Brussels, 26.2.2019

SWD(2019) 32 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

International Cooperation under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) - Factsheets for International River Basins

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)
Second River Basin Management Plans
First Flood Risk Management Plans

{COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}


Table of content

Acronyms    

Foreword    

Introduction    

1.    International River Basins - category 1    

1.1.    Danube River Basin District    

1.1.1.    General Information    

1.1.2.    Governance and public participation    

1.1.3.    Characterisation of the River Basin District    

1.1.4.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status    

1.1.5.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status    

1.1.6.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater quantitative and chemical status    

1.1.7.    Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential    

1.1.8.    Environmental Objectives and Exemptions    

1.1.9.    Programme of measures    

1.1.10.    Measures related to water scarcity and abstractions    

1.1.11.    Measures related to pollution from agriculture    

1.1.12.    Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture    

1.1.13.    Measures related to hydromorphological alterations    

1.1.14.    Economic analysis and water pricing policies    

1.1.15.    Considerations specific to Protected Areas    

1.1.16.    Climate Change and droughts    

1.1.17.    Recommendations    

1.2.    Elbe River Basin District    

1.2.1.    General Information    

1.2.2.    Governance and public participation    

1.2.3.    Characterisation of the River Basin District    

1.2.4.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status    

1.2.5.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status    

1.2.6.    Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential    

1.2.7.    Environmental Objectives and Exemptions    

1.2.8.    Programme of measures    

1.2.9.    Economic analysis and water pricing policies    

1.2.10.    Considerations specific to Protected Areas    

1.2.11.    Climate Change and droughts    

1.2.12.    Recommendations    

1.3.    Ems River Basin District    

1.3.1.    General Information    

1.3.2.    Governance and public participation    

1.3.3.    Characterisation of the River Basin District    

1.3.4.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status    

1.3.5.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status    

1.3.6.    Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential    

1.3.7.    Environmental Objectives and Exemptions    

1.3.8.    Programme of measures    

1.3.9.    Measures related to pollution from agriculture and other sectors    

1.3.10.    Measures related to hydromorphological alterations    

1.3.11.    Economic analysis and water pricing policies    

1.3.12.    Considerations specific to Protected Areas    

1.3.13.    Climate Change and droughts    

1.3.14.    Recommendations    

1.4.    Meuse River Basin District    

1.4.1.    General Information    

1.4.2.    Governance and public participation    

1.4.3.    Characterisation of the River Basin District    

1.4.4.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status    

1.4.5.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status    

1.4.6.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater quantitative and chemical status    

1.4.7.    Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential    

1.4.8.    Environmental Objectives and Exemptions    

1.4.9.    Programme of measures    

1.4.10.    Economic analysis and water pricing policies    

1.4.11.    Considerations specific to Protected Areas    

1.4.12.    Climate Change and droughts    

1.4.13.    Recommendations    

1.5.    Odra River Basin District    

1.5.1.    General Information    

1.5.2.    Governance and public participation    

1.5.3.    Characterisation of the River Basin District    

1.5.4.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status    

1.5.5.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status    

1.5.6.    Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential    

1.5.7.    Environmental Objectives and Exemptions    

1.5.8.    Programme of Measures    

1.5.9.    Economic analysis and water pricing policies    

1.5.10.    Considerations specific to Protected Areas    

1.5.11.    Climate Change and droughts    

1.5.12.    Recommendations    

1.6.    Rhine River Basin District    

1.6.1.    General Information    

1.6.2.    Governance and public participation    

1.6.3.    Characterisation of the River Basin District    

1.6.4.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status    

1.6.5.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status    

1.6.6.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater quantitative and chemical status    

1.6.7.    Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential    

1.6.8.    Environmental Objectives and Exemptions    

1.6.9.    Programme of measures    

1.6.10.    Economic analysis and water pricing policies    

1.6.11.    Considerations specific to Protected Areas    

1.6.12.    Climate Change and Droughts    

1.6.13.    Recommendations    

1.7.    Sava River Basin District    

1.7.1.    General Information    

1.7.2.    Governance and public participation    

1.7.3.    Characterisation of the River Basin District    

1.7.4.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological and chemical status    

1.7.5.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater quantitative and chemical status    

1.7.6.    Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential    

1.7.7.    Environmental Objectives and Exemptions    

1.7.8.    Programme of measures    

1.7.9.    Economic analysis and water pricing policies    

1.7.10.    Considerations specific to Protected Areas    

1.7.11.    Climate Change and Droughts    

1.7.12.    Recommendations    

1.8.    Scheldt River Basin District    

1.8.1.    General Information    

1.8.2.    Governance and public participation    

1.8.3.    Characterisation of the River Basin District    

1.8.4.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status    

1.8.5.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status    

1.8.6.    Monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater quantitative and chemical status    

1.8.7.    Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential    

1.8.8.    Environmental Objectives and Exemptions    

1.8.9.    Programme of measures    

1.8.10.    Economic analysis and water pricing policies    

1.8.11.    Considerations specific to Protected Areas    

1.8.12.    Climate Change and Droughts    

1.8.13.    Recommendations    

1.9.    Finnish-Norwegian International River Basin District: Paatsjoki/Pasvik/Pasvikelva, Näätämö/Neiden and Teno/TanaUutuanjoki River Basins    

1.9.1. General Information    

1.9.2. Governance and public participation    

1.9.3. Characterisation of the River Basin District    

1.9.4. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological and chemical status    

1.9.5.    Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential    

1.9.6.    Environmental Objectives and Exemptions    

1.9.7.    Programme of measures    

1.9.8.    Economic analysis and water pricing policies    

1.9.9.    Considerations specific to Protected Areas    

1.9.10.    Recommendations    



Acronyms

EQS

Environmental Quality Standard Directive

FD

Floods Directive

km

Kilometre

km2

Kilometre squared

KTM

Key Type of Measure

ICPDR

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River

ICPR

International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine

iPoM

Joint Programme of Measures

iRBD

International River Basin District

iRBMP

International River Basin Management Plan

PoM

Programme of Measures

WFD

Water Framework Directive

WISE

Water Information System for Europe



Foreword

The factsheets for the International River Basin Management Plans cover a wide range of issues and are not identical in all. This is because information for some issues may be available in some international River Basin Districts (iRBDs) but not in others, depending on the level of cooperation.

The International Basin Assessment factsheets were drafted on the basis of the national river basin management plans (RBMPs), international iRBMPs (where available), as well as information that was reported by the Member States through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) electronic reporting. All tables, figures and maps presented in this report have been sourced from WISE. Where information was not available regarding international cooperation in the second water management cycle, the report uses information obtained from the 2012 Pressures and Measures study on international cooperation 1 .

The compilation reflects the situation as reported to the European Commission in 2016 and with reference to either the international or national River Basin Management Plans (RBMP), where appropriate.



Introduction

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) stipulates that Member States shall ensure that a river basin covering the territory of more than one Member State is assigned to an iRBD. Appropriate administrative arrangements, including the identification of the appropriate competent authority for the international river basin district shall be established by the Member States. Member States shall ensure that the environmental objectives of the Directive are met in international river basin districts. To this end, Member States shall coordinate at the international level on a programme of measures.

In the case of an international river basin district falling entirely within the Community, Member States shall ensure coordination with the aim of producing a single international river basin management plan (iRBMP), including involving third countries. If an iRBMP is not produced, Member States shall produce river basin management plans covering at least those parts of the international river basin district falling within their territory to achieve the objectives of the Directive.

The European Commission is required to report to the European Parliament and Council in 2018 on progress made by Member States with implementing the WFD. The present document is part of this reporting and comprises a series of fact sheets for the international river basins (RB) which are describing the application of the Directive at iRBD.

International river basin districts and their coordination mechanisms

International river basins in the EU are either shared exclusively between EU Member States or between EU Member States and third countries. There are 75 iRBDs and 30 sub-basins in the EU. International coordination mechanisms (agreements, working groups etc.) under the WFDe vary among the different international river basins districts. Based on their level of cooperation, four main categories were identified. An overview of different types of international cooperation is given in Table 1 .

Table 1     Different types of international coordination in relation to the WFD

Category

Formal international agreement

International coordinating body

iRBMP produced

1

Yes

Yes

Yes

2

Yes

Yes

No

3

Yes

No

No

4

No

No

No

EU Member States were requested to report to WISE the international river basin districts in their territory and the level of international coordination taking place in these iRBDs. Greece, Ireland and Lithuania are not covered by this assessment due to late reporting. The categories of these iRBDs were taken from the assessment of international coordination in the first cycle 2 .

The map below shows the international river basin districts and their level of international coordination.

Figure 1     Overview map of iRBDs

Selection of iRBDs for the assessment

21 iRBDs were chosen for the assessment (see Table 2 ). The selection was based on the following criteria:

All iRBDs with iRBMPs were selected.

In cases where EU Member States/third countries share several iRBDs (e.g. there are four iRBDs shared between Portugal and Spain), the most representative basin was identified, taking into account the overall iRBD catchment area size, the balanced share of catchment area between the iRBD sharing countries and the level of international coordination.

iRBDs that hold an insignificant international share (e.g. <1 %) were excluded.

International basins shared with Greece (5 iRBDs 3 ), Ireland (2 iRBDs 4 ) and Lithuania (2 iRBDs 5 ) were not assessed due to delays in the adoption of the national level River Basin Management Plans and reporting. As a result, Category 4 basins (see Table 1 for explanation) were not assessed. Table 2 presents the list of basins included in the assessment and the categories of these iRBDs as reported by the EU Member States.

 Table 2     List of selected iRBDs for which an assessment was done

Category

International
River Basin

EU Member States/Non-EU countries

Category 1

Danube

Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia

Non-EU: Switzerland, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, Montenegro, Macedonia

Elbe

Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Poland

Ems

Germany, The Netherlands

Meuse

Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands

Odra

Czech Republic, Germany, Poland

Rhine

Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, , Luxembourg, The Netherlands

Non-EU: Switzerland, Liechtenstein

Sava

Croatia, Slovenia

Non-EU: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia 

Scheldt

Belgium, France

Teno/Tana

Finland 6

Non-EU: Norway, Russia

Category 2

Adige/Etsch

Italy,

Non-EU: Switzerland

Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru

Poland

Non-EU: Moldova, Ukraine

Garonne – Cantabrico -Ebro

France, Spain

Guadiana

Spain, Portugal

Gauja/Koiva

Estonia, Latvia 7

Isonzo/Soca

Italy, Slovenia

Luleälven, Umeälven, Piteälven

Sweden

Non-EU: Norway

Rhone

France, Italy

Non-EU: Switzerland

Torneälven/Tornionjok

Sweden, Finland

Non-EU: Norway

Category 3

Eider

Germany, Denmark

Narva

Estonia, Latvia 8  

Non-EU: Russia

Schlei Trave

Germany, Denmark

Vistula

Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania

Non-EU: Ukraine, Belarus



1.International River Basins - category 1

1.1.Danube River Basin District

1.1.1.General Information

Map 1.1.1     Danube International River Basin District

Source: WISE reporting 2016

The Danube International River Basin District (iRBD) is shared by Albania, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, the Republic of Serbia, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and the Ukraine. 14 countries 9 with territories > 2,000 km2 in the Danube River Basin are, together with the European Union, Contracting Parties to the Danube River Protection Convention. The Convention established the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR).

The International River Basin District Management Plan (iRBMP) was elaborated in the frame of the ICPDR. Two EU Member States – Italy and Poland – and three non-EU Member States – Albania, Macedonia and Switzerland - are not Contracting Parties to the Convention as their international shares of the Danube are less than 2,000 km2 (see Table 1 ). As such, their territories are not covered by the iRBMP.

This report focuses on the information included in the iRBMP for those countries who are cooperating in the frame of the ICPDR. Information reported to WISE by the Contracting Parties of the Danube River Protection Convention which are EU Member States (with the exception of Italy and Poland) complement the report.

The Danube iRBD is allocated by the Member States cooperating in the frame of the ICPDR to cooperation Category 1, which means that an international agreement, a permanent co-operation body and international WFD RBMP is in place.

Italy assigned its share of the Danube basin to the ITA Eastern Alps River Basin District, which includes also other basins next to the Danube, and assigned it in contrast as a Category 2 basin. Poland designated its share of the Danube Basin as a Category 3 basin. Poland reported to WISE information for its share of the Danube Basin. Italy reported to WISE information for the entire Eastern Alps River Basin District and not just the share of its national district within the Danube.

The iRBMP can be downloaded from the ICPDR website 10 .

The table below presents the size of the total catchment area and national shares within the iRBD (km2; %).


Table 1.1.1    Size of the total catchment area and national shares for each international RBD

Shared International RBD

Total Area of Shared International RBD

(km2)

EU Member States/Non-EU countries in International RBD

EU RBD Code

National Area within International RBD (km2)

National Area within International RBD (%)

Danube

 

 

 

 

 

674,929.8

Austria

AT1000

80,423

10

Bulgaria

BG1000

47,413

5.9

Croatia

HRC

34,965

4.4

Czech Republic

CZ1000

21,688

2.9

Germany

DE1000

56,184

7.0

Hungary

HU1000

93,030

11.6

Italy

ITA

565

<0.1

Poland

PL1000

430

<0.1

Romania

RO1000

232,193

29

Slovakia

SK40000

47,084

5.9

Slovenia

SIRBD1

16,422

2

Albania

N/A

126

<0.1

Bosnia and Herzegovina

36,636

4.6 %

Macedonia

109

<0.1

Moldova

12,834

1.6

Montenegro

7,075

0.9

Serbia

81,560

10.2

Switzerland

1,809

0,2

Ukraine

30,520

3.8

Source: iRBMP



1.1.2.Governance and public participation

Cooperation framework: International, bilateral and/or multilateral agreements in place covering certain cooperation aspects

The key international multilateral agreement in the Danube iRBD on water management is the Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River (Danube River Protection Convention). Since 2000 the implementation of the EU WFD was declared as the highest priority of the contracting parties of the ICPDR (Resolution of the ICPDR Ordinary Meeting 2000 in Sofia). Further resolutions were adopted in which all contracting parties – including the Non-EU Member States - agreed to participate in producing a coordinated international River Basin Management Plan according to the requirements of the EU WFD. That the implementation of the WFD is considered a priority in the iRBD was also confirmed by the Danube Declaration, which was adopted in the frame of an ICPDR Ministerial Meeting on 13 December 2004 (Vienna), and follow-up Declarations.

The main objective of the Convention is to ensure that surface waters and groundwater within the Danube River Basin are managed and used sustainably and equitably. This involves: - the conservation, improvement and rational use of surface waters and groundwater; - preventive measures to control hazards originating from accidents involving floods, ice or hazardous substances; and - measures to reduce the pollution loads entering the Black Sea from sources in the Danube River Basin. A number of different international Expert and Task Groups are set up to address specific water management issues. The Expert Group on River Basin Management (RBM EG) coordinates the implementation of the EU WFD in the Danube River Basin. The Flood Protection Expert Group defines and prepares tasks related to the implementation of the EU Floods Directive (FD) in the Danube River Basin such as the development of flood hazard and risk maps and the Danube River Basin Flood Risk Management Plan.

In addition to the Danube Convention, a multitude of bi- and multilateral agreements are in place.

Joint activities within the iRBD

Development of an iRBMP and link to national RBMPs

The management of the iRBD is based on three levels of coordination – Part A (international, basin-wide level), Part B (national level and/or the international coordinated sub-basin level for the selected sub-basins Sava, Tisza, Prut and Danube Delta), and Part C (Sub-unit level, defined as management unit within the national territory). The ICPDR serves as the coordinating platform between the countries to compile multilateral and basin-wide issues at Part A of the iRBD.

According to the iRBMP, to ensure coherence with Part A and Part B, it is necessary for the national plans to refer to the main findings of the iRBMP. This includes providing information on the significant water management issues for surface and groundwater bodies identified at the basin level and how they relate the activities at national level. In addition to developing significant water management issues at international level, four other documents produced by the ICPDR, while not legally binding, are intended to serve as a "common roadmap" guiding national activities and supporting harmonization of actions throughout the basin. The documents are:

·Joint Statement Navigation;

·Guiding Principles on Sustainable Hydropower Development in the Danube Basin;

·ICPDR Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change; and

·Ecological prioritisation approach for measures to restore river and habitat continuity.

According to the iRBMP, the national plan should refer to the above documents and take their findings into account with developing national activities in the relevant fields. However, the implementation of the measures in the Joint Programme of Measures is primarily a national task and performed via national water management plans.

Areas of joint cooperation

In the field of public consultation, meetings of the ICPDR and its expert group for public participation, which existence is specific compared to other river basin commissions, supported a basin-wide exchange on the national consultation work. To support information exchange between the responsible authorities and interlink national public consultation activities with the basin-wide level, information on national significant water management issue documents and draft management plan consultation measures was collected and centrally published on the ICPDR website. A consultation was held on the draft iRBMP at international level, as well as an online survey and a stakeholder workshop. Comments were evaluated and reactions have been published in an overview reply table 11 .

Sectors and observers involved within the development of the iRBMP

There are 23 organisations approved as observers to the ICPDR, all of which had the opportunity to contribute to the development of the iRBMP through the relevant expert groups, task groups and plenary meetings (Standing Working Group and Ordinary Meetings). Sectors include:

·Hydropower

·Navigation

·Public and private water services providers/utilities

·Environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

·Dredging

·Tourism

·Research

·Sport fishing

·Government Agencies/Commissions

Existence of a transboundary Accident Emergency Warning System

An Accident Emergency Warning System is in place in the Danube - River Basin. It is activated if a risk of transboundary water pollution exists and alerts downstream countries with warning messages in order to help national authorities to put safety measures timely into action. The warning system is operated, maintained and enhanced by the ICPDR and it is regularly tested. In addition, the ICPDR is currently assessing the potential accident risk hot-spots and updating the catalogue of contaminated sites of the Danube Basin. Accident risk spots represent mainly existing industrial and energy production facilities that process, store, produce or release hazardous substances.

