of fertilisers and slurries/manures which contain nitrogen leading to nitrates in water, on the other hand of pesticides and other hazardous substances.

It was a key recommendation from the assessment of the second RBMPs to perform a quantitative assessment of the reduction in the nutrient load that would be necessary to achieve good ecological status. This would form the basis for defining and selecting the measures that are necessary in order to achieve the necessary load reduction.

Regrettably, limited progress has been made by most Member States carrying out this estimations. Only 8 Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden) have made a detailed assessment of the need for reduction of nutrient loads which covers both nitrogen and phosphorus and at least all surface water bodies. Romania has made estimation only as regards nitrogen. There is a large number of Member States that do not report on the load reductions. It is noted with concern that the majority of Member States have only estimated the number of water bodies where the nutrient load should be reduced.

Table 3-8. Overview of gap assessment for nutrients (from agriculture and other sources)

Source: third RBMPs PDF and electronic reporting

Only 4 Member States (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden) have conducted an assessment on the expected effectiveness of the measures to reduce the nutrient loads which shows that the planned measures have not been sufficient to remove all the nutrients required for achieving good ecological status.

For none of the EU transitional and coastal water bodies, there appear to be clearly set upstream thresholds for nutrients load reductions or closely related biological quality elements to ensure a good status. No Member State is using nutrient related thresholds in the classification of ecological good status of transitional and coastal waters either. This has also an impact on achieving the objectives of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

For pesticides, there are very few examples of estimations of pesticides load reduction needed to achieve the objectives. Member States report on challenges with assessing pesticides due to long retention time of pollutants in the soil and in the groundwater bodies. This relates to the fact that it takes some time for the pesticides to reach the groundwater and, even when the releases have stopped, it takes time before the groundwater status improves. This explains why some of the pesticides that have been banned for several or many years are still being detected in groundwaters. Restrictions on the current use of pesticides will therefore only show progress over a long time.

No evaluation is reported of the effectiveness of the agricultural measures taken in the 1st and in the second RBMPs. This would have been essential to ascertain the progress to target for 2027. In addition, similarly to planned measures in other areas, also not all the agricultural measures announced in the second RBMPs have been implemented as planned. As in other areas, the reported challenges include funding, the low uptake by farmers of many of the voluntary measures incentivised through subsidies and the time it takes to deploy at large scale changes in farming practices.

The assessment of the RBMPs shows that basic measures are usually in place as foreseen by the WFD. Mandatory measures are nevertheless limited to those provided under the Nitrates Directive, the Sustainable Use Directive (2009/128/EC) and the cross-compliance and greening requirements under the CAP. All Member States have implemented the basic measures though there are some compliance deficiencies.

As regards supplementary measures, all Member States have reported on them, but the level of details provided in the RBMPs is generally limited. Several voluntary measures have been in place often supported through the CAP, notably through agri-environment climate commitments 80 (AECC) and other relevant measures included in the Rural Development Programmes developed by Member States. However, these measures, together with the basic measures implemented, have not been sufficient to reduce pressures from nitrates and pesticides. This might have been due to a variety of factors including intrinsic limitations in the design of the voluntary measures in questions, the fact that measures were not sufficiently programmed by Member States, limited uptake by farmers, or limited uptake in the most affected areas.

With respect to the CAP 2023-2027, an increased contribution to tackling pollution from nitrates and pesticides can be expected 81 . It includes enhanced conditionality 82 standards, such as strengthened soil management requirements (e.g. crop rotation/ diversification, buffer strips) and a new requirement linked to controls on diffuse sources of pollution from phosphates. The instruments available under rural development funding 83 (AECCs including organic farming, support for investments, WFD payments, training / advice, innovation and cooperation) continue to be available and have been complemented with eco-schemes which support environment/climate friendly practices; Member States have to dedicate at least 25% of EAGF funding to these schemes 84 . Support from eco-schemes and AECC covers inter alia improved nutrient management 85 and the sustainable use of pesticides 86 .

3.2.4What is being done to combat pollution from other sectors?

Pollution from sectors such as urban settlements, industry or energy also poses a threat to the aquatic environment and to human health via the environment.

Basic measures to deal with pollution from these sectors are generally in place. These include measures such as an authorisation and/or permitting regime to control wastewater point source discharges, the operation of registers of wastewater discharges, and the prohibition or limitation of all direct discharges to groundwater, and/or other measures to eliminate / reduce pollution from priority and other substances.