The accident risk spots inventories being compiled will evaluate the potential risk of the selected facilities based on the Water Risk Index values. The Water Risk Index assesses the hazard of the industrial sites based on the hazard degree of the processed materials and their volume stored at the sites. Contaminated sites include old industrial facilities, abandoned sites and landfills. For the contaminated sites, the risk assessment includes a rough assessment of the real risk based on the flood probability and safety conditions of the sites.

1.1.3.Characterisation of the River Basin District

Coordination of the Article 5 assessment

The iRBD sharing countries coordinated on elements of Article 5. The Danube Basin Analysis report was first published in 2004. It was also updated in 2013 and published on the ICPDR’s website. The report provides details on characterisation; pressures and impacts; designation of the heavily modified and artificial water bodies; Impact and Risk Assessment; Inventory of Protected Areas; Economic analysis; and Integration issues. The Danube Basin Analysis provides the analytical basis for the iRBMP.

Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies

Surface water

Steps were taken to coordinate the delineation of transboundary surface water bodies. According to Danube Basin Analysis, while each country has its own approach for water body delineation, the approaches are similar. Water bodies were identified by typological criteria and afterwards updated based on the analysis of the pressures and monitoring data. The water bodies described in the Danube Basin Analysis cover those relevant on the basin-wide level, respectively rivers, with catchment areas larger than 4,000 km2, and lakes >100 km2. All other water bodies are dealt with in detail in the National Reports (Part B).

According to the Danube Basin Analysis, the criteria used for the delineation of water bodies are similar among the Danube countries. A change in type is indicated as the most frequent reason for the delineation of water bodies as well as a change in pressure, in particular a change in the degree of pollution. Also, changes in the hydrological regime and in morphology were frequently used criteria.

To determine whether the delineation of surface water bodies by the Member States was coordinated, GIS data reported to WISE from the bordering Member States for transboundary stretches in the Danube basin were assessed. The examples below show that coordination has not always resulted in similar delineation.

Map 1.1.2     Comparison of the delineation of a river along the Austrian-German border

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The brown line shows water body ATOK303070000 in Austria, the grey line shows the water body DERW_DEBY_1_F633 in Germany. While the starting points for the river are different, the end points match between the two countries 12 , 13 .

Map 1.1.3     Comparison of the delineation of a river along the Austrian-German border

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The brown line shows the water body ATOK305340007 in Austria, the grey line shows the water body DERW_DEBY_1_F654 in Germany. The start and end points for the water body are different between the two countries.

Map 1.1.4     Comparison of the delineation of a river along the Hungarian-Slovakian border 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The brown line shows the water body HUAEP443 in Hungary, the grey line shows the water body SKD0018 in Slovakia. The start and end points for the water body are different between the two countries.

Map 1.1.5     Comparison of the delineation of a river along the Bulgarian-Romanian border 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The brown line shows the water body RORW14-1-B3 in Romania, grey line shows the water body BG1DU000R001in Bulgaria. The start and end points of the delineated water body are close to each other. Additionally, Bulgaria reported to WISE a more detailed spatial dataset, which includes also small tributaries along with the main stream of the water body.

Groundwater

Coordination took place on the delineation for transboundary groundwater bodies. According to the iRBMP, transboundary groundwater bodies are made up of national parts (which comprise individual national groundwater bodies that have been aggregated). The iRBMP and the Danube Basin Analysis provide an overview of important transboundary groundwater bodies in the Danube River Basin. They are defined as follows:

important due to the size of the groundwater body which means an area > 4000 km²

or

important due to various criteria e.g. socio-economic importance, uses, impacts, pressures interaction with aquatic ecosystem.

The criteria were agreed bilaterally. Other groundwater bodies, i.e. those with an area larger than 4000 km² and fully situated within one country of the iRBD, are dealt with at the national level.

Information on 11 aggregated transboundary groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance with eight countries concerned (Germany, Austria, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova) is provided in the iRBMP. These aggregated groundwater bodies have been agreed by all countries sharing their parts. The most frequent method applied for the delineation of the aggregated groundwater bodies is based on geological boundaries in combination with a hydrogeological approach. In some countries other criteria like importance for water supply, groundwater quality, water temperature or surface water catchment areas were additionally considered.

Typology Coordination of surface water bodies

The iRBMP states that typology was updated for the second cycle. The typology of the Danube River was developed in a joint activity by the basin sharing countries for the first Danube Basin Analysis in 2004. The Danube typology therefore used a harmonised system used by all these countries. The Danube typology was based on a combination of abiotic factors of System A and System B. The most important factors are ecoregion, mean water slope, substratum composition, geomorphology and water temperature. Ten Danube section types were identified and the morphological and habitat characteristics are outlined for each section type. In order to ensure that the Danube section types are biologically meaningful, these were validated with biological data collected during the first Joint Danube Survey in 2001. All the Member States in the Danube iRBD reported to WISE that there was coordination on typology of surface water bodies.

The typologies of the Danube tributaries were developed by the countries individually. Stream types relevant on transboundary water courses were bilaterally harmonised with the neighbours. Most countries in the iRBD (Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria) have applied System B (Annex II, 1.2.1 WFD) for establishing their river typology. Slovakia and Ukraine have used System A. Countries using System B have used a number of optional factors to further describe the river types. River discharge, mean substratum composition and mean water slope are most frequently used. The common factors used mostly in iRBDs typologies are ecoregion, altitude, catchment area and geology. For the development of the typology of transitional and coastal waters System B was applied. The transitional waters are differentiated into lacustrine and marine transitional waters.

Coordination in the Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies

The Danube Basin Analysis states that on the basin-wide level, the Danube countries have agreed on general criteria as a common base for the definition of reference conditions for rivers. These have then been further developed on the national level into type-specific reference conditions. The definition of reference conditions was based on the following approaches:

·spatially based approach using data from monitoring sites;

·approach based on predictive modelling;

·definition of temporally based reference conditions using either historical data

or

·palaeo-reconstruction;

or

·use of expert judgement (where none of the above methods was possible).

For lakes, reference conditions were developed individually by the countries. The methods most frequently applied were the use of historical data, expert judgement and spatially based methods. Hungary also used historical data and palaeo-reconstruction for phytoplankton and physico-chemical conditions to define reference conditions in its lakes. A comparison of reference conditions reveals that similar approaches are being applied. All countries are basing their assessment on species composition, abundance and the diversity of species. In some cases, additional parameters were used (e.g. age structure, biomass, ratio of sensitive to insensitive species).

Coordination on Significant Water Management Issues (SWMIs)

The iRBMP defined four significant water management issues for surface and groundwater bodies:

·Pollution by organic substances

·Pollution by nutrients

·Pollution by hazardous substances

·Hydromorphological alterations

These issues relate to the impacts on the ecological and chemical status of surface waters. For transboundary groundwater bodies, both, qualitative and quantitative issues are addressed. In addition to these significant water management issues, the ICPDR is working on other relevant key issues like sediment management and invasive alien species in order to improve the data basis for these issues with the aim to determine their relevance on the basin-wide level and to propose appropriate measures.

1.1.4.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status

Monitoring of ecological status/potential

Joint monitoring programmes for surface waters and application of joint methods/joint surveys and interlaboratory tests

The iRBMP describes the international monitoring programme of the basin. The TransNational Monitoring Network is a joint programme for the countries cooperating in the frame of the ICPDR. The major objective of the monitoring network is to provide an overview of the overall status and long-term changes of surface water in a basin-wide context (with particular attention paid to the transboundary pollution load).

To meet the requirements of both the WFD and the ICPDR, the Trans National Monitoring Network for surface waters consists of the following elements:

·Surveillance monitoring I: Monitoring of surface water status;

·Surveillance monitoring II: Monitoring of specific pressures;

·Operational monitoring;

·Investigative monitoring.

Surveillance monitoring I and operational monitoring is based on collection of national data on the status of surface water and groundwater bodies for the development of the iRBMP. Investigative monitoring is primarily a national task. However, on the basin-wide level, the Joint Danube Survey serves the investigative monitoring as required e.g. for harmonisation of existing monitoring methodologies; filling information gaps in monitoring networks; testing new methods; or checking the impact of “new” chemical substances in different matrices. Joint Danube Surveys are carried out every six years.

The monitoring networks’ laboratories have a free choice of standardized analytical method, providing they are able to demonstrate that the method in use meets the required performance criteria. To ensure the quality of collected data, a basin-wide Analytical Quality Control programme is regularly organized by the ICPDR. During the 3rd Joint Danube Survey (2013) altogether 68 sites were sampled along a 2,581 km stretch of the Danube, 15 of which were located in the mouths of tributaries or side arms. The findings of 3rd Joint Danube Survey are supportive to the implementation of WFD as they provide an extensive homogeneous dataset production of which was mainly based on WFD compliant methods commonly used by the Danube experts.

Sensitive Quality elements (excluding river basin specific pollutants)

According to the WFD and as explained in the CIS guidance on monitoring, for operational monitoring, Member States are required to monitor for those biological and hydromorphological quality elements most sensitive to the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. The iRBMP provides information on macrozoobenthos, phytobenthos, macrophytes, phytoplankton and fish and their link to pressures.

EU Member States were required to report to WISE which assessment methods of biological quality elements they considered to be sensitive for impact types. The analysis differentiates four biological quality elements (or three biological quality elements and two sub- biological quality elements), nine different impact types and four different water categories. The Member States reported for their entire national shares of the iRBD, not just for those water bodies delineated under the International Danube River Basin Management Plan.

An important assessment parameter is whether there is a minimum agreement between the iRBD sharing countries sharing a border with each other on the sensitivity of biological quality elements. Such an agreement would be expressed by the fact that there is at least one biological quality element that is considered to be sensitive (for each pressure) in both Member States. Such a quality element can then be used as the least common denominator for comparable assessments of ecological status, provided that the Intercalibration has been successful.

For rivers, the table below lists the assessment methods of biological quality elements sensitive for each impact type. There is a full agreement between the riparian countries on sensitive quality elements for nutrients (aquatic flora), organic pollution (benthic invertebrates) and morphological pressures (benthic invertebrates and fish). A number of Member States also reported a biological quality element sensitive to chemical pressures, namely benthic invertebrates (note that this assessment comes in addition to the risk assessment for priority substances and river basin specific pollutants). In the case of temperature pressures, three groups of border sharing countries do not use the same biological quality element (i.e. Austria-Slovakia, Austria-Hungary and Hungary-Romania). In the case of hydrological pressures, seven out the eight Member States that reported assessment methods share the same biological quality element benthic invertebrates.

Table 1.1.2     Sensitivity of biological quality elements towards different impact types for river water bodies

EU Member State

Phytoplankton

Other aquatic flora

Macrophytes

Phytobenthos 14

Benthic invertebrates

Fish

Assessment method mainly sensitive to nutrient pollution

Austria

yes

yes

yes

Bulgaria

yes

yes

yes

yes

Croatia

yes

yes

yes

Czech Republic

yes

yes

yes

yes

Germany

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Hungary

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Romania

yes

yes

yes

Slovakia

yes

yes

yes

yes

Slovenia

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to organic pollution

Austria

yes

Bulgaria

yes

yes

yes

yes

Croatia

yes

yes

yes

Czech Republic

yes

yes

yes

Germany

yes

Hungary

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Romania

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Slovakia

yes

yes

Slovenia

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to chemical pollution

Bulgaria

yes

Czech Republic

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Hungary

yes

yes

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to elevated temperature

Austria

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Hungary

yes

yes

yes

Romania

yes

Slovakia

yes

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to hydrological changes

Austria

yes

yes

yes

Bulgaria

yes

yes

yes

Croatia

yes

yes

yes

yes

Czech Republic

yes

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Hungary

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Slovakia

yes

Slovenia

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to morphological changes

Austria

yes

yes

yes

Bulgaria

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Croatia

yes

yes

yes

yes

Czech Republic

yes

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Hungary

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Romania

yes

yes

yes

yes

Slovakia

yes

yes

Slovenia

yes

yes

Source: WISE reporting 2016

Coordination of River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSPs) and matrices monitored

The WFD requires Member States to identify and select river basin specific pollutants and their environmental quality standards (EQS) at the national, river basin or water body level.

According to the iRBMP, the monitoring and assessment of river basin specific pollutants was coordinated in the basin. The analysis of a large amount of organic substances during the 3rd Joint Danube Survey enabled in cooperation with the EU FP7 project SOLUTIONS to provide suggestions for the update of the Danube river basin-wide list of specific pollutants. The prioritization methodology, which was based on the approach developed by the prioritization working group of the NORMAN network and the results of the 3rd Joint Danube Survey, produced a list of 20 substances suggested as relevant for the Danube river basin based on the target screening of 654 substances.

As part of the reporting to WISE regarding the assessment of ecological status, Member States were asked to report information regarding river basin specific pollutants at RBD level 15 . As such, the information in this chapter covers the whole Danube district, not just the surface water bodies at basin-wide level, as defined in the iRBMP. Nevertheless, the information the Member States reported is still relevant for surface water bodies at basin-wide level. Danube countries not part of the EU are not part of the assessment as they did not report to WISE.

For the reporting to WISE, Member States could report pollutants using pre-defined codes from a list set by the European Commission, and they could report pollutants to a category “other”. The “other” category is not uniform among the Member States and therefore the information reported for these pollutants cannot be compared within the iRBD.

The river basin specific pollutants reported by the Member States to WISE were evaluated. The summary of the evaluation concern three essential aspects:

1which and how many substances have been selected for the entire basin or parts of it;

2whether the substances have an environmental quality standard and are monitored; and

3whether the environmental quality standards are the same or in one or another way comparable (in the same range/order of magnitude, for the same matrix).

For environmental quality standards of river basin specific pollutants, different aspects have to be taken into account to make comparisons. They can only be compared for a given substance if the specific pollutant matrix (water, sediment, biota etc), the unit (mg/L, µg/L etc.), the scale at which the standard is applied (national, water body, river basin etc.), the category (rivers, lakes, coastal water, territorial water and transitional water) and the standard (AA-EQS 16 , MAC-EQS 17 ) are comparable. Therefore, there are many different approaches and dimensions for such a comparison.

This assessment covers selected aspects of the topic at the iRBD scale for reasons of practicability. The most important aspects are environmental quality standards for 1) AA-EQS, 2) for the matrix water and 3) setting of the standard at the national level. The relevant results are a quantitative description of the harmonisation and cooperation with respect to river basin specific pollutants.

A summary for the number of established environmental quality standards is given in the table below. The table shows the number of Member States that have established an environmental quality standard for a certain river basin specific pollutant. This shows how many national standards defined at the national level can be compared between how many countries and describes the extent of harmonization 18 .


Table 1.1.3     Summary of the assessment of river basin specific pollutants for the Danube basin

Number of Member States

Number of river basin specific pollutants with an environmental quality standard

River basin specific pollutant scale

National 19

All 20

1

73

69

2

50

54

3

16

15

4

4

5

5

1

2

6

1

3

7

2

0

8

2

3

9

0

1

Source: WISE reporting 2016

There are 10 EU Member States that are part of the Danube (excluding Italy and Poland).  Table 1.1.3 shows that there is not one river basin specific pollutant with an environmental quality standard that is monitored in all ten Member States in the Danube. 16 (national) environmental quality standards can be compared between at least three riparian countries. In this context, the results of the 3rd joint Danube survey should lead to significant improvements as this initiative resulted in a list of 20 pollutants that are considered to be relevant for the entire basin (see analysis of the iRBMP information above). Currently there are four pollutants with an environmental quality standard at the national level in at least four countries (that doesn’t necessarily mean that the standards are the same or in the same order of magnitude). This means that there are few specific pollutants with quality standards set at the same geographical scale that are comparable in the iRBD. 

River basin specific pollutants are only useful and supportive for the assessment of ecological status if an environmental quality standard has been adopted and the pollutants are monitored. The information the Member States reported to WISE was assessed using the following reporting elements:

1)RBSPvalue: If a value is provided in WISE criterion “EQS-yes” is fulfilled

2)chemicalLastMonitored: If a value>=2010 is provided in WISE the criterion “Monitored: yes” is fulfilled

For each river basin specific pollutants, the criteria mentioned above were evaluated according to the scheme given in table below. A filter is applied, considering the following schema elements: a) chemicalSubstanceCode, b) chemicalMatrix c) chemicalPurpose, d) rbspCategoryRW.

Table 1.1.4 shows how many river basin specific pollutants can be used for the assessment of ecological status. The number of pollutants that can be integrated into the assessment of ecological status ranges between 4 (Hungary) and 58 (Czech Republic). The Czech Republic, Germany and to a lesser extent also Slovakia have a comprehensive set of pollutants that have been be used for status assessment while most other countries have a short list of such status indicators. This information describes the role that river basin specific pollutants pay in the frame of the ecological assessment and whether the approaches are comparable. The results do not describe whether and how often these pollutants have been used in the frame of status assessment.

Table 1.1.4    Synthesis of environmental quality standards and sampling of river basin specific pollutants with pre-defined codes in the WISE reporting 21

Member State or Region

Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: yes

Not monitored Environmental quality standard: yes

Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: no

Substances (number and percentage) that can be used for the assessment of the ecological status

Austria

9

13

85

9 / 10 %

Bulgaria

16

21

38

16 / 30 %

Croatia

7

0

11

7 / 39 %

Czech Republic

58

13

24

58 / 71 %

Germany

57

20

61

57 / 48 %

Hungary

4

0

49

4 / 8 % 22

Romania

81

3

29

8 / 22 %

Slovenia

31

0

33

31 / 48 %

Slovakia

16

5

60

16 / 21 %

Source: WISE reporting 2016

Environmental Quality Standards for river basin specific pollutants

A comparison between environmental quality standards is given in the figure below.

There is limited agreement between the riparian countries. There are only 15 pollutants with the same environmental quality standard but this standard is shared only between two countries (7 of them between Romania and Germany). The same measurement value leads to different results of status assessment for most of the substances for most of the countries. For the majority of substances, the environmental quality standards differ by one order of magnitude or more. This makes it difficult to compare status between the Member States. The different standards used may also partly explain why some Member State identify certain substances as river basin specific pollutants while other Member States don’t.

Improvements can be expected from harmonisation as a consequence of the 3rd Joint Danube Survey.



Figure 1.1.1    Ratio between the maximum and the minimum environmental quality standard for river basin specific pollutants in the Danube iRBD  23  

Source: WISE reporting 2016

Status Classification

Use of monitoring results for classification – transboundary harmonization

According to the iRBMP, the monitoring programme has made a considerable effort towards harmonisation. The findings of JDS3 are supportive to the implementation of WFD as they provide an extensive homogeneous dataset production of which was mainly based on WFD compliant methods commonly used by the Danube experts. These data do not replace the national data used for the assessment of the ecological and chemical status, being an excellent reference database serving for future efforts of method harmonization in the DRB, especially concerning the development of a concerted type-specific approach to the status assessment of large rivers.

Status classification

The iRBMP states that the outcome of the Joint Danube Survey in 2013 showed that there are still differences between national sampling and assessment approaches and underlined the need for further harmonization of the sampling methods in the Danube River Basin. The discussion on sampling and assessment methods shall be continued within the ICPDR and be also addressed in the frame of the next Joint Danube Survey.

There is some evidence from analysing GIS layers reported to WISE by the Member States that coordination of the status has taken place between countries in several cases. However, the iRBMPn does not make a clear statement and discusses confidence levels achieved for all data collected, which should enable meaningful assessments of status in time and space.

Intercalibration exercise and Geographical Intercalibration Group (GIG)

All Member States in the iRBD reported intercalibration types to WISE. 19 Geographical Intercalibration Group were reported for rivers, six were reported for lakes, one for transitional waters and one for coastal waters.

1.1.5.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status

Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters

As described under information on monitoring of ecological status, the Danube iRBD has a joint monitoring programme (Transnational Monitoring Network for the Danube) coordinated in the frame of the ICPDR. The programme is based on common methodologies. The programme includes all countries cooperating in the frame of the ICPDR.

During the 3rd Joint Danube Survey, several new analytical techniques and strategies were applied.

Coordination of monitoring and assessment of chemical status

Due to the 2013 update of the Environmental Quality Standard Directive, a review was carried out by the ICPDR of those priority substances for which more stringent standards were used in 2015 and this caused the change of the chemical status of a surface water bodies from good in 2009 to bad in 2015. In most of the Danube countries for this iRBMP the environmental quality standards set out in the Environmental Quality Standard Directive were applied. In Germany, Austria, Romania and the Czech Republic the new environmental quality standards for substances from the updated Directive have been used. The priority substances causing non-compliance in this iRBMP due to more stringent standards adopted were benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, fluoranthene, mercury, nickel, lead and PBDE.

In the Danube catchment all priority substances have been analysed. Figure 1.1.2 shows the number of priority substances monitored in each riparian country. Between 29 and 41 substances have been analysed in each country. Differences may originate partly in the fact that not all countries have fully implemented the amendment of 2008/105/EU in 2013/39/EU or the substances are not discharged. In combination with the numbers of samples for each substance (see Figure 1.1.3 and paragraph below) a comprehensive picture of the situation for Priority substances can be given for the entire catchment.

Figure 1.1.2     Number of Priority Substances analysed in the EU Member States of the Danube iRBD

Source: WISE reporting 2016 24

The frequency 25 distribution of the number of priority substance samples in water from 2010 to -2015 is given in Figure 1.1.3 . The number of samples per substance is for the entire catchment between 300 samples and 3500 with an average of 1700 samples in the entire water management cycle. The complete picture is displayed in Figure 1.1.3 . A vast majority of substances (ca. 75 %) is analysed between 1400 and 2500 times within the 2010-15 period.

Figure 1.1.3    Frequency distribution and accumulated frequency of the number of samples per Priority Substance

Source: WISE reporting 2016

An important aspect for chemical status assessment is whether the water samples have been taken with the frequency recommended as a general rule in the WFD 26 . Monthly samples should be analysed for WFD compliant assessment of chemical status at a given site. Other frequencies need a justification based on expert judgement or technical knowledge. If the analysis excludes all frequencies that are lower than 12/year, the number of samples decreases from ~70500 to ~50100. This means that 71 % of the samples of Priority Substances in the Danube catchment can be used for WFD compliant assessment of chemical status without any further justification. In some countries, almost all samples (reported to WISE) can be used for WFD compliant status assessment without any further justification.



Table 1.1.5     Percentage of Priority Substance samples (matrix water) that have been taken with the frequency recommended in the WFD (monthly samples >=12

Member State

Percentage of Priority Substance samples with a frequency >= 12/y

Samples usable for assessment of chemical status without any further explanation

Austria

43 % (out of 1 196 samples)

516

Bulgaria

71 % (out of 3 008 samples)

2 124

Croatia

23 % (out of 3 352 samples)

780

Czech Republic

50 % (out of 14 370 samples)

7 128

Germany

97 % (out of 10 845 samples)

10 496

Hungary

98 % (out of 2 181 samples)

2 136

Romania

70 % (out of 14 796 samples)

10 296 27

Slovakia

85 % (out of 8 868 samples)

7 524

Slovenia

71 % (out of 8 108 samples)

5 796

Source: WISE reporting 2016

The total number of samples (see table below) was calculated by combining the information of the WISE reporting elements “chemicalfrequency” and “chemicalCycle”, as also illustrated in the reporting guidance under chapter 4.3.5.

Table 1.1.6     Number of analysed water samples for each Priority Substance and each national iRBD share for the period 2010-15 28

Number of samples for Priority substances (period 2010-2015)

Austria

Bulgaria

Croatia

Czech Republic

Germany

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

CAS_104-40-5 - 4-nonylphenol

12

48

172

318

106

84

218

222

84

CAS_107-06-2 - 1,2-Dichloroethane

26

48

77

396

336

84

427

222

211

CAS_115-29-7 - Endosulfan

24

74

65

163

91

612

222

102

CAS_117-81-7 - Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)

101

80

52

12

52

222

86

CAS_118-74-1 - Hexachlorobenzene

28

108

65

368

163

91

557

222

102

CAS_12002-48-1 - Trichlorobenzenes (all isomers)

36

396

157

84

557

180

116

CAS_120-12-7 - Anthracene

12

68

49

345

187

84

567

222

108

CAS_122-34-9 - Simazine

44

158

100

447

566

19

601

222

320

CAS_127-18-4 - Tetrachloroethylene

26

126

221

426

336

84

543

222

211

CAS_140-66-9 - Octylphenol (4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol)

36

172

318

104

219

222

84

CAS_1582-09-8 - Trifluralin

68

405

459

84

376

222

224

CAS_15972-60-8 - Alachlor

44

32

62

447

459

12

628

222

320

CAS_1912-24-9 - Atrazine

44

74

104

447

566

19

600

222

320

CAS_206-44-0 - Fluoranthene

12

36

53

417

187

84

560

222

108

CAS_2921-88-2 - Chlorpyrifos

36

67

417

291

12

382

222

320

CAS_330-54-1 - Diuron

28

44

384

566

84

514

222

114

CAS_34123-59-6 - Isoproturon

28

44

414

554

84

518

222

114

CAS_36643-28-4 - Tributyltin-cation

12

24

12

180

173

CAS_470-90-6 - Chlorfenvinphos

48

67

368

195

12

382

222

320

CAS_50-29-3 - DDT, p,p'

152

65

392

157

19

635

222

130

CAS_50-32-8 - Benzo(a)pyrene

12

152

49

417

187

563

222

108

CAS_56-23-5 - Carbon tetrachloride

26

120

77

396

336

84

306

222

211

CAS_608-73-1 - Hexachlorocyclohexane

158

65

368

163

84

620

180

102

CAS_608-93-5 - Pentachlorobenzene

36

61

368

163

84

559

222

130

CAS_67-66-3 - Trichloromethane

26

120

77

426

336

84

526

222

205

CAS_71-43-2 - Benzene

36

75

426

334

546

222

24

CAS_7439-92-1 - Lead and its compounds

179

212

202

660

567

85

961

258

618

CAS_7439-97-6 - Mercury and its compounds

179

200

202

421

271

85

755

258

606

CAS_7440-02-0 - Nickel and its compounds

179

183

136

666

565

84

963

258

619

CAS_7440-43-9 - Cadmium and its compounds

179

209

311

826

303

85

999

258

619

CAS_75-09-2 - Dichloromethane

26

36

77

396

336

84

542

222

211

CAS_79-01-6 - Trichloroethylene

26

126

287

426

336

84

431

222

211

CAS_85535-84-8 - Chloroalkanes C10-13

12

12

180

82

CAS_87-68-3 - Hexachlorobutadiene

108

77

396

283

84

523

222

121

CAS_87-86-5 - Pentachlorophenol

36

67

312

106

84

222

80

CAS_91-20-3 - Naphthalene

12

48

53

345

283

84

561

222

108

EEA_32-02-0 - Total cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin + dieldrin + endrin + isodrin)

368

161

631

180

130

EEA_32-03-1 - Total DDT (DDT, p,p' + DDT, o,p' + DDE, p,p' + DDD, p,p')

80

8

368

161

7

270

180

130

EEA_32-04-2 - Brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154)

12

180

12

EEA_32-23-5 - Total Benzo(b)fluor-anthene (CAS_205-99-2) + Benzo(k)fluor-anthene (CAS_207-08-9)

163

556+550

180

108

EEA_32-24-6 - Total Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene (CAS_191-24-2) + Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene (CAS_193-39-5)

163

547+9

180

108


Source: WISE reporting 2016

           

Transboundary harmonisation of monitoring and assessment

Chemical status monitoring was coordinated in the basin based on national methodologies to some extent. The iRBMP mentions that a specific problem in the assessment of the chemical status is the application of the environmental quality standard in biota. The iRBMP further states that the lack of detection of the mercury problem in most of the Member States might be a consequence of the insufficient monitoring practices and of the fact that more stringent standards for mercury in water have not been set. In case data from other Danube countries will be available in future due to a better monitoring performance, the chemical status of water bodies in iRBD will very probably further change negatively.

In some countries a large number of priority substances is still not analysed because of lacking analytical instrumentation and because no proper methods are available.

1.1.6.Monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater quantitative and chemical status

Joint monitoring of groundwater quantitative and chemical status

The iRBMP states that monitoring of the 11 transboundary aggregated groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance has been integrated into the Transnational Monitoring Network of the ICPDR. For groundwater monitoring in the frame of the transnational network, a 6-year reporting cycle has been set, which is in line with reporting requirements under the WFD. The monitoring programme includes both quantitative and chemical (quality) monitoring. It shall provide the necessary information to:

·assess groundwater status;

·identify trends in pollutant concentrations;

·support groundwater body characterisation and the validation of the risk assessment;

·assess whether drinking water protected area objectives are achieved and support the establishment; and

·assessment of the programmes of measures and the effective targeting of economic resources.

According to the iRBMP, to select the monitoring sites, a set of criteria has been applied by the countries, such as aquifer type and characteristics (porous, karst and fissured, confined and unconfined groundwater) and depth of the groundwater body (for deep groundwater bodies, the flexibility in the design of the monitoring network is very limited). The flow direction was also taken into consideration by some countries, as well as the existence of associated drinking water protected areas or ecosystems (aquatic and/or terrestrial).

As regards quantitative monitoring, WFD requires only the measurement of groundwater levels but the ICPDR has also recommended monitoring of spring flows; flow characteristics and/or stage levels of surface water courses during drought periods; stage levels in significant groundwater dependent wetlands and lakes and water abstraction as optional parameters.

Coordination and harmonization of assessment of quantitative and chemical status

According to the iRBMP, the Danube countries used different methodologies for the assessment of quantitative and chemical status; and the establishment of threshold values, trend and trend reversal assessment. Despite there being overall coordination facilitated by the ICPDR Groundwater Task Group, further harmonisation of the national methodologies is still needed. Data gaps and inconsistencies are still available in the collected data, resulting in uncertainties in the interpretation of data. To achieve a harmonisation of data sets for transboundary groundwater bodies, there is a need for intensive bi- and multilateral cooperation. In addition, the interaction of groundwater with surface water or directly dependent ecosystems need further attention.

The results of the status assessment of the 11 transboundary aggregated groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance are provided for the whole national part of a particular groundwater body (so called: aggregated groundwater body). If a national part of an aggregated groundwater body consists of several individual national-level groundwater bodies, then poor status in one national-level part is decisive in characterising the whole national part of aggregated transboundary groundwater body as having poor status.

To indicate the diversity of different status results of individual groundwater bodies within aggregated groundwater bodies a concept of the aggregation confidence levels was developed by the ICPDR. The reason of introducing these specific confidence levels for the iRBMP was the need to distinguish between the cases when all individual groundwater bodies in an aggregated groundwater body have the same status (high confidence) or not (medium confidence) or the assessment is based on the risk assessment data (low confidence). Information about the WFD-related confidence levels of status assessment for the individual national (non-aggregated) groundwater bodies can be found in the national plans and in WISE.



1.1.7.Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential

Cooperation and joint activities regarding heavily modified water body designation

The 2004 Danube Basin Analysis included provisionally identified heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies on the basis of specific basin-wide criteria. For the 2009 iRBMP, the Danube countries reported the nationally identified artificial and heavily modified water bodies. The Non-EU Member States performed a provisional identification based on criteria outlined in the 2004 Danube Basin Analysis, whereas all water bodies have been fully considered for the designation. Updated information on the designation of heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies was reported by the Danube countries for the 2013 Danube Basin Assessment and the 2015 iRBMP.

For the first iRBMP, the designation of heavily modified water bodies for rivers and transitional waters was performed for:

·The Danube River

·Tributaries in the iRBD > 4,000 km2.

For the Danube River, the Danube countries agreed on a harmonised procedure for the final designation (the designation for Croatia, Serbia and the Ukraine was provisional) and on specific criteria for a step by step approach. The designations for the tributaries are based on national methods and respective reported information. However, the preconditions for the basin-wide final designation (regarding both the Danube River and tributaries > 4,000 km2) are to follow the EC HMWB CIS guidance document. The designations for coastal and lake water bodies are based on national methods. The assessment of the GIS layers for the transboundary water body shown in Map 1.1.3 (transboundary water body between Austria and Germany) and Map 1.1.5 (transboundary water body between Romania and Bulgaria) show a heavily modified water body designation from both Member states involved.

Cooperation and Joint methods and approaches for the determination of Good Ecological Potential (GEP)

The iRBMP states that ecological potential for surface water bodies is assessed on the basis of specific typologies and reference conditions, which have been defined by individual EU Member States according to WFD Annex V. The iRBMP does not indicate whether international coordination took place 29 .

Member States were requested to report to WISE information on how good ecological potential is assessed. Reporting to WISE by the Member States indicates Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Slovakia and Slovenia use the CIS approach, Austria and Romania use a hybrid Prague /CIS approach. Austria, Bulgaria and Slovenia assess good ecological potential at water body level, whereas Germany and Slovakia assess for groups of HMWBs/AWBs of the same use/physical modification. The most commonly used elements are benthic invertebrates (6 Member States) and fish (5 Member States). As with ecological status, the use of at least one quality element by all Member States could be used as the least common denominator for comparable assessments of ecological potential. Similar mitigation measures were reported.

1.1.8.Environmental Objectives and Exemptions

The iRBMP states that details on the application of exemptions related to Art. 4 (4), (5), and (7) are part of the national Part B reports. There are no joint methods for applying exemptions in the basin but coordination has taken place in some instances. The transboundary water body shown in Map 1.1.4 , which is shared by Hungary and Slovakia, is also exempted under Article 4(4). Thereby Hungary refers to natural conditions, while Slovakia refers to technical feasibility. For the transboundary WB shown in Map 1.1. 5, both Romania and Bulgaria have both reported Art 4 (4) justified by technical feasibility, which is an indication of coordination 30 .

Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia reported to WISE that exemptions have been coordinated for surface water bodies. The other Member States in the Danube - Czech Republic, Croatia and Slovenia - reported that they were not. A similar situation is found with respect to reporting on coordination of exemptions for groundwater bodies. Austria, Germany and Hungary reported to WISE that exemptions have been coordinated for groundwater bodies but Romania and Slovakia reported that they were not. Croatia, Czech Republic and Slovenia do not have transboundary groundwater bodies in their share of the iRBD. In the case of Bulgaria, none of the transboundary groundwater bodies have exemptions as they are in good chemical and quantitative status.

With respect to the application of Article 4 (7), future infrastructure projects (until 2021), including brief descriptions (if provided), are compiled in Annex 7 of the iRBMP.

1.1.9.Programme of measures

General information

A Joint Programme of Measures (iPoM) has been developed and includes joint activities agreed by the countries sharing the iRBD that target at achieving aims for the basin-wide scale. Joint significant water management issues have been defined, a common vision and management objectives have been set and measures of basin-wide importance have been selected. The respective management objectives describe the steps towards the environmental objectives in the iRBD. In addition, future development scenarios were developed and the estimated effect of measures on the basin-wide scale is assessed.

The iPoM was developed along the line of the identified joint significant water management issues. The iPoM builds upon the results of the pressure analysis, the water status assessment and includes, as a consequence, measures of basin-wide importance oriented towards the agreed visions and management objectives for 2021.

Joint implementation mechanisms and link to national implementation

The iRBMP describes how the measures will be implemented through national and international mechanisms. The ICPDR serves as the coordinating platform between the countries to compile multilateral and basin-wide issues at Part A (basin-wide level) of the iRBD. The iRBMP provides links to national RBMPs, aiming to further improve the linkage between the international Danube basin-wide level and the national level. The iRBMP states that the national plans (Part B) should reflect the four significant water management issues identified on the basin-wide level and indicate how far they are relevant as well on the national level.

According to the iRBMP, the Joint Programme of Measures is based on the national programmes of measures. Priorities for the effective implementation of national measures on the basin-wide scale are highlighted and are the basis of further international coordination. Some additional joint initiatives and measures on the basin-wide level that show transboundary character are presented as well. They are undertaken through the framework of the ICPDR.

The effect of national measures on the Danube basin-wide scale is estimated and presented. Key findings and conclusions on identified measures and their basin-wide importance, as well as priorities regarding their implementation on the basin-wide scale, are summarised as part of the iPoM. The implementation of the measures of basin-wide importance is ensured through their respective integration into the national programme of measures of each Danube country.

Joint implementation of measures in the first management cycle

Each chapter of iPoM - organic pollution, nutrient pollution, hazardous substances pollution, hydromorphology and groundwater - includes a sub-section on progress in the implementation of measures from the first iRBMP.

For organic pollution, the first iRBMP included major efforts for the improvement of the urban waste water and industrial sector by upgrading or constructing sewer systems and waste water treatment plants as well as introducing Best Available Techniques (BAT) at the main industrial facilities. This resulted in considerable reduction of organic pollution.

For nutrient pollution, the first iRBMP summarized, on the basin-wide level, the basic measures in the urban waste water, industrial and agricultural sectors and the implementation of the ICPDR Best Agricultural Practice (BAP) recommendations as the main measures to address nutrient emissions.

For hazardous substances pollution, the Danube countries took significant steps in order to close the information gap on hazardous substances pollution. This included prioritisation of the emerging pollutants, data collection on the major point sources releasing hazardous substances and accident risk analysis of the industrial and contaminated sites.

For hydromorphology, 168 measures to improve river continuity were agreed on national level to be implemented by 2015. 80 measures have been completed and 45 are in the construction phase. For 36 measures the planning process is on-going, while for seven measures the implementation process was not started. The measures for reconnection are completed for three adjacent wetlands/floodplains and some of the planned measures have already been implemented. Six adjacent wetlands/floodplains still need to be reconnected. Construction works were ongoing for two wetlands/floodplain. In the first iRBMP 139 measures addressing hydrological alteration (impoundments, water abstractions, hydropeaking) were indicated to be implemented by 2015.

For groundwater, similar progress has been described for quality and quantity issues. Poor quantitative status has been tackled by Hungary through the revision of relevant legislation by 2013 concerning the licensing of domestic wells, construction and rehabilitation projects, demand management measures and inter alia, promotion of adapted agricultural production such as low water requiring crops in areas affected by droughts. Serbia focused its measures on research, development and demonstration projects and construction designs for new groundwater sources.

1.1.10.Measures related to water scarcity and abstractions

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

A basin-wide questionnaire indicated that water scarcity and drought are not considered as a significant water management issue for the majority of the countries. Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Montenegro and Serbia consider them as a significant water management issue at national level. The main sectors affected by water scarcity and drought include agriculture, water supply, biodiversity, other energy production, hydropower, navigation and public health. The ICPDR concluded that water scarcity and drought is not considered as an issue requiring coordination and management on the basin-wide level in the second cycle. This is also due to the fact that the relevance of the issue and the situation is differing between the countries and regions within the iRBD.

Hydrological alterations impact the status of water, and surface water abstraction was identified as a key pressure that require measures on the basin-wide scale. Water abstraction from groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance is not a significant pressure in the Danube but a cause for failure in quantitative status in Serbia and Hungary.

For surface water bodies, the ICPDR’s basin-wide vision for hydrological alterations is that they are managed in such a way, that the aquatic ecosystem is not influenced in its natural development and distribution. The management objective for surface water abstraction is enabling ecological flow, ensuring that the biological quality elements are in good ecological status respectively good ecological potential, and the flow requirements for protected species and habitats are met.

For groundwater bodies, the ICPDR’s basin-wide vision is that the water use is appropriately balanced and does not exceed the available groundwater resource in the Danube River Basin District, considering future impacts of climate change. Management objectives were defined up to 2021 for all iRBD sharing countries, namely that over-abstraction of groundwater bodies within the iRBD is avoided by sound groundwater management. In addition, a management objective for solely EU Member States was defined: implementation of the WFD requirements that the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long-term annual average rate of abstraction.

Coordination on addressing water scarcity and droughts and abstractions

As it was concluded that water scarcity and drought pressures are not relevant at basin-wide scale, measures have not been addressed by the joint body and there is no joint approach in the iPoM. However, a specific chapter of the iRBMP is dedicated to water scarcity and droughts. Maintaining an exchange on the topic is considered to be beneficial, also in relation to the ongoing discussions on climate change adaptation, what should be facilitated via the exchange of best practice examples.

Water scarcity and drought measures were included in a number of Danube countries' national PoMs, whereas specific measures are planned or already under implementation (e.g. increase of irrigation efficiency, reduction of leakages in water distribution networks, drought mapping and forecasting, education of public on water-saving measures, market-based instruments, wastewater recycling and rain water harvesting).

Measures to address pressures

Measures regarding water scarcity/abstraction are included in the iRBMP.

For 21 surface water abstractions, restoration measures to ensure ecological flows are planned to be implemented by 2021. For groundwater abstraction, measures focus on abstraction controls (registries). References are also made to explore solutions for preventing the deterioration of groundwater quantity and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems dependent on groundwater, for example through restoring wetland areas that are in direct contact with aquifers.

1.1.11.Measures related to pollution from agriculture

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

Nutrient pollution from agriculture is a significant pressure in the iRBD. The iPoM defined general management objectives for pollution i.a. from agriculture at the basin scale, namely:

·Further reduction of the organic pollution of the surface waters from the major agricultural installations by implementing the Industrial Emissions Directive (EU Member States) and introducing Best Available Techniques at a specified number of industrial facilities (Non-EU countries).

·Further reduction of the total amount of nutrients entering the Danube and its tributaries and the nutrient loads transported into the Black Sea.

·Further reduction of the nutrient point source emissions by the implementation of the management objectives described for organic pollution as they address the nutrient pollution as well.

·Further reduction of the nitrogen pollution of the ground and surface waters by the implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive according to the developed action programs within the designated vulnerable zones or the whole territory of the country (EU Member States).

·Ensuring sustainable agricultural production and soil nutrient balances and further reduction of the diffuse nutrient pollution by implementation of basic and cost-efficient supplementary agri-environmental measures linked to the EU Common Agricultural Policy (EU Member States) and by implementation of best management practices in the agriculture considering cost-efficiency (Non-EU countries).

·Further reduction of the diffuse pollution of agricultural chemicals by implementation of supplementary measures linked to EU Common Agricultural Policy, implementing the Sewage Sludge Directive and the Pesticides Directive (EU Member States) and by implementation of best management practices in the agriculture (Non-EU countries).

·Ensuring the safe application of chemicals (EU Member States: by implementing inter alia the Plant Protection Products Directive, the REACH Regulation and the Biocides Regulation).

·Nutrient pollution from agriculture was reported to be addressed by all of the EU Member States in the iRBD.

All of the EU Member States except Austria, Slovenia and Slovakia reported to WISE that they identified general management objectives regarding nutrient from agriculture for their national shares of the iRBD. In addition to the general management objectives, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Hungary and Romania reported to WISE that they set quantitative management objectives for reducing nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.

Coordination on addressing pollution from agriculture

The iPoM includes measures to address pollution from organic, nutrient and hazardous substances pollution. Joint measures to address agriculture pollution are also included. One joint measure mentioned is the elaboration of basin-wide management strategies with the ultimate aim to reduce nutrient loads of surface and coastal waters. A set of measures related to the concept of best agriculture practice is also set and implemented in the entire Danube Basin. The concept has been applied to different extent among the countries to manage inter alia diffuse nutrient emissions that are partly covered by the Nitrates Directive for nitrate pollution in the EU Member States. It concerns appropriate land management activities (source and transport control measures) that are able to prevent, control and minimize the input, mobilization and transport of nutrients from fields towards water bodies.

In addition, the ICPDR intends to organize in close cooperation with the agricultural sector and all relevant stakeholders a broad discussion process with the aim of developing a guidance document on good agricultural practices in the iRBD. The objective of the guidance would be to recommend agricultural practices and policy instruments towards the reduction of water pollution caused or induced by nutrients from agricultural sources. The document would provide with a sound knowledge base on the agricultural sector and the linkages to water environment, highlight the existing relevant European legislative framework and financial mechanisms, summarize cross-compliance as well as supplementary measures related to the Common Agriculture Policy and other financial programs. The guidance document would also recommend potential policy tools and cost-effective measures supported by case studies in order to facilitate the introduction of good agricultural practices within the iRBD.

Measures to address pressures

The iPoM includes national measures that address the joint management issues and objectives set in the international plan.

For organic pollution, the iRBMP states that it recommended that the Non-EU Member States introduce regulations for manure and sewage sludge application on agriculture fields. Reference is made to the implementation of the IED directive and the application of best available technology is recommended for Non-EU Member States, for which the ICPDR developed guidance documents. For nutrient and hazardous substances pollution, reference is also made to implementation of the Nitrates Directive and the Pesticides Directive, as well as to the measures linked to the EU CAP.

The iPoM refers to the implementation of agri-environmental measures to address agriculture pollution. They cover a wide range of measures including nutrient management (e.g. nutrient balance calculations, optimization of fertilization), modified cultivation methods (restricted crop rotation, catch crops, green manure crops), land use changes (maintenance of grasslands, buffer strip allocation), soil conservation (erosion control techniques, ensuring proper soil coverage, maintenance of humus content in topsoil, maintenance of tile drainage systems) and additional natural water retention measures (wetlands, grass filters and grassed waterways).

Annex 13 of the iRBMP presents tables on the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in the Member States and which measures they implement as a result, for example manure storage requirements, spreading of nutrients restrictions, restrictions of some agricultural activities on slopes and afforestation (in the context agri-environmental measures under the Common Agriculture Policy). The Annex also indicates which of the iRBD sharing countries implement the following measures:

·Organic farming: Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Croatia, Czech Republic, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine.

·Measures against erosion: buffer strips: Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine.

·Erosion-minimizing cultivation systems (catch crops): Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine.

·Re-establishment of wetlands: Austria, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia and Ukraine

·Nutrient balances: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia.

·Farm advice: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine.

Montenegro did not report to the ICPDR.

With respect to prioritisation approach for relevant measures, the iRBMP states that the critical area concept is an emerging approach in several countries that aims to find technically and economically feasible measures. It considers that management activities should focus on those areas where the highest emissions come from and where the highest fluxes from land to water probably are transported. Targeting management actions to these critical fields can provide cost-efficiency (high river load reduction at minimal implementation costs and area demand). Nevertheless, it should be taken into account that due to the longer time necessary for an effective management of diffuse nutrient pollution (longer residence time of groundwater, stored nutrients in bottom sediment of reservoirs) the water quality impacts of any changes in agriculture induced by the implementation of the Nitrates Directive or best agricultural practices recommendations will probably not be instantly visible but after several years or even decades only.

In order to enable a comparable grouping of measures in the national and international programme of measures, the European Commission introduced the concept of Key Types of Measures (KTMs) in 2012 to simplify reporting 31 . KTMs are groups of measures identified by Member States in the PoMs which target the same pressure or purpose. The individual measures included in the PoM (being part of the RBMP) are grouped into KTMs for the purpose of reporting. The same individual measure can be part of more than one KTM because it may be multipurpose. All the Member States reported applying KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture and KTM3 - Reduce Pesticides pollution from agriculture. Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany and Hungary also reported applying KTM12 - Advisory services.

1.1.12.Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

Pollution from sectors other than agriculture is addressed by all the Member States. Coordination took place to identify pressures stemming from pollution from sectors other than agriculture.

The iPoM defined management objectives for pollution from sectors other than agriculture at the basin scale, namely:

·Further reduction of the organic pollution of the surface waters via urban waste water within the iRBD by implementing the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (EU Member States) and by constructing a specified number of wastewater collecting systems and municipal wastewater treatment plants (Non-EU Member States).

·Further reduction of the total amount of nutrients entering the Danube and its tributaries and the nutrient loads transported into the Black Sea.

·Further reduction of the nutrient point source emissions by the implementation of the management objectives described for organic pollution as they address the nutrient pollution as well.

·Further reduction of the organic pollution of the surface waters from the major industrial installations by implementing the Industrial Emissions Directive (EU Member States) and introducing Best Available Techniques at a specified number of industrial facilities (Non-EU Member States).

·Further decrease of the phosphorus point source pollution by implementation of the EU Regulation on the phosphate-free detergents (EU Member States) and by reduction of phosphates in detergent products (Non-EU countries).

·Closing knowledge gaps on the hazardous substances of Danube basin relevance.

·Further elimination/reduction of the amount of hazardous substances entering the Danube and its tributaries (EU Member States: by implementing the Environmental Quality Standards Directive).

·Further reduction of the point source emissions by the implementation of the management objectives described for organic pollution as they address the hazardous pollution as well.

·Ensuring the safe application of chemicals (EU Member States: by implementing inter alia the REACH Regulation).

·Minimisation of the risk of accidental pollution events by using enhanced technologies and putting in place appropriate safety measures (EU Member States: by implementing the Seveso, Mining Waste and Industrial Emission Directives, Non-EU Member States: by fulfilling the obligations/adopting recommendations of the UNECE Convention on the transboundary effects of industrial accidents).

Coordination on addressing pollution from sectors other than agriculture

The iPoM includes measures to addresses organic, nutrient and hazardous substances pollution from sectors other than agriculture. A number of joint measures are described as well. The ICPDR has been supporting the introduction of the phosphate-free detergents in the Danube countries which committed themselves at ministerial level to initiate the introduction of a maximum limit for the phosphate content of the consumer detergents. In addition, the Danube countries have made efforts in order to ensure effective and quick responses to transboundary emergency cases. The Accident Emergency Warning System (AEWS) was developed to timely recognise emergency situations in order to help the national authorities to put safety measures timely into action.

Measures to address pressures

For the most part, the iRBMP focuses on basic measures when describing the measures of basin-wide importance, e.g. implementation of the Urban Waste Water Directive, SEVESO, Mining Waste Directive, UNECE Convention on the transboundary effects of industrial accidents, the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Sewage Sludge Directive, REACH Directive and the EQS Directive.

Annex 12 provides an overview of basic and supplementary measures related to progress in urban wastewater and industrial sectors by 2015. The focus is on the UWWTD and IED Directives as well as P-free detergents and BAT.

All Member States reported KTMs to WISE, mainly related to the urban waste water (KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants; KTM21- Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure) and industrial sectors (KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil); KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances; KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants).

 

1.1.13.Measures related to hydromorphological alterations

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

Hydromorphological pressures are a basin-wide issue in the Danube. Three key hydromorphological pressure components of basin-wide importance have been identified, namely interruption of longitudinal river continuity and morphological alterations; disconnection of adjacent wetlands/floodplains, and; hydrological alterations, provoking changes in the quantity and conditions of flow.

The iPoM defined general management objectives for river continuity, namely:

·Construction of fish migration aids and other measures at existing migration barriers to achieve/improve river continuity in the Danube River and in respective tributaries to ensure self-sustaining sturgeon populations and specified other migratory fish populations.

·Specification of number and location of fish migration aids and other measures to achieve / improve river continuity, which will be implemented by 2021 by each country.

·New barriers for fish migration imposed by new infrastructure projects will be avoided; unavoidable new barriers will incorporate the necessary mitigation measures like fish migration aids or other suitable measures already in the project design according to BEP and BAT.

·Restoration, conservation and improvements of river morphology, habitats and their connectivity for self-sustaining sturgeon populations and other type-specific fish populations in the Danube River and the respective tributaries, also contributing to the improvement of other aquatic biological quality elements.

·Specification of location and extent of measure for the improvement of river morphology, which will be implemented by 2021 by each country.

·Closing the knowledge gaps on the possibility for sturgeon and specified other migratory species to migrate upstream and downstream through the Iron Gate I & II dams including habitat surveys, based on progress achieved on this issue. If the results of these investigations will be positive the respective measures should be implemented and step by step a similar feasibility study will be performed for the Gabčíkovo Dam and in case of positive results also for the Upper Danube.

All the Member States reported measures addressing river continuity, other hydromorphological measures and sediment management to WISE. All the Member States except Slovakia and Slovenia reported to WISE that they set general management objectives to address hydromorphological alterations. In addition, all the Member States, except Slovenia and Slovakia reported establishing quantitative management objectives.

Coordination on addressing hydromorphological alterations

The iPoM includes measures to addresses hydromorphological alterations, which includes interruption of river continuity and morphological alterations; disconnected adjacent wetlands/floodplains; and hydrological alterations.

Joint measures have been included in the iPoM. A major focus for measures in the iRBD is on establishing/improving migration for long and medium distance migrants of the Danube River and the connected lowland rivers that are addressed at the Roof level. In support for implementing fish migration measures, the ICPDR organised in 2012 a workshop on river and habitat continuity. The workshop allowed for exchange between fish migration experts and for the elaboration of the Technical Paper “Measures for ensuring fish migration at transversal structures”, summarising the latest knowledge on fish migration aids.

The iPoM also describes the project “Towards a Healthy Danube – Fish Migration Iron Gates I & II”. The project was initiated in 2013 and completed in October 2014. The project allowed for further investigations on potential technical solutions and for the elaboration of a road map, providing guidance for a project process that leads to a feasibility analysis of the implementation of fish migration measures at both Iron Gates I and II. Further steps are now being carried out jointly to fulfil the roadmap.

Within the iRBD, river continuity measures are being planned jointly taking into account ecological prioritisation process in the Danube. In order to enable a sound estimation of where to target measures most effectively at the basin-wide scale, an ecological prioritisation of measures to restore river and habitat continuity in the iRBD was carried out for the first iRBMP. The elaborated approach provided indications on the step-wise and efficient implementation of restoration measures at the basin-wide scale. It provided useful information on the estimated effects of national measures in relation to their ecological effectiveness at the basin-wide scale and served as a supportive tool for a number of countries in the implementation of measures. Therefore, it also supports feedback from international to national level and vice versa. The ecological prioritisation approach has been further developed and updated for the DRBM Plan – Update 2015.

To avoid or mitigate new hydromorphological pressures, the iPoM includes a sub-chapter on future infrastructure projects. The management objectives include precautionary measures (best environmental practices and best available techniques) that should be implemented to reduce and/or prevent impacts on water status. In the framework of the ICPDR, respective guidance has been developed in this regard for inland navigation (Joint Statement) and hydropower (Guiding Principles). Both documents describe respective processes in detail and the organisation of regular meetings.

Measures to address pressures

The Danube countries have reported on the measures that will be undertaken by 2021 to ensure fish migration (where still needed) e.g. by the construction of fish migration aids. Measures that will be taken are intended to ensure both up and downstream migration of fish and will also help to improve the migration of other fauna. The functioning and maintenance of function of fish migration aids is important to be monitored and assessed. The iRBMP summarises the numbers of measures to address river morphology and their implementation status but does not specify which measures are being implementing in the iRBD sharing countries.

All the Member States reported to WISE that they are applying KTM5 ‘Improving longitudinal continuity’ and KTM6 ‘Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity’.

Other hydromorphological measures have been addressed in the iPoM. These relate to the restoration of wetlands and floodplains and hydrological alterations. The iRBMP mentions that the Danube countries have to report information on national wetlands/floodplains >500 ha with a potential to be reconnected to the adjacent river and respective reconnection measures to be undertaken by 2021 or beyond regarding WFD art. 4(4). As regards hydrological alterations, the iRBMP describes river impoundments, water abstraction and hydropeaking.

1.1.14.Economic analysis and water pricing policies

An economic analysis has been undertaken and is part of the iRBMP. The Danube Basin Analysis (article 5 report) was updated in 2013; it includes an economic analysis of water use. The iRBMP includes a summary chapter of this economic analysis. The summary includes sub-chapters on 1) description of relevant economic water uses and economic meaning (including characteristics of water services and uses; 2) cost recovery; 3) projection trends in key economic indicators and drivers up to 2021; and 4) economic assessment of measures (including sub-chapters on cost-effectiveness analysis; cost-benefit analysis and approaches towards disproportionality of costs); as well as 5) a summary and key findings section.

The information on economic analysis and water pricing policies summarized in iRBMP is based on the joint work performed for the 2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis.

Two questionnaires were developed and sent out in 2013 for the collection of information on economics from the Danube countries (the information was updated, if necessary, by the Danube countries in 2015). The questionnaires treat inter alia water pricing, cost recovery and environmental and resource costs - topics which are closely interlinked. Annex 11 of the iRBMP presents a synthesis on the approaches in place in the Danube countries. The collected information is summarised in form of tables.

A second survey was undertaken in the aftermath of the ICPDR Task Group on Economics meetings in Zagreb and Vienna (2014/2015), and concerns approaches towards Disproportionality of Costs and Exemptions, as well as projections of trends regarding socio-economic developments. The results of this survey are presented in the Chapter 7 Economic Analysis and in the Annex 11 of the iRBMP.

The overview tables, as well as the summary in the main body of the iRBMP, highlight the commonalities and differences in approaches among the Member States and third countries in the Danube. The iRBMP states that cost-effectiveness analysis is currently only addressed at national level and no basin-wide cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for the iRBMP. However, the planning period until 2021 could be used to “pave the way” for a possible use of cost-effectiveness analysis in the third management cycle, when, as can be expected, supplementary measures will gain importance for reaching WFD objectives for certain significant water management issues (such as nutrient pollution).

1.1.15.Considerations specific to Protected Areas

A joint Protected Areas inventory between the countries sharing the iRBD is part of the iRBMP. At the Danube basin-wide scale, Protected Areas for the protection of habitats and species, nutrient sensitive areas, including areas designated as nitrates vulnerable zones and other protected areas in Non-EU Member States have been compiled and are updated. Transboundary Protected Areas are not specifically mentioned in the joint inventory. Annex 10 to the iRBMP provides a detailed list of the Protected Areas in the basin.

Other types of protected areas according to WFD Article 6, Annex IV (e.g. areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption under Article 7 WFD, areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species, or bodies of water designated as recreational waters, including areas designated as bathing waters under Directive 76/160/EEC, repealed by Directive 2006/7/EC) are not addressed at the basin-wide level but are subject to national registers. Out of a total of 1,487 protected areas, 886 (60 %) have been designated following the EU Habitats Directive and 319 (21 %) are bird protected areas (EU Birds Directive), 43 (3 %) areas are protected under both the Habitat as well as Birds Directive. All of them are Natura 2000 sites designated in EU Member States, 239 (16 %) are protected area types reported by EU Member States and Non-EU Countries and are mainly nature reserves and biosphere reserves. A significant share of designated Natura 2000 sites is located along the Danube River.

The iRBMP has a sub-chapter on interlinkages between river basin management and nature protection and highlights how measures under the WFD and the Birds and Habitats Directives need to be coordinated and included in the WFD PoM. The iPoM refers to Protected Areas when describing measures to improve fish migration along the Danube.

1.1.16.Climate Change and droughts

Adaptation to climate change is one of the “Integration” issues in the iRBD. The iRBMP also explicitly mentions that an ICPDR Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change was developed in 2012 and will be updated in 2018.

The Strategy was initiated through a request by the Danube Ministerial Conference 2010. Based on a scientific study on Climate Change in the Danube Basin, the adaptation strategy was adopted in 2012. The ICPDR’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy provides guidance on adaptation measures for the Danube River Basin, such as restoring water retention areas, addressing water scarcity and drought, or taking important steps for the sustainable management of risks stemming from floods.

The Strategy document has a section on framework conditions, knowledge base (including details in impacts of climate change in the basin), guiding principles and next steps, which include information specific to the WFD. The section on climate change impacts includes information on water scarcity and droughts, as well as other impacts like flooding. Adaptation measures that address droughts are also included.

The Strategy states that the guiding principles should be generally applicable, and assist relevant experts, active in the framework of the ICPDR, during the next steps in the implementation process of the WFD and FD in the Danube River Basin. The guiding principles are particularly relevant for the planning process towards the second iRBMP and the first Flood Risk Management Plans. However, they are also applicable to the subsequent steps of WFD and FD implementation, at both the national and international level.

The guiding principles are structured according to the following five main fields of actions, allowing orientation for relevant experts dealing with specific issues in the frame of river basin management:

·Climate modelling, projections, scenarios, potential impacts and uncertainty

·How to build adaptive capacity for management under climate change?

·WFD and adaptation

·Flood risk management and adaptation

·Drought management, water scarcity and adaptation

The contracting parties used the adaptation strategy to decide on adaptation measures as part of planning their national RBMPs and for the elaboration of the iRBMP and the international Flood Risk Management Plans.

First adaptation activities will be implemented during the second management cycle. In particular “no-regret-measures” and “win-win-measures” have been considered as part of the iPoM and the national PoMs. One of the key challenges for future climate adaptation activities will be the further closing of knowledge gaps as outlined in the Strategy. The iPoM also went through a climate proofing exercise.

1.1.17.Recommendations

Important efforts have been made in the Danube iRBD on international coordination addressing a range of water management aspects. The following recommendations can be made to further improve cooperation:

·There is a need to futher coordinate transboundary water body delineation and typology, particularly in the context of EU approximation of non-EU Member States.

·Coordination on environmental quality standards for river basin specific pollutants should continue towards a more coherent set of substances and thresholds.

·In some countries a large number of priority substances is still not analysed because of lacking analytical instrumentation and because no proper methods are available. Here, the monitoring practices need further improvement in terms of method development, capacity building and enhancing of equipment.

·Harmonisation and application of methodologies for the designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies and definition of good ecological potential should be improved.

·Exemptions for transboundary water bodies should be explicitly coordinated among the countries and a harmonised approach for setting exemptions should be elaborated.

·Efforts on integration issues should be continued and intensified, particularly to ensure the sustainability of future infrastructure projects in line with WFD requirements.

·Joint efforts on sturgeon conservation as a flagship species for the Danube River Basin should be continued.

·The efforts to develop harmonised approaches for the economic analyses and assessments should be followed up.



Complete list of RBSPs for Hungary: monitored and EQS

internationalRBDName

Danube

euRBDCode

HU1000

chemicalMatrix

Water

chemicalLastMonitored

(Mehrere Elemente)

Zeilenbeschriftungen

Number of samples

EQS exists

CAS_1007-28-9 - Desisopropylatrazine

7

CAS_1024-57-3 - Heptachlor epoxide

7

CAS_139-40-2 - Propazine

7

CAS_14798-03-9 - Ammonium

44

CAS_1610-18-0 - Prometon

7

CAS_1806-26-4 - Octylphenol

84

CAS_21087-64-9 - Metribuzin

7

CAS_21725-46-2 - Cyanazine

7

CAS_2385-85-5 - Mirex

7

CAS_26259-45-0 - Secbumeton

7

CAS_30125-63-4 - Desethylterbuthylazine

7

CAS_309-00-2 - Aldrin

19

CAS_319-84-6 - Alpha-HCH

7

CAS_319-85-7 - Beta-HCH

7

CAS_319-86-8 - Delta-HCH

7

CAS_33213-65-9 - Beta-Endosulfan

7

CAS_33693-04-8 - Terbumeton

7

CAS_3424-82-6 - o,p'-DDE

7

CAS_465-73-6 - Isodrin

19

CAS_51235-04-2 - Hexazinone

7

CAS_53-19-0 - o,p'-DDD

7

CAS_57-74-9 - Chlordane

7

CAS_58-89-9 - Gamma-HCH (Lindane)

7

CAS_5915-41-3 - Terbuthylazine

7

CAS_59473-04-0 - AOX

7

CAS_60-57-1 - Dieldrin

19

CAS_6190-65-4 - Desethylatrazine

7

CAS_72-20-8 - Endrin

19

CAS_72-43-5 - Methoxychlor

7

CAS_72-54-8 - p,p'-DDD

7

CAS_72-55-9 - p,p'-DDE

7

CAS_7286-69-3 - Sebuthylazine

7

CAS_7287-19-6 - Prometryn

7

CAS_7439-95-4 - Magnesium

44

CAS_7440-09-7 - Potassium

44

CAS_7440-23-5 - Sodium

44

CAS_7440-38-2 - Arsenic and its compounds

121

CAS_7440-38-2 - Arsenic and its compounds

yes

CAS_7440-47-3 - Chromium and its compounds

120

CAS_7440-47-3 - Chromium and its compounds

yes

CAS_7440-50-8 - Copper and its compounds

120

CAS_7440-50-8 - Copper and its compounds

yes

CAS_7440-66-6 - Zinc and its compounds

120

CAS_7440-66-6 - Zinc and its compounds

yes

CAS_7440-70-2 - Calcium

44

CAS_75-01-4 - Chloroethene (vinylchloride)

7

CAS_76-44-8 - Heptachlor

7

CAS_789-02-6 - DDT, o,p'

19

CAS_834-12-8 - Ametryn

7

CAS_886-50-0 - Terbutryn

7

CAS_959-98-8 - Alpha-Endosulfan

7

EEA_33-02-3 - Benzol

84

EEA_33-05-6 - BTEX

7

EEA_33-23-8 - Petroleum hydrocarbons

7

EEA_33-32-9 - Total DDD (DDD, o,p' + DDD, p,p')

7

EEA_33-45-4 - Volatile halogenated hydrocarbons (VHH)

7

EEA_33-56-7 - Total PAHs (Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene)

91

Complete list of RBSPS monitored and EQS for Romania

Zeilenbeschriftungen

Number of samples

EQS exists and reported

CAS_108-88-3 - Toluene

282

yes

EQS - y & Moni - yes

CAS_108-95-2 - Phenol

240

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_1330-20-7 - Xylene

258

yes

EQS - y & Moni - yes

CAS_1336-36-3 - Polychlorinated biphenyls

yes

EQS -yes & moni - no

CAS_14265-44-2 - Phosphate

24

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_14797-65-0 - Nitrite

24

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_14798-03-9 - Ammonium

24

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_14998-27-7 - Chlorite

24

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_191-24-2 - Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

414

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_193-39-5 - Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

78

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_205-99-2 - Benzo(b)fluoranthene

414

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_207-08-9 - Benzo(k)fluoranthene

414

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_208-96-8 - Acenaphthylene

yes

EQS -yes & moni - no

CAS_31508-00-6 - PCB 118 (2,3’,4,4’,5-pentachlorobiphenyl)

72

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_35065-27-1 - PCB 153 (2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl)

72

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_35065-28-2 - PCB 138 (2,2’,3,4,4’,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl)

72

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_35065-29-3 - PCB 180 (2,2’,3,4,4’,5,5’-heptachlorobiphenyl)

72

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_35693-99-3 - PCB 52 (2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobiphenyl)

72

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_37680-73-2 - PCB 101 (2,2’,4,5,5’-pentachlorobiphenyl)

72

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_57-12-5 - Free cyanide

yes

EQS -yes & moni - no

CAS_64743-03-9 - Phenols

252

yes

EQS - y & Moni - yes

CAS_7012-37-5 - PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl)

72

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_7439-89-6 - Iron and its compounds

12

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_7439-95-4 - Magnesium

12

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_7439-96-5 - Manganese and its compounds

12

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_7440-09-7 - Potassium

12

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_7440-23-5 - Sodium

12

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_7440-38-2 - Arsenic and its compounds

306

yes

EQS - y & Moni - yes

CAS_7440-47-3 - Chromium and its compounds

390

yes

EQS - y & Moni - yes

CAS_7440-50-8 - Copper and its compounds

408

yes

EQS - y & Moni - yes

CAS_7440-66-6 - Zinc and its compounds

390

yes

EQS - y & Moni - yes

CAS_7440-70-2 - Calcium

12

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_83-32-9 - Acenaphthene

258

EQS - no & moni - yes

CAS_95-47-6 - O-xylene

150

EQS - no & moni - yes

EEA_33-08-9 - Chromium 3+

72

EQS - no & moni - yes

EEA_33-09-0 - Detergents

324

yes

EQS - y & Moni - yes

EEA_33-18-1 - Meta xylene + para xylene

150

EQS - no & moni - yes

EEA_33-29-4 - Surfactants (anionic)

216

EQS - no & moni - yes

EEA_33-38-5 - Polychlorinated biphenyls(7 PCB: 28,52,101,118,138,153,180)

282

EQS - no & moni - yes

EEA_33-64-7 - Total cyanide

264

EQS - no & moni - yes

List of PS sampled (and number of samples taken) according to the consultants extract from WISE

CAS_104-40-5 - 4-nonylphenol

144

CAS_107-06-2 - 1,2-Dichloroethane

420

CAS_115-29-7 - Endosulfan

564

CAS_117-81-7 - Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)

72

CAS_118-74-1 - Hexachlorobenzene

582

CAS_12002-48-1 - Trichlorobenzenes (all isomers)

564

CAS_120-12-7 - Anthracene

576

CAS_122-34-9 - Simazine

486

CAS_127-18-4 - Tetrachloroethylene

492

CAS_140-66-9 - Octylphenol (4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol)

144

CAS_1582-09-8 - Trifluralin

486

CAS_15972-60-8 - Alachlor

618

CAS_1912-24-9 - Atrazine

486

CAS_206-44-0 - Fluoranthene

432

CAS_2921-88-2 - Chlorpyrifos

486

CAS_330-54-1 - Diuron

486

CAS_34123-59-6 - Isoproturon

486

CAS_470-90-6 - Chlorfenvinphos

486

CAS_50-29-3 - DDT, p,p'

564

CAS_50-32-8 - Benzo(a)pyrene

426

CAS_56-23-5 - Carbon tetrachloride

492

CAS_608-73-1 - Hexachlorocyclohexane

570

CAS_608-93-5 - Pentachlorobenzene

576

CAS_67-66-3 - Trichloromethane

492

CAS_71-43-2 - Benzene

510

CAS_7439-92-1 - Lead and its compounds

654

CAS_7439-97-6 - Mercury and its compounds

582

CAS_7440-02-0 - Nickel and its compounds

636

CAS_7440-43-9 - Cadmium and its compounds

654

CAS_75-09-2 - Dichloromethane

492

CAS_79-01-6 - Trichloroethylene

420

CAS_87-68-3 - Hexachlorobutadiene

432

CAS_91-20-3 - Naphthalene

426

EEA_32-02-0 - Total cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin + dieldrin + endrin + isodrin)

564

EEA_32-03-1 - Total DDT (DDT, p,p' + DDT, o,p' + DDE, p,p' + DDD, p,p')

276



1.2.Elbe River Basin District

1.2.1.General Information

Map 1.2.1         Elbe River Basin District

Source: WISE reporting 2016

The Elbe International River Basin District (iRBD) is shared by Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland. The Elbe iRBD is allocated to cooperation Category 1, which means that an international agreement, a permanent co-operation body and an international River Basin Management Plan (iRBMP) under the WFD is in place.

This report provides information on the international coordination efforts of transboundary surface water bodies in the iRBD. Transboundary groundwater bodies have not been delineated and therefore information on groundwater bodies is not part of this report.

The iRBMP for the Elbe was published on 2 December 2015. The iRBMP can be downloaded on the website 32 of the International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River (hereinafter referred to as “Elbe Commission”).

The table below presents the size of the total catchment area and national shares within the iRBD (km2; %).

Table 1.2.1        Member State share of the iRBD

Name of the International River Basin District

Total Area (km2)

EU Member States

EU RBD Code

National Area within iRBD (km2)

National Area (% of iRBD)

Elbe 

150,826 (including coastal waters)

148,268 (excluding coastal waters) 33

Austria

 AT5000

921

0.62

Czech Republic

 CZ5000

49,933

33.68

Germany

 DE5000

97,175 34

65.54

Poland

 PL5000

239

0.16

Source: iRBMP and International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe

1.2.2.Governance and public participation

Cooperation framework: International, bilateral and/or multilateral agreements in place covering certain cooperation aspects

The International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River Agreement was signed in Magdeburg on 8 October 1990. The Contracting Parties to the Agreement are the Czech Republic and Germany. Austria and Poland are observers to the Agreement. The Agreement established the Elbe Commission.

There are three working groups under the Elbe Commission: (1) Implementation of the EU WFD in the Elbe River Basin; (2) Flood Protection; and (3) Accidental Water Pollution. The activities of the WFD working group are supported by teams of experts for surface waters, groundwater and data management.

In 2009 and 2010 three ad-hoc working group with the WFD group were established covering sediment management, maintaining surface waters used for navigation and water quantity management. The results of these working groups were integrated into the update of the iRBMP.

Joint activities within the iRBD

Development of an iRBMP and link to national RBMPs

The iRBMP Elbe summarizes the programmes of measures, which serve to achieve a good status and the other environmental objectives of surface waters and groundwater, and the results of previous work in the Elbe. The plan builds on the results of the updated report under Article 5 (2013), current water monitoring and significant water management issues.

Updating the plan, i.a. following international documents were used:

·Recommendations for the maintenance of surface waters used for navigation in order to improve the hydromorphological conditions (published in 2013) with general recommendations and specific proposals as well as examples of implemented maintenance measures and projects under construction;

·Proposals for good sediment management practice in the Elbe region – ICPER Sediment Management Concept (published in 2014) with recommendations for actions regarding hydromorphology, quality and navigation; and

·Recommendations in the field of water quantity management.

Areas of joint cooperation

The iRBMP provides information on public participation within the individual Member States and mentions that the international plan was made available online for consultation on the level of the Elbe Commission. In addition, the International Elbe Forum was held in 2015, an event that enabled public to learn more about the iRBMP, measures being implemented in the iRBD. Stakeholders were given the opportunity to present their comments on the draft iRBMP.

Sectors and observers involved within the development of the iRBMP

The Elbe Commission delegations and working groups are composed of representatives of national and regional authorities as well as scientific institutions in Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland and Austria, where appropriate. Apart from that, representatives of NGOs are involved in the work as acknowledged observers.

Existence of a transboundary accident warning system

Since 1991 the Elbe has an international warning and alarm plan. The plan provides information about the location, time, nature and extent of accidental water pollution in the iRBD. The plan was expanded in 2004 to include a predictive model - the Elbe alarm model - intended for accidents in which a larger quantity of water-polluting chemicals reach the Elbe. The model calculates when the pollutant wave reaches certain cities on the Elbe, how high the pollutant concentration will be and when the pollutant concentration drops to such an extent that water use (removal of bank filtrate for drinking water, withdrawal for irrigation, as cooling water, etc.) is possible again.

1.2.3.Characterisation of the River Basin District

Coordination of the Article 5 assessment

According to the iRBMP, Article 5 analysis was updated in 2013 with an improved data set. The update was integrated directly into the iRBMP.

Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies

Surface water bodies

The iRBMP states that the delineation of water bodies from the first management period was updated. Some water bodies are no longer designated, there are some new water bodies and some water bodies have been split up or merged. The total number of water bodies remained almost unchanged. There is no information regarding whether the delineation of transboundary surface water bodies has been coordinated in the iRBD. The iRBMP refers to the national RBMPs for further details.

Groundwater bodies

No transboundary groundwater bodies have been delineated. There are some groundwater bodies which are cross-border, but the flows are considered of local importance and are dealt with in bilateral agreements if needed. The working group on groundwater agreed on the delineation of groundwater bodies in 2004. The same approach was also used in the second cycle. The approach allows international comparability but is not further described in the plan.

Typology Coordination of surface water bodies

For the typology of surface water bodies, the Member States applied the criteria according to System A (according to Annex II WFD). They in addition applied the System B typology. The iRBMP states that although the practices vary across countries, the resulting typologies are in principle comparable. The Elbe iRBD lies completely in the ecoregions 9 "Central Mountains" and 14 "Central plain". Further details are listed in the relevant national management plans.

Coordination in the establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies

The iRBMP does not provide information regarding the establishment of reference conditions. Based on the information reported to WISE, there are similarities in the quality elements used, but the iRBMP does not mention whether there was a coordination among the Member States on this issue.

Coordination on Significant Water Management Issues

Joint significant water management issues have been identified and coordinated in the Elbe Commission. These are:

·improvement of the river continuity and structure;

·reduction of nutrients and other pollutants; and

·other issues on the national or regional level. Under other the following issues are listed: i) future water scarcity caused by abstraction, transfers and climate change, hydrological droughts; ii) improvement of good ecological status for small water bodies; iii) renaturation; and iv) reduction of pressures for surface water bodies used for drinking water abstraction, bathing waters and nature conservation.

1.2.4.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status

Monitoring of ecological status/potential

Joint monitoring programmes for surface waters and application of joint methods/joint surveys

Part of the surveillance monitoring in the Elbe is carried out by the Czech Republic and Germany in the context of the International Monitoring Programme Elbe 35 . The joint programme is coordinated by the Czech Republic and Germany. As of 2015, this programme comprises a total of 19 measuring points, of which nine are located on the main stream of the Elbe (4 in the Czech Republic and 5 in Germany) and 10 at significant tributaries (3 in the Czech Republic and seven in Germany).

The laboratories involved in the international monitoring programme work on the basis of European norms and standards (in particular EN ISO / IEC 17025: 2005). In addition, the analysis results for the parameters examined in the border profile Hrensko/Schmilka are continuously compared, and joint sampling and analyses are carried out.

Sensitive quality elements monitored (excluding river basin specific pollutants)

According to the WFD and as explained in the CIS guidance on monitoring 36 , for operational monitoring, Member States are required to monitor for those biological and hydromorphological quality elements most sensitive to the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. The iRBMP mentions that quality elements need to be selected when these are the most sensitive to the pressures but does not provide further details.

Member States were requested to report to WISE which biological quality elements they considered to be sensitive for a given pressure. In WISE, the sensitive biological quality elements are listed for each pressure. The table below differentiates four biological quality elements, nine different pressures and four different water categories.

A relevant assessment parameter is whether there is a minimum agreement between the Member States sharing a border with each other on the sensitivity of biological quality elements. Such an agreement would be expressed by the fact that there is at least one biological quality element that is considered to be sensitive (for each pressure) in both Member States. Such a quality element can then be used as the least common denominator for comparable assessments of ecological status, provided that the intercalibration has been successful.

For rivers, the table below lists sensitive quality elements for each pressure. In all the Member States in the iRBD, there is an agreement on sensitive quality elements for nutrient (macrophytes and phytobenthos,), organic (benthic invertebrates) and morphological (benthic invertebrates) pressures. Chemical pressures were only reported by the Czech Republic and Germany and they share a common quality element, namely benthic invertebrates. For temperature and hydrological pressures, the Czech Republic and Germany share a common quality element (benthic invertebrates). For hydrological pressures, Austria and Czech Republic both use macrophytes and fish.



Table 1.2.2     Sensitivity of BQEs towards different pressure types for river water bodies

Member State

Phytoplankton

Other aquatic flora

Macrophytes

Phytobenthos

Benthic invertebrates

Fish

Assessment method mainly sensitive to nutrient pollution

Austria

yes

yes

Czech Republic

yes

yes

yes

yes

Germany

yes

yes

yes

yes

Poland

yes

yes

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to organic pollution

Austria

yes

Czech Republic

yes

yes

Germany

yes

Poland

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to chemical pollution

Austria

Czech Republic

yes

Germany

yes

Poland

Assessment method mainly sensitive to elevated temperature

Austria

yes

Czech Republic

yes

Germany

yes

Poland

Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to hydrological changes

Austria

yes

yes

Czech Republic

yes

yes

yes

Germany

yes

Poland

Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to morphological changes

Austria

yes

yes

yes

Czech Republic

yes

yes

yes

Germany

yes

Poland

yes

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Coordination of river basin specific pollutants and matrices monitored

The WFD requires Member States to identify and select river basin specific pollutants and their environmental quality standards at the national, river basin or water body level.

The iRBMP mentions that river basin specific pollutants should be identified but does not mention which pollutants were agreed for the international monitoring programme 37 .

As part of the reporting to WISE regarding the assessment of ecological status, Member States were asked to report information regarding river basin specific pollutants at RBD level 38 . For the reporting to WISE, Member States could report pollutants using pre-defined codes from a list set by the European Commission, and they could report pollutants to a category “other”. The “other” category is not uniform among the Member States and therefore the information reported for these pollutants cannot be compared within the iRBD.

The river basin specific pollutants reported by the Member States to WISE were evaluated. The summary of the evaluation concern three essential aspects:

4which substances have been selected for the entire basin or parts of it;

5whether the substances have an environmental quality standard and are monitored; and

6whether the environmental quality standards are the same or in one or another way comparable (in the same range/order of magnitude, for the same matrix).

For environmental quality standards of river basin specific pollutants, different aspects have to be considered to make comparisons. They can only be compared for a given substance if the specific pollutant matrix (water, sediment, biota etc), the unit (mg/L, µg/L etc.), the scale at which the standard is applied (national, water body, river basin etc.), the category (rivers, lakes, coastal water, territorial water and transitional water) and the standard (AA-EQS 39 , MAC-EQS 40 ) are comparable. Therefore, there are many different approaches and dimensions for such a comparison.

This assessment covers selected aspects of the topic at the iRBD scale for reasons of practicability. The most important aspects are environmental quality standards for 1) AA-EQS, 2) for the matrix water and 3) setting of the standard at the national level. The relevant results are a quantitative description of the harmonisation and cooperation with respect to river basin specific pollutants.

A summary for the number of established environmental quality standards is given in the table below. The table below shows the number of Member States that have established an environmental quality standard for a certain river basin specific pollutant. This shows how many standards defined at the national level can be compared between how many countries and describes the extent of harmonization 41 .

Table 1.2.3    Summary of the assessment of river basin specific pollutants for the Elbe basin

Number of Member States

Number of river basin specific pollutants with an environmental quality standard

River basin specific pollutant scale

National 42

All 43

1

91

88

2

35

37

3

3

6

4

0

3

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

There are four Member States in the Elbe iRBD. Table 1.2.3 shows that there is not one river basin specific pollutant with an environmental quality standard that is monitored in all four Member States in the Elbe. There are three pollutants with an environmental quality standard at the national level in at least three countries (that doesn’t necessarily mean that the standards are the same or in the same order of magnitude). However, Germany and the Czech Republic – which cover approximately 99 % of the iRBD - have established environmental quality standards for 71 and 77 river basin specific pollutants, respectively (other chemical parameters for terminology reasons not included). Out of these 71/77 pollutants, there are 25 common pollutants which are considered to be relevant in both countries. 

River basin specific pollutants are only useful and supportive for the assessment of ecological status if an environmental quality standard has been adopted and the pollutants are monitored. The information the Member States and Regions reported to WISE was assessed using the following reporting elements:

3)RBSPvalue: If a value is provided in WISE criterion “EQS-yes” is fulfilled

4)chemicalLastMonitored: If a value>=2010 is provided in WISE the criterion “Monitored: yes” is fulfilled

For each river basin specific pollutants, the criteria mentioned above were evaluated according to the scheme given in table below. A filter is applied, considering the following schema elements: a) chemicalSubstanceCode, b) chemicalMatrix c) chemicalPurpose, d) rbspCategoryRW.

Table 1.2.4 shows how many river basin specific pollutants can be used for the assessment of ecological status. The number of pollutants that can be integrated into the assessment of ecological status ranges between seven in Austria and 76 in Germany. The information describes the role that river basin specific pollutants pay in the frame of the ecological assessment and whether the approaches are comparable. The results do not describe whether and how often theses pollutants have been used in the frame of status assessment.

Table 1.2.4     Synthesis of environmental quality standards and sampling of river basin specific pollutants with pre-defined codes in the WISE reporting 44

Member State

Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: yes

Monitored: no Environmental quality standard: yes

Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: no

Substances (number and percentage) that can be used for the assessment of the ecological status

Austria

7

15

84

7 / 8 %

Czech Republic

67

4

24

67 / 74 %

Germany

76

1

159

76 / 32 %

Poland

20

2

24

20 / 45 %

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Environmental quality standards for river basin specific pollutants

A comparison between environmental quality standards is given in the figure below.

There is some agreement between the two predominant Member States (i.e. Germany and Czech Repbulic) in the iRBD. There are eight pollutants with the same environmental quality standard shared between the Czech Republic and Germany. For the majority of substances, the environmental quality standards differ by one order of magnitude or more. This makes it difficult to compare status between all the iRBD sharing Member States. The different standards used may also partly explain why some Member State identify certain substances as river basin specific pollutants while other Member States don’t.



Figure 1.2.1     Ratio between the maximum and the minimum environmental quality standard for river basin specific pollutants in the Elbe iRBD 45

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Status Classification

Use of monitoring results for classification – transboundary harmonization

The iRBMP states that ecological status assessment of transboundary surface water bodies is coordinated by the experts of the bilateral German-Czech boundary water commission and its standing committees for Transboundary Waters. Based on the monitoring results and the assessment results of the individual Member States, the final status assessment of the common transboundary water bodies was agreed. Further details are not provided.

Intercalibration exercise and Geographical Intercalibration Group (GIG)

The iRBMP does not mention whether the Member States participated in the intercalibration exercise.

1.2.5.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status

Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters

As described under information on monitoring of ecological status, the Elbe iRBD has a joint monitoring programme between the Czech Republic and Germany. Joint sampling and analyses are carried out in the border profile Hrensko/Schmilka and in the context of joint field experiments and comparative tests.

Coordination of monitoring and assessment of chemical status

The monitoring of the chemical status within the transboundary monitoring network has been coordinated. In the background document related to monitoring it is stated that environmental quality standards for seven already regulated substances have been tightened after the revised EQS Directive entered into force. For 12 substances, environmental quality standards have been added. The EU Member States are required to integrate this Directive into the monitoring of water status by 2016. The preparation of the "Elbe 2015 International Monitoring Programme" had already begun to take account of the new requirements of the Directive.

An important aspect for chemical status assessment is whether the water samples have been taken with the frequency recommended as a general rule in the WFD 46 . Monthly samples should be analysed for WFD compliant assessment of chemical status at a given site. Other frequencies need a justification based on expert judgement or technical knowledge. If the analysis excludes all frequencies that are lower than 12/year, the number of samples decreases from ~100,052 to ~47,365. This means that 47 % of the samples of Priority Substances (reported to WISE) in the Elbe catchment can be used for WFD compliant assessment of chemical status without any further justification. All figures are listed in the table below.

Table 1.2.5     Percentage of Priority Substance samples (matrix water) that have been taken with the frequency recommended in the WFD (monthly samples) 

Member State

Percentage of Priority Substance samples with a frequency ≥12/year

Samples usable for assessment of chemical status without any further explanation

Austria

67 % (out of 303)

204

Czech Republic

41 % (out of 30091)

12376

Germany

46 % (out of 64693)

30057

Poland

95 % (out of 4964)

4728

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The total number of samples (see table below) was calculated by combining the information of the WISE reporting elements “chemicalfrequency” and “chemicalCycle”, as also illustrated in the reporting guidance under chapter 4.3.5.

The formula is: Number of samples (for each substance and each monitoring station calculated separately for the six years WFD period)=chemicalfrequency*6/chemicalcycle 47 .

Some examples are listed below and this explains also how “half” samples can be the result of this calculation. The grand total for a given substance in a country or basin (as displayed in Table 1.2. 6) is then the sum of the number of samples for all relevant monitoring stations.

chemicalfrequency

chemicalcycle

Number of samples in six years

12

3

12*6/3=24

6

4

6*6/4=9

9

4

9*6/4=13,5

Table 1.2.6    Total Number of analysed samples for each Priority Substance for the period 2010-15 48

Number of samples for Priority substances (period 2010-2015)

Substance

Austria

Czech Republic

Germany

Poland

CAS_104-40-5 - 4-nonylphenol

379

147

72

CAS_107-06-2 - 1,2-Dichloroethane

6

728

1942

158

CAS_115-29-7 - Endosulfan

6

388

1486

96

CAS_117-81-7 - Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)

514

1637

72

CAS_118-74-1 - Hexachlorobenzene

5

760

2175

144

CAS_12002-48-1 - Trichlorobenzenes (all isomers)

560

1566

158

CAS_120-12-7 - Anthracene

12

959

2428

144

CAS_122-34-9 - Simazine

6

1106

1747

144

CAS_127-18-4 - Tetrachloroethylene

6

782

1977

158

CAS_140-66-9 - Octylphenol (4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol)

590

1458

72

CAS_1582-09-8 - Trifluralin

914

1498

72

CAS_15972-60-8 - Alachlor

6

1137

1554

144

CAS_1912-24-9 - Atrazine

6

1106

1747

144

CAS_206-44-0 - Fluoranthene

12

1133

2668

144

CAS_2921-88-2 - Chlorpyrifos

725

1550

72

CAS_330-54-1 - Diuron

5

999

1589

144

CAS_34123-59-6 - Isoproturon

5

1053

1593

144

CAS_36643-28-4 - Tributyltin-cation

138

1656

72

CAS_470-90-6 - Chlorfenvinphos

743

1444

72

CAS_50-29-3 - DDT, p,p'

796

1993

144

CAS_50-32-8 - Benzo(a)pyrene

12

1133

2416

180

CAS_56-23-5 - Carbon tetrachloride

6

728

1944

158

CAS_608-73-1 - Hexachlorocyclohexane

754

1436

132

CAS_608-93-5 - Pentachlorobenzene

754

2004

144

CAS_67-66-3 - Trichloromethane

6

782

1940

158

CAS_71-43-2 - Benzene

782

1845

158

CAS_7439-92-1 - Lead and its compounds

42

964

3220.2

155

CAS_7439-97-6 - Mercury and its compounds

42

1257

2101.2

155

CAS_7440-02-0 - Nickel and its compounds

42

1008

3126.2

155

CAS_7440-43-9 - Cadmium and its compounds

42

1028

3002.2

155

CAS_75-09-2 - Dichloromethane

6

728

1952

144

CAS_79-01-6 - Trichloroethylene

6

782

1977

144

CAS_85535-84-8 - Chloroalkanes C10-13

12

96

316

72

CAS_87-68-3 - Hexachlorobutadiene

734

2021

144

CAS_87-86-5 - Pentachlorophenol

590

955

144

CAS_91-20-3 - Naphthalene

12

983

2331

144

EEA_32-02-0 - Total cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin + dieldrin + endrin + isodrin)

754

1323

EEA_32-03-1 - Total DDT (DDT, p,p' + DDT, o,p' + DDE, p,p' + DDD, p,p')

754

1479

180

EEA_32-04-2 - Brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154)

1329

72

EEA_32-23-5 - Total Benzo(b)fluor-anthene (CAS_205-99-2) + Benzo(k)fluor-anthene (CAS_207-08-9)

42

EEA_32-24-6 - Total Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene (CAS_191-24-2) + Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene (CAS_193-39-5)

42

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Transboundary harmonisation of monitoring and assessment

The iRBMP states that chemical status assessment of transboundary surface water bodies is coordinated by the experts of the bilateral German-Czech boundary water commission and its standing committees for Transboundary Waters. Based on the monitoring results and the assessment results of the individual Member States, the final status assessment of the common transboundary water bodies was agreed. Further details are not provided.



1.2.6.Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential

Cooperation and joint activities regarding heavily modified water body designation

The iRBMP refers to the national RBMPs for the methods used for designation of heavily modified water bodies.

Cooperation and Joint methods and approaches for the determination of Good Ecological Potential (GEP)

The iRBMP states that good ecological potential in the Elbe iRBD has been developed based on Guidance Document No 4 “Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies” and Guidance Document No 13 “Overall Approach to the Classification of Ecological Status and Ecological Potential”. No further details are provided.

Information reported to WISE by the Member States indicate that the Czech Republic used the CIS Guidance approach, while Austria and Germany used the Hybrid CIS/Prague Approach. Poland did not report to WISE. All three Member States reported using macrophytes, phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish in the assessment. Similar mitigation measures were reported.

1.2.7.Environmental Objectives and Exemptions

Article 4 (4) and 4 (5) are being applied in the iRBD. The iRBMP presents a table on the application of Article 4 (4) and Article 4 (5) in surface and groundwater bodies. According to the iRBMP, Article 4 (6) and 4 (7) could be applied during the second management period but haven’t been so far. The iRBMP refers to the national RBMPs for further information. Information on international coordination is not included in the iRBMP.

1.2.8.Programme of measures

As mentioned in the chapter on characterisation, to support the development of the national PoMs the iRBD sharing countries agreed on common significant management issues. The iRBMP states that fundamental for the selection of measures for the second management period were the significant pressures, the status of the surface and groundwater bodies and environmental objectives. The cost-effectiveness of the individual measures is determined by cost-benefit analyses.

The planning and future implementation of the measures should also analyse their impact on the objectives of the other directives and the prioritization of the measures in terms of potential synergies. In principle, the water-related environmental directives and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive are expected to have strong synergy effects in the measures.

The iRBMP summarizes the national measures aimed at solving the significant water management issues, which were internationally coordinated. It provides table on the progress of measures implementation in the Austria, the Czech Republic and Germany. The measures listed in the iRBMP are part of the national programmes of measures (nPoM) and are implemented through national mechanisms within the Member States.

The summary chapter on the national programmes of measures does not describe joint activities agreed by the countries and information on measures is described separately for the Member States. The iRBMP does not describe how the iRBMP measures will be implemented through national and international mechanisms, i.e. there is no information on who is responsible for implementing the measures, the timeline for implementation or budget allocation. Limited information is included in the iRBMP. The iRBMP refers to the national RBMPs for further details.

Measures related to pollution from agriculture and other sectors

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

In Elbe iRBD, the significant pressures from nutrients from point sources and diffuse pollutants were identified as a significant transboundary water management issue. In order to achieve the objective of reducing nutrient pollution of surface waters and groundwater in the Elbe and the transitional and coastal waters, the discussion and coordination at the level of the international river basin Elbe was required 49 .

National reporting to WISE indicates that the Czech Republic and Germany identified general management objectives regarding nutrients from agriculture for their national shares of the iRBD. In addition, both Member States reported to WISE that it has set quantitative targets for both nitrogen and phosphorus pollution for its share of the basin.

Measures to address from the agriculture and other sectors

Agriculture sector

Measures listed in the iRBMP include:

·Measures to reduce diffuse pollution of nutrients and pesticides from agriculture,

·Measures to reduce point source pollution of nutrients and pesticides from agriculture,

·The establishment of water protection strips to reduce inputs of nutrients and pesticides

·Other measures to reduce inputs of nutrients, pesticides and fines by erosion and runoff from agriculture.

In order to enable a comparable grouping of measures in the national programme of measures, the European Commission introduced the concept of KTMs in 2012 to simplify reporting 50 . KTMs are groups of measures identified by Member States in the PoMs which target the same pressure or purpose. The individual measures included in the PoM (being part of the RBMP) are grouped into KTMs for the purpose of reporting. The same individual measure can be part of more than one KTM because it may be multipurpose. Austria, the Czech Republic and Germany reported to WISE that they are applying KTM 2 – reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture and KTM 3 – reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. Austria and Germany additionally reported applying KTM 12 – advisory services.

Other sectors

Measures planned for the remediation of contaminated sites are located both in surface and groundwater bodies. Improvements in wastewater treatment mainly concentrate in urban areas, such as Prague or Berlin, and are also partly planned in rural areas. The most commonly identified measures to reduce pollutant inputs from point sources are

·the connection of previously unconnected areas to municipal sewage treatment plants,

·other measures for the reduction of substance inputs through mixed and rainwater discharges,

·other measures for the reduction of inputs from municipal sewage discharges, and

·the optimization of the mode of operation and capacity adjustments of municipal sewage treatment plants as well as the expansion of municipal wastewater treatment plants to reduce phosphorus inputs.

Austria, the Czech Republic and Germany reported to WISE that they are implementing the following KTMs:

·KTM1 – Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants;

·KTM4 – Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil);

·KTM15 – Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances;

·KTM16 – Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms);

·KTM17 – Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off; and

·KTM21 – Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure.

The Czech Republic and Germany reported to WISE that they are implementing KTM23 – Natural water retention measures. Germany is also implementing KTM25 – Measures to counteract acidification.

Measures related to hydromorphological alterations

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

Improvement of the river continuity and water structure was identified as a transboundary significant water management issue in the iRBMP.

Austria, the Czech Republic and Germany reported addressing river continuity, other hydromorphological and sediment management pressures to WISE. Poland did not report. The Member States reported identifying general management objectives regarding river continuity to WISE.

Measures to address pressures

With regard to surface waters, the Elbe iRBD focuses on measures to reduce hydromorphological pressures. These include in particular measures to improve river continuity. In the 2009 iRBMP, priority stretches to increase river connectivity were defined based on fish population needs; this was adjusted in the Czech Republic and Germany for the second iRBMP. Beside the main stream of the Elbe, 50 other streams and rivers have been identified. Measures listed in the iRBMP include:

·Measures to initiate / allow a self-dynamic water body development including accompanying measures,

·Measures to improve habitats in the riparian area (e.g. woody development),

·Measures to improve habitats in the water development corridor, including alluvial development,

·Measures to adapt maintenance of water courses to the objectives of the WFD,

·Measures to vitalize the water courses (including sole, variance, substrate) within the existing profile,

·Measures for improving the habitat in the water by changing the course, shore or sole design including accompanying measures,

·Measures to improve sediment management,

·The connection of side waters, cut-off meanders / oxbow lakes (cross-linking), and

·Measures to increase the shallow water zones in the tidal Elbe.

Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic reported to WISE implementing KTM5 ‘Improving longitudinal continuity’ and KTM6 ‘Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity’. Poland did not report to WISE.

1.2.9.Economic analysis and water pricing policies

An economic analysis has been undertaken and was updated in 2013 for the second management cycle. The economic analysis was done separately for the Czech Republic and Germany. It covers the economic importance of water use, a prognosis of water use until 2021 and recovery of the costs of water services. Water use is split into water abstraction (households and industry (including energy sector)) and agriculture and fishing, waste water discharge, energy sector (power stations), navigation, flood protection, coal mining. Cost recovery is addressing public supply and treatment.

1.2.10.Considerations specific to Protected Areas

Protected Areas are addressed in the iRBMP. The following types of protected areas are listed in the iRBMP for the Elbe: human consumption, bathing waters, nutrient-sensitive areas and Natura 2000 areas. A table shows the number of Protected Areas in each country.

1.2.11.Climate Change and droughts

The iRBMP includes a section on climate change under the chapter on economic analysis. The chapter describes the expected future climate change effects. According to the iRBMP, in the future adaptation strategies for climate change will play a role in the selection of measures and implementation in the medium and long term. Initial scientific results on the impacts of climate change in the Elbe iRBD have already been considered in the selection of measures for the present management plan. Details on this approach are not included in the iRBMP.

1.2.12.Recommendations

For the Elbe iRBD, important efforts have been made on international coordination between the Member States on a number of aspects. The following recommendations can be made to further improve cooperation:

·In general, the iRBMP should provide more details regarding international coordination efforts.

·Further efforts should be made to better harmonise the delineation, typology, monitoring and status assessment of water bodies.

·The use of exemptions and their justifications should be coordinated.

·The designation of heavily modified water bodies and the setting of good ecological potential should be coordinated.

·Coordination of river basin specific pollutants and setting of common environmental quality standards should be improved. The corresponding environmental quality standards do not match in many cases.

·The summary of the programme of measures should provide more details on the measures being implemented in the iRBD and how international coordination of measures is taking place.

Table: RBSPs that have been monitored between 2010-2015 (schema element: rbsplastmonitored) in water in the CZ Elbe RBD for which no EQS exists (or has been reported in WISE; rbspvalue=empty)

RBSPs that have an EQS but were nor monitored according to WISE schema elements (rbsplastmonitored and rbspvalue)

1.3.Ems River Basin District

1.3.1.General Information

Map 1.3.1     Ems River Basin District

Source: WISE reporting 2016

The Ems International River Basin District (iRBD) is shared by Germany and the Netherlands. The Ems iRBD is allocated to cooperation Category 1, which means that an international agreement, a permanent co-operation body and an international River Basin Management Plan (iRBMP) under the WFD is in place.

This report provides information on the international coordination efforts of transboundary surface water bodies in the iRBD. Only transitional and coastal surface waters are transboundary in this iRBD. Transboundary groundwater bodies have not been delineated and therefore information on groundwater bodies is not part of this report.

The iRBMP for the Ems was published on 22 December 2015. The iRBMP can be downloaded on the Ems cooperation website 51 . Germany 52 and the Netherlands 53 have made the iRBMP available on their national webpages.

The table below presents the size of the total catchment area and national shares within the iRBD (km2; %). The table includes information reported to WISE and the information included in the iRBMP. The table shows that the information in the iRBMP and WISE slightly differ.

Table 1.3.1     Member State share of the iRBD

Name of the International River Basin District

Total Area – iRBMP

(km2)

EU Member States

EU RBD Code

National Area within iRBD – iRBMP

(within 1 NM zone)

(km2)

National Area within iRBD – iRBMP

(% of iRBD)

Ems 

 

 

 

17,800

Germany

DE3000

15,008*

84 %

Netherlands

 NLEM

2,312*

13 %

International Ems-Dollart

N/A

482

3 %

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 and iRBMP
* without the international Ems-Dollart region

1.3.2.Governance and public participation

Cooperation framework: International, bilateral and/or multilateral agreements in place covering certain cooperation aspects

The agreement for international cooperation is not based on a specifically named agreement but is anchored in a Ministerial correspondence of both countries. The Ministers responsible for protection of the waters in the Ems basin in Germany and the Netherlands agreed to develop a common iRBMP for the Ems RBD.

The international cooperation between Germany and the Netherlands takes place within the ‘International Steering Group Ems’ (ISE). The group is responsible for overall harmonisation and general progress of work and the fundamental decisions on collaboration by representatives of the responsible Ministries are taken. In addition, experts from the Netherlands, from North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony work within the ‘International Coordination Group Ems’ (ICE). This group implements the underlying decisions of the Steering Group and arrives at specific agreements on joint implementation of the required operational tasks. Working groups are in place according to thematic demand and tackle various themes of the WFD and technically support the International Coordination Group Ems.

In the Ems-Dollart region the international cooperation between Germany and the Netherlands takes place in the Subcommittee G of the Permanent German-Dutch Boundary Water Commission. The subcommittee G was founded in 1960 with the aim of coordinating water management issues in the Ems-Dollart region.

Joint activities within the iRBD

Development of an iRBMP and link to national RBMPs

The iRBMP Ems summarizes the RBMPs and programs of measures of Germany and the Netherlands, which serve to achieve a good status and the other environmental objectives of surface waters and groundwater and the results of previous work in the Ems. The plan builds on the results of the updated report under Article 5 (2013), current water monitoring and key water management issues.

Areas of joint cooperation

The iRBMP provides information on public participation within the individual Member States and mentions that the international plan was made available online for consultation. An active stakeholder involvement has been carried out for the update of the national plans. The results of this stakeholder involvement were used for the international coordination processes and the update of the iRBMP.

Sectors and observers involved within the development of the iRBMP

On the public consultation process within the Member States, the iRBMP mentions that trade unions and interest groups from the water sector, industry, environment and nature, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries participated in working groups and attended regional workshops and events. The Ems office received 15 position papers from interest groups on the draft iRBMP; a report was published indicating how the comments were addressed in the final iRBMP..

Existence of a transboundary accident warning system

In the area of the Tideems and the coastal waters of the iRBD Ems, a central accident management was set up to combat harmful substances and to inform the affected countries of impending or actual accidents or ship disasters. In the area of tidal and coastal waters, there is close cooperation between Germany and the Netherlands, including, for example, agreements on mutual assistance in the event of accidents. As accidents can have local and supra-regional impact, accident warning plans have been established at various governance levels.

1.3.3.Characterisation of the River Basin District

Coordination of the Article 5 assessment

According to the iRBMP, the pressures and impacts analysis was coordinated and updated in 2013, as well as the economic analysis. No further information is provided. The information reported by Germany and the Netherlands to WISE confirms the information in the iRBMP concerning the coordination of the Article 5 analysis.

For the second management period, a stand-alone Article 5 report was not prepared, but the Article 5 update was integrated directly into the iRBMP.

Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies

The first iRBMP plan identified 537 surface water bodies in the Ems RBD. The 2015 update of the plan reduced the number to 517 surface water bodies. There were no changes in the number of coastal and transitional waters and lakes compared to the first management plan. Due to the more detailed coverage scale, there are minor changes in the geometric demarcation. The iRBMP states that partial geometry changes, divisions, or mergers of streams have been made for the following reasons:

·updating / revising the topographic data bases; and

·recent findings from the monitoring, which led to:

·changes in the water type,

·changes regarding water-related designation of artificial and significantly modified water bodies,

·section related differences in significant loads or

·changes related to water body status.

The iRBMP does not state whether delineation was carried out jointly between Germany and the Netherlands. GIS data on transboundary transitional and coastal water bodies were not reported to WISE so it is not possible to assess whether the Member States delineated transboundary water bodies similarly.

Typology Coordination of surface water bodies

For the typology of surface waters, Germany and the Netherlands both chose System B (Annex II WFD). For rivers, the description is based on physical and chemical factors that determine the characteristics of the water body and thus the structure and composition of the ecosystem. In the context of international coordination, an attempt was made to compare the Dutch types found in the catchment area with comparable German types. Due to similarities between hydromorphological conditions (catchment size, geology, soil substrates, etc.) and physico-chemical data (pH, conductivity, etc.), the Dutch and German types are comparable. . A systematic comparison of the lake types is not possible due to the different delineation criteria and, according to the iRBMP, is not required.

For the classification of coastal water types, the criteria salinity and wave exposure are used both in Germany and in the Netherlands. Despite different thresholds regarding wave exposure, Dutch and German types are comparable.

Coordination in the establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies

Correspondence with the Ems Committee indicates that reference conditions have been coordinated for the transboundary water bodies in the Ems-Dollart estuary by the Working Group “Water Quality” of the Subcommittee G of the Permanent German-Dutch Boundary Water Commission. Based on the information in the iRBMP and the information reported to WISE, there are similarities in the quality elements used, but the iRBMP does not mention whether there was coordination among the Member States on this issue. A comparison of the data reported to WISE shows that the Member States used partially different quality elements for defining reference conditions for the same surface water type (according to intercalibration classes).

Coordination on Significant Water Management Issues

Joint significant water management issues have been identified and coordinated in the Ems. These are:

·Nutrient and pollutant inputs from point sources and diffuse sources into surface waters and groundwater;

·hydromorphological alterations of surface waters; and

·lack of continuity of rivers.

In addition, the impacts of climate change must be considered in all planning. Requirements under other Directives such as the Natura 2000, the Flood Risk Management Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) should also be integrated.