These are, in most cases, specific measures to deal with specific 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 or remediation of contaminated sites, addressing historical pollution in sediments, groundwater and soil. However, not all Member States and RBMPs provide the same level of detail when it comes to linking individual substances explicitly to specific measures to combat pollution. More progress is needed on this front, as well as on developing a gap analysis to inform the design of the measures.

All Member States reported inventories of emissions, discharges, and losses of harmful substances, but there are large variations both in terms of coverage of the relevant pollutant and their completeness. The top ten substances for which emissions inventories have been most commonly established are mercury, benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene (PAHs), nickel, lead, and cadmium (heavy metals) nonylphenol (non-ionic surfactants), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS, a type of PFAS), and tributyltin-cation (a highly toxic biocide).

Most of the Member States have reported basic measures “construction or upgrades of wastewater treatments plants” as it is being recognized that additional efforts are needed to comply with the UWWTD. Currently, 82% of Europe’s urban wastewaters are collected and treated in line with EU standards. The implementation of the revised UWWTD, for which the co-legislators recently reached a political agreement , will further reduce pollution from urban wastewaters. It includes new rules on storm overflows and urban run-off that will help Member States to more effectively address these pressures that had not been covered by EU legislation.

It is worth noting that, while the WFD does not cover pollution from litter, this is a key area where synergies with the MSFD must be built since a very large part of the plastics in the sea come from the rivers. The assessment of the Programmes of Measures under the MSFD shows that Member States have taken many measures to address the main sources of litter. This has led to an estimated 33% reduction of beach litter between 2016-2021 across all EU sea basins. These measures are likely to have had also a positive impact on rivers, lakes and coastal waters.

4.Exemptions and economics

4.1Exemptions

Where the environmental objectives of the WFD cannot or have not yet been achieved and where there is a need to derogate to the principle of preventing any further deterioration of status, the WFD foresees that exemptions can be applied pursuant to Article 4 (4), (5), (6) and (7) 87 .

All Member States apply one or more of these types of exemptions for those surface and groundwater bodies still failing to achieve good status, and in some cases to justify a deterioration. The type of exemption used, the underlying reasons (e.g. disproportionate cost, technical feasibility, natural conditions) and the level of detail used to justify the exemptions varies considerably per Member State.

Given the limited progress in reaching good status, a large majority of the water bodies in the EU are covered by the various exemptions foreseen in Article 4 of the WFD.

Overall, compared to the previous cycle, the number of exemptions, particularly those related to Articles 4(4) on time exemption for achieving the objectives and 4(5) exemptions setting less stringent environmental objectives of the WFD has increased.

The number of exemptions applied under Article 4(4) has increased in six Member States 88 . For the remaining Member States, there is no change in the number of exemptions under Article 4(4) or it is not possible to compare directly due to changes in number of water bodies.

The number of exemptions applied under Article 4(5) has increased in six Member States 89 and decreased in two 90 . For the remaining Member States, there is no change in the number of exemptions under Article 4(5) or it is not possible to directly compare.

The number of exemptions allowing for a temporary deterioration in status applied under Article 4(6) has increased in four Member States 91 . For the remaining Member States, there is no change in the number of exemptions under Article 4(6) or it is not possible to compare.

The number of exemptions from the obligation not to deteriorate status or not to prevent the achievement of good status applied under Article 4(7) has increased in four Member States 92 and decreased in two 93 . For the remaining Member States, there is no change in the number of exemptions under Article 4(7) or it is not possible to compare. This could point to the fact that Member States are not always applying this exeption when implementing new projects.

Application of exemptions in Surface Waters

Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(4) are applied for surface water bodies in all Member States assessed. For the countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, the share of surface water bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(4) is around 44% for ecological status and 39% for chemical status (see figure 4-1 below). Consequently, this type of exemptions is the one that is most frequently used. As shown in Figure 4-2, for surface water bodies, technical feasibility , natural conditions and disproportionate costs are the most used justifications for applying this type of exemption. 94  The main pressures causing the application of exemptions under Article 4(4) in surface water bodies are atmospheric deposition, agriculture, urban wastewater, diffuse urban run-off, and plants included under the scope of the Industrial Emissions Directive.

Exemptions under Article 4(5) are applied in the surface water bodies of most Member States assessed (14 95 out of 20). For the countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, the share of surface water bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(5) is around 9.3% for ecological status and 0.3% for chemical status (Figure 4-1 below). As shown in Figure 4-2, for surface water bodies, infeasibility , and disproportionate costs are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption. 96  The main pressures reported causing the application of exemptions under Article 4(5) in surface water bodies are urban wastewater, diffuse urban run-off, agriculture, forestry and transport.

Figure 4-1. Share of exemptions applied per Article of the total number of delineated surface water bodies in the third RBMPs (countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting)

Exemptions under Article 4(6) have been much less applied and only four 97 out of the 20 Member States assessed. as illustrated in Figure 4-1 above. As shown in Figure 4-2, for surface water bodies, accidents , natural causes , and force majeure (0.01% of all reporting surface water bodies for ecological status) are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption. 98

Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(7) are applied to projects in the surface water bodies of eight 99 out of the 20 Member States assessed. For the countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, the share of surface water bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(7) is around 0.1% for ecological status. As shown in Figure 4-2, for surface water bodies, sustainable human development and new modifications, are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption to surface water ecological status. 100

Figure 4-2. Share of exemptions type of the total number of surface water bodies in the third RBMPs (countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, more than one exemption may apply to a water body)

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Application of exemptions in Groundwaters

Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(4) are applied by all Member States assessed, except for Latvia and Lithuania. As shown in figure 4-3 above, for the countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, the share of groundwater bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(4) is around 9.9% for quantitative status and 23% for chemical status. As shown in Figure 4-4, for groundwater bodies, technical feasibility , natural conditions and disproportionate costs are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption.  101 The main pressures reported causing the application of exemptions under Article 4(4) in groundwater bodies are agriculture and contaminated sites or derelict industrial sites.

Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(5) are applied in the groundwater bodies of eight 102 , out of the 20, Member States assessed. For the countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, the share of groundwater bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(5) is around 1% for quantitative status and 3.4% for chemical status (Figure 4-3). As shown in Figure 4-4, for groundwater bodies, infeasibility , and disproportionate costs are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption.  103 The main pressures reported causing the application of exemptions under Article 4(5) in groundwater bodies are agriculture and contaminated sites or derelict industrial sites.

Figure 4-3. Share of exemptions applied per Article of the total number of delineated groundwater bodies in the third RBMPs (countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting)

Figure 4-4. Share of exemptions type applied per Article of the total number of groundwater bodies in the third RBMPs (countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, more than one exemption may apply to a groundwater body)

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(6) are applied in the groundwater bodies of six 104 out of the 20 Member States assessed. For the countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, the share of groundwater bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(6) is around 0.2% for quantitative status and none for chemical status (Figure 4-3).  As shown in Figure 4-4 for groundwater bodies, natural causes , and force majeure are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption. 105

Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(7) are applied in the groundwater bodies of six 106 out of the 20 Member States assessed. For the countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, the share of surface water bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(7) is around 0.4% for quantitative status and none for chemical status (Figure 4-3). As shown in Figure 4-4, for groundwater bodies, sustainable human development and new modification are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption. 107

Only Latvia applied exemptions according to Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive on the grounds of artificial recharge / augmentation (0.02% of all reporting groundwater bodies for chemical status). The pressures reported causing the application of exemptions under Article 6(3) are recharges and public water supply.

Justification of exemptions

As required by WFD, the reasons for applying exemptions under Article 4, paragraphs (4) to (7) shall be specifically set out and explained in the RBMPs. This implies that the exemptions should be based on appropriate, evident and transparent criteria or methodologies and shall be justified in detail in the RBMPs. This is particularly the case for the application of Article 4(5) which allows to lower the environmental objectives, for which the WFD implies a thorough and well documented demonstration of disproportionate cost and unfeasibility criteria, and evidence that all possible measures not disproportionately expensive or infeasible have been implemented. This also applies to the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) WFD for new projects, which must include detailed justifications, detailing cumulative effects, the assessment of better environmental options, and the measures taken to mitigate the adverse impacts of new developments. In addition, the WFD requires that any exemption applied is regularly reviewed and does not permanently exclude or compromise the achievement of the environmental objectives in other water bodies, and guarantee at least the level of protection provided for in other EU environmental law.

Compared to the second RBMPs, there have been some improvements in the methodologies used for the application of exemptions for surface and groundwater bodies. Specifically, following previous Commission recommendations, out of the 20 Member States analysed in this report, 18 provide justifications on exemption at water body level 108  and 11 of these have provided more detailed justifications 109 . However, some Member States do not provide sufficient details on the justification in any of the RBMPs assessed and some provide sufficient information in some instances and insufficient details in others.