The information the Member States reported to WISE confirms the information in the iRBMP. Germany and the Netherlands reported that there was coordination on common visions and management objectives.

1.3.4.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status

Monitoring of ecological status/potential

Joint monitoring programmes for surface waters and application of joint methods/joint surveys

The iRBMP does not mention whether there is a joint monitoring programme for surface water bodies, and information on monitoring focuses on which national legislation governs the monitoring of surface water bodies in each Member State.

International monitoring sites are understood as being of transboundary/basin-wide relevance. The iRBMP presents information on the number of monitoring sites for each type of monitoring (surveillance, operational, reporting) in either Germany or the Netherlands.

Sensitive quality elements monitored (excluding river basin specific pollutants)

According to the WFD and as explained in the CIS guidance on monitoring 54 , for operational monitoring, Member States are required to monitor for those biological and hydromorphological quality elements most sensitive to the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. The iRBMP mentions that the assessment of ecological status in the catchment Ems-Dollart was coordinated jointly between Germany and the Netherlands in the working group "Water Quality" of Subcommittee G of the permanent German-Dutch Border Waters Commission and - as far as possible - harmonized. The quality elements phytoplankton, algae, macrozoobenthos, macrophytes and fish were used for the assessment. For the quality components fish (transitional waters) and macrozoobenthos (transitional and coastal waters) and macrophytes (transitional waters), consistent assessment results were obtained. The harmonization of the evaluation results for phytoplankton in coastal waters has not yet been achieved. Further coordination in relation to monitoring is planned.

Member States were requested to report to WISE which biological quality elements they considered to be sensitive for a given pressure. The table below differentiates four biological quality elements, nine different pressures and four different water categories.

An important assessment parameter is whether there is a minimum agreement between the iRBD sharing countries on the sensitivity of biological quality elements. Such an agreement would be expressed by the fact that there is at least one biological quality element in all riparian countries that is considered to be sensitive (for each pressure). Such a quality element can then be used as the least common denominator for comparable assessments of ecological status, provided that the intercalibration has been successful.

For rivers, the table below lists sensitive quality elements for each pressure. There is an agreement on sensitive quality elements for nutrients, organic pollution, hydrological and morphological pressures between Germany and the Netherlands but not for chemical and temperature pressures.

Table 1.3.2     Sensitivity of BQEs towards different pressure types for river water bodies

Member State

Phytoplankton

Other aquatic flora

Macrophytes

Phytobenthos

Benthic invertebrates

Fish

Assessment method mainly sensitive to nutrient pollution

Germany

yes

yes

yes

yes

Netherlands

yes

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to organic pollution

Germany

yes

Netherlands

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to chemical pollution

Germany

yes

yes

Netherlands

Assessment method mainly sensitive to elevated temperature

Germany

yes

yes

Netherlands

Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to hydrological changes

Germany

yes

yes

Netherlands

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to morphological changes

Germany

yes

yes

Netherlands

yes

yes

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Coordination of river basin specific pollutants and matrices monitored

The WFD requires Member States to identify and select river basin specific pollutants and their environmental quality standards at the national, river basin or water body level.

The iRBMP provides a list of the river basin specific pollutants in the Ems and indicates in which Member State the environmental quality standards have been exceeded. The iRBMP mentions that in Germany environmental quality standards have been set for 162 pollutants in accordance with Annex 5 of the German Surface Water Ordinance 2011 55 , while in the Netherlands the requirements are laid down in the decision on quality requirements and monitoring of waters (Besluit kwaliteits-iron and monitoring water - BKMW 2009). The international plan does not mention specifically whether the monitoring and assessment of river basin specific pollutants has been coordinated.

As part of the reporting to WISE regarding the assessment of ecological status, Member States were asked to report information regarding river basin specific pollutants at RBD level 56 . For the reporting to WISE, Member States could report pollutants using pre-defined codes from a list set by the European Commission, and they could report pollutants to a category “other”. The “other” category is not uniform among the Member States and therefore the information reported for these pollutants cannot be compared within the iRBD.

The river basin specific pollutants reported by the Member States to WISE were evaluated. The summary of the evaluation concern three essential aspects:

7which substances have been selected for the entire basin or parts of it;

8whether the substances have an environmental quality standard and are monitored; and

9whether the environmental quality standards are the same or in one or another way comparable (in the same range/order of magnitude, for the same matrix).

For environmental quality standards of river basin specific pollutants, different aspects have to be considered to make comparisons. They can only be compared for a given substance if the specific pollutant matrix (water, sediment, biota etc), the unit (mg/L, µg/L etc.), the scale at which the standard is applied (national, water body, river basin etc.), the category (rivers, lakes, coastal water, territorial water and transitional water) and the standard (AA-EQS 57 , MAC-EQS 58 ) are comparable. Therefore, there are many different approaches and dimensions for such a comparison.

This assessment covers selected aspects of the topic at the iRBD scale for reasons of practicability. The most important aspects are environmental quality standards for 1) AA-EQS, 2) for the matrix water and 3) the setting of the standard at national level. The relevant results are a quantitative description of the harmonisation and cooperation with respect to river basin specific pollutants.

A summary for the number of established environmental quality standards is given in the table below. The table below shows the number of Member States that have established an environmental quality standard for a certain river basin specific pollutant. This shows how many standards defined at the national level can be compared between how many countries and describes the extent of harmonization 59 .

Table 1.3.3     Summary of the assessment of river basin specific pollutants for the Ems basin

Number of Member States

Number of river basin specific pollutants with an environmental quality standard

River basin specific pollutant scale

National 60

All 61

1

86

86

2

25

25

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The table shows that 86 pollutants have an environmental quality standard for one Member State in the basin only. For these substances no comparisons of environmental quality standards can be made. 25 environmental quality standards can be compared between Germany and the Netherlands. Overall during the 2010-15 period the degree of harmonisation of river basin specific substances is adequate in terms of (basin-wide or bilateral) consensus on relevant substances (but also in terms of levels of environmental quality standards (see below).

River basin specific pollutants are only useful and supportive for the assessment of ecological status if an environmental quality standard has been adopted and the pollutants are monitored.

The information the Member States and Regions reported to WISE was assessed using the following reporting elements:

5)RBSPvalue: If a value is provided in WISE criterion “EQS-yes” is fulfilled

6)chemicalLastMonitored: If a value>=2010 is provided in WISE the criterion “Monitored: yes” is fulfilled

For each river basin specific pollutants, the criteria mentioned above were evaluated according to the scheme given in table below. A filter is applied, considering the following schema elements: a) chemicalSubstanceCode, b) chemicalMatrix c) chemicalPurpose, d) rbspCategoryRW.

Table 1.3. 4 shows how many river basin specific pollutants can be used for the assessment of ecological status. The number of pollutants that can be integrated into the assessment of ecological status ranges between 47 in the Netherlands and 76 in Germany. The information describes the role that river basin specific pollutants pay in the frame of the ecological assessment and whether the approaches are comparable. The results do not describe whether and how often theses pollutants have been used in the frame of status assessment.

Table 1.3.4     Synthesis of environmental quality standards and sampling of river basin specific pollutants with pre-defined codes in the WISE reporting 62

Member State

Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: yes

Monitored: no Environmental quality standard: yes

Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: no

Substances (number and percentage) that can be used for the assessment of the ecological status

Germany

76

1

47

76 / 62 %

Netherlands

47

12

35

47 / 57 %

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Environmental quality standards for river basin specific pollutants

A comparison between environmental quality standards is given in the figure below.

There is little agreement for the level of environmental quality standards for river basin specific pollutants between the two Member States. For about five substances, Germany and the Netherlands have set the same standard. For the other substances, the environmental quality standards differ by one order of magnitude or more. This makes it difficult to compare status between the two countries. The different standards used may also partly explain why one Member State identified a certain substance as river basin specific pollutants while the other does not.



Figure 1.3.1     Ratio between the maximum and the minimum environmental quality standard for river basin specific pollutants in the Ems iRBD 63

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Status Classification

Use of monitoring results for classification – transboundary harmonization

The results of monitoring and status assessment in the Ems iRBD have been harmonised. In order to compare the credibility of the biological results across Europe, a three-level confidence level was introduced. In the assessment of the waters of the iRBD Ems, the overwhelming majority of the results were classified in the high confidence level, since the assessment is carried out in accordance with WFD-compliant or LAWA (Germany) recognized procedures. Most of the results of the second intercalibration phase were incorporated into the national evaluation systems. For the still open components and parameters, the national assessment procedures are used. The iRBMP states that this raises uncertainty as it is still possible that there are changes in the class boundaries or in evaluation criteria and these impacts the assessment of the monitoring results.

Ecological status/potential classification for water bodies that form the border between iRBD countries

Annex 1 presents maps for ecological status/potential according to biological quality element. For the Ems-Dollart coordination area, the status is the same on both sides of the border.

Intercalibration exercise and Geographical Intercalibration Group (GIG)

Germany and the Netherlands have carried out two intercalibration exercises thus far. According to the iRBMP, macrophytes and pythobenthos are fully intercalibrated for rivers and lakes. Pythobenthos has been fully intercalibrated for very large rivers. Phytoplankton has been fully intercalibrated for lakes and partially for coastal waters. Benthic invertebrates have been fully intercalibrated for rivers and lakes and partially calibrated for coastal waters. Finally, fish have been fully intercalibrated for rivers and transitional waters and partially calibrated for lakes. Algae and Angiosperm have been partially calibrated for transitional and coastal waters. A third exercise should have been completed by the end of 2016 for the remaining quality components. At the time of publication of the iRBMP, the following quality elements had not been intercalibrated: - phytoplankton for very large rivers - macrophytes for very large rivers - benthic invertebrates for very large rivers and transitional waters - fish for very large rivers.

1.3.5.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status

Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters

The iRBMP provides little information regarding the monitoring of chemical status in the basin. It describes the changes that have taken place in the basin since the introduction of the new Environmental Quality Standards Directive in 2013, including that additional priority substances are now being monitored.

Coordination of monitoring and assessment of chemical status

The iRBMP presents information on the priority substances where environmental quality standards have been exceeded in the basin. For some priority substances, the standards have been exceeded in both Member. The iRBMP does not clarify whether the assessment of chemical status has been coordinated 64 .

In the Ems all priority substances have been analysed. In Germany 41 substances have been analysed and in the Netherlands 38 substances have been analysed. An important aspect for chemical status assessment is whether the water samples have been taken with the frequency recommended as a general rule in the WFD 65 . Monthly samples should be analysed for WFD compliant assessment of chemical status at a given site. Other frequencies need a justification based on expert judgement or technical knowledge. If the analysis excludes all frequencies that are lower than 12/year, the number of samples decreases from ~16,782 to ~10,810. This means that 78 % of the samples of Priority Substances (reported to WISE) in the Ems catchment can be used for WFD compliant assessment of chemical status without any further justification.

The total number of samples (see table below) was calculated by combining the information of the WISE reporting elements “chemicalfrequency” and “chemicalCycle”, as also illustrated in the reporting guidance under chapter 4.3.5.

Table 1.3.5     Percentage of Priority Substance samples (matrix water) that have been taken with the frequency recommended in the WFD (monthly samples)

Member State

Percentage of Priority Substance samples with a frequency≥12/year

Samples usable for assessment of chemical status without any further explanation

Germany

56 % (out of 13602)

7630

Netherlands

100 %

3180

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The total number of samples (see table below) was calculated by combining the information of the WISE reporting elements “chemicalfrequency” and “chemicalCycle”, as also illustrated in the reporting guidance under chapter 4.3.5.

Table 1.3.6     Total Number of analysed samples for each Priority Substance for the period 2010-15

Number of samples for Priority substances (period 2010-2015)

Substance

Germany

Netherlands

CAS_104-40-5 - 4-nonylphenol

 

72

CAS_107-06-2 - 1,2-Dichloroethane

310

84

CAS_115-29-7 - Endosulfan

446

84

CAS_117-81-7 - Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)

278

84

CAS_118-74-1 - Hexachlorobenzene

284

84

CAS_12002-48-1 - Trichlorobenzenes (all isomers)

918

84

CAS_120-12-7 - Anthracene

262

84

CAS_122-34-9 - Simazine

362

84

CAS_127-18-4 - Tetrachloroethylene

278

84

CAS_140-66-9 - Octylphenol (4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol)

252

84

CAS_1582-09-8 - Trifluralin

348

84

CAS_15972-60-8 - Alachlor

328

84

CAS_1912-24-9 - Atrazine

362

84

CAS_206-44-0 - Fluoranthene

262

84

CAS_2921-88-2 - Chlorpyrifos

374

84

CAS_330-54-1 - Diuron

362

84

CAS_34123-59-6 - Isoproturon

374

84

CAS_36643-28-4 - Tributyltin-cation

356

84

CAS_470-90-6 - Chlorfenvinphos

348

84

CAS_50-29-3 - DDT, p,p'

194

84

CAS_50-32-8 - Benzo(a)pyrene

274

84

CAS_56-23-5 - Carbon tetrachloride

278

84

CAS_608-73-1 - Hexachlorocyclohexane

828

 

CAS_608-93-5 - Pentachlorobenzene

188

84

CAS_67-66-3 - Trichloromethane

326

84

CAS_71-43-2 - Benzene

302

84

CAS_7439-92-1 - Lead and its compounds

440

84

CAS_7439-97-6 - Mercury and its compounds

310

84

CAS_7440-02-0 - Nickel and its compounds

330

84

CAS_7440-43-9 - Cadmium and its compounds

440

84

CAS_75-09-2 - Dichloromethane

338

84

CAS_79-01-6 - Trichloroethylene

278

84

CAS_85535-84-8 - Chloroalkanes C10-13

62

84

CAS_87-68-3 - Hexachlorobutadiene

274

84

CAS_87-86-5 - Pentachlorophenol

182

84

CAS_91-20-3 - Naphthalene

232

84

EEA_32-02-0 - Total cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin + dieldrin + endrin + isodrin)

684

84

EEA_32-03-1 - Total DDT (DDT, p,p' + DDT, o,p' + DDE, p,p' + DDD, p,p')

672

 

EEA_32-04-2 - Brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154)

240

 

EEA_32-23-5 - Total Benzo(b)fluor-anthene (CAS_205-99-2) + Benzo(k)fluor-anthene (CAS_207-08-9)

388

84

EEA_32-24-6 - Total Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene (CAS_191-24-2) + Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene (CAS_193-39-5)

388

84

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016T

Transboundary harmonisation of monitoring and assessment

There is no information in the iRBMP whether chemical status classification for water bodies that form a border between countries has been coordinated 66 . Annex 1 of the iRBMP includes maps of the Ems iRBD, which shows that chemical status has been classified the same on both sides of the border.

1.3.6.Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential

Cooperation and joint activities regarding heavily modified water body designation

The iRBMP does not mention whether a joint method was used to designated heavily modified water bodies 67 .

Cooperation and Joint methods and approaches for the determination of Good Ecological Potential (GEP)

According to the iRBMP, the methodological approaches to determine ecological potential differ in Germany (CIS-method with some elements of the Prague approach) and the Netherlands (Prague approach with some elements of the CIS guidance). The iRBMP states that if used consistently, however, both methods can lead to comparable results.

For determining highest and good ecological potential, uniform procedures for rivers and lakes were developed in Germany. Assessment methods using all quality elements were also developed for transitional waters. In the Netherlands, a similar procedure was already applied to the first management plan.

Both Member States use benthic invertebrates and fish; the Netherlands also uses phytoplankton and other aquatic flora. Mitigation measures reported to WISE by the Member States shows commonalities.

1.3.7.Environmental Objectives and Exemptions

According to the iRBMP, Article 4 (4) and 4 (6) are being applied in the iRBD. Article 4 (4) has been applied by both Germany and the Netherlands.

The iRBMP refers to national guidance on the application of exemptions. The iRBMP presents tables showing the number of exemptions applied in the national shares of the Basin. Annex 3.3 and 3.4 show the exemptions for transitional and coastal water bodies. Water bodies and exemptions are listed by Member State and it is not clear whether exemptions have been applied for transboundary water bodies 68 .

Article 4 (5) and Article 4 (7) have not been applied in the Ems. The Netherland has applied Article 4 (6) in its coastal areas.

1.3.8.Programme of measures

As mentioned in the chapter on characterisation, to support the development of the national PoMs Germany and the Netherlands agreed on common significant management issues. The iRBMP states that the supplementary measures for the second management period are based on the transboundary significant water management issues identified for the Ems. For these transboundary management issues, such as the improvement of the water structure and continuity as well as the reduction of nutrient and pollutant inputs, measures were identified and priorities for their implementation agreed in cross-border coordinated processes.

Common management objectives were identified, namely:

·Reduction of eutrophication in coastal and inland water bodies;

·Reduction point and diffuse pollution;

·Reduction of salination effects in the sub-unit Ems South and on the national level;

·Reduction of the turbidity of the Tideems;

·Improvement of river morphology;

·Improvement of biological river continuity; and

·Protection of groundwater from pollution.

The measures listed in the iRBMP are part of the national programmes of measures (nPoM) and are implemented though national mechanisms within the Member States. The summary chapter on national POMs does not describe joint activities agreed by the countries and information on measures is described separately for Germany and the Netherlands. The iRBMP does not describe how the iRBMP measures will be implemented through national and international mechanisms, i.e. there is no information on who is responsible for implementing the measures, the timeline for implementation or budget allocation. The iRBMP refers to the national PoMs and RBMPs for further details.

1.3.9.Measures related to pollution from agriculture and other sectors

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

Water pollution from multiple sectors is addressed in the iRBMP. The chapter on significant water management issues in the iRBMP includes nutrient and pollutant inputs from point sources and diffuse sources into surface waters and groundwater. Joint management objectives have been defined for diffuse pollution:

·Reduction of eutrophication in coastal and inland water bodies;

·Reduction point and diffuse pollution;

·Protection of groundwater