4.2Economics

The WFD addresses the economic aspects mainly through two main articles: Articles 5 and 9, addressing respectively the economic analysis of water use and the recovery of water services’ costs, although, as further detailed below, this division is not clear-cut.

Article 5 requires Member States to undertake an economic analysis of water use. The law also establishes that the reports must contain enough information in sufficient detail to support the assessment of the cost recovery for water services and related obligations as well as the judgements on the most cost-effective combination of measures in respect of water uses to be included in the Programme of Measures, PoMs.

WFD article 9(1) establishes that MS “must take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs, […] and in accordance with the polluter-pays principle” (PPP). In addition, it establishes that:

·Water pricing policies must provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently; and

·Different water uses – disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture, must adequately contribute to the recovery of the costs of water services.

The progress on the economic issues was limited in the set of 1st RBMPs. In its overall assessment of the programming period of the set of second RBMPs 110 , the Commission noted across-the-board improvements in the economic aspects of the WFD, but also significant gaps in translating these improvements in economic analysis into concrete measures. It concluded that further progress in the economic underpinning of the RBMPs, specifically the PoMs, would greatly facilitate water-related decisions and investments needed to achieve the WFD objectives.

Water services and water uses

A sound definition of water services and water uses is the basis for a solid, transparent and correct implementation of Article 5 and Article 9 requirements, although the implications may go further than that (e.g. a good identification of water uses should be based on the outcomes of the required assessment of pressures and impacts of activities on water bodies).

Water supply and sanitation services were recognized as (broad) water services in all 20 Member States. As a result, these services were included (either separately or jointly) in the cost recovery analysis in all Member States, but Latvia (which did not report its cost recovery analysis). In addition, 4 Member States (Belgium, Czechia, France and Italy) also reported a sectoral disaggregation at least into industry, households and agriculture. In 3 Member States (Hungary, Lithuania and Spain) there was no real sectoral disaggregation, but supply for irrigation was recognized as a separate water service.

In contrast, fewer MS have reported specific “individual” water services, be it self-supply, or storage and impoundment, or other services which are also water uses. While for a part this may reflect their (lack of) relevance for the RBD(s) in question, it may also reflect a lack of transparency on the economic aspects of these services, including their pricing, and consequently their efficiency of provision, their impact on the efforts to meet the environmental objectives and some untapped financing potential: if these services are actually in place in the country, but are not reported or identified in water policy as such, there may be some provision costs (e.g. storage infrastructure) that could be covered by the users of the service through an appropriate economic instruments, which is not the case today (see also section on financial cost recovery).

The water services identified are depicted in Figure 4-1 below.

Table 4-5. Water services identified in RBMPs, and included in cost recovery analysis

In relation to the identification of water uses (see Figure 4-5), these were not reported, or not specifically referred to, in Belgium, Denmark and Finland. As it can be seen in the graphs below, there is no common practice across MS as regards the identification and reporting of water uses, as a variety of different water uses is reported in different Member States. The water uses that were most reported are manufacturing industry, agriculture (excluding irrigation), hydropower, wastewater treatment (excluding self-services) and drinking water supply. As a general rule, it is unclear whether RBMPs actually made a distinction between “water uses” and “water use sectors”; the overall impression is that these two terms are often used as synonyms.

It should be noted that an incomplete identification of water uses might result in the following implementation issues for Member States:

·Incomplete understanding of water uses in the country, including their economic significance;

·Incomplete understanding of the pressures on water ecosystems;

·Incomplete understanding of the contribution of each water use sector to pollution and water resource use, resulting in turn in an incomplete understanding of environmental and resource costs and in an incomplete application of the polluter-pays principle;

·potentially higher bills for paying for the pollution costs or that this part of water services’ cost is not recovered at all.

Figure 4-6. Water uses reported in RBMPs

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting and data mining of PDF reporting

Economic Analysis

The assessment shows some progress with the reporting on the economic analysis, particularly in 9 Member States in all RBDs, and in some RBDs in 3 Member States (see Figure 4-6 below).

Figure 4-7. Reporting of progress in the economic analysis

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting

In contrast the assessment of the compliance with the requirements included in the WFD (annex III) reveals a less positive picture. Overall, no Member State covers all items listed in the law with the actual coverage varying across Member States (fulfilled different combinations of requirements. Within a Member State, the coverage tends to be addressed in a (near) homogenous way in all RBDs.

The items that are most commonly assessed are as follows:

·Volume estimates associated with the various water services (13 Member States), also differentiated over user types/ sectors (12 Member States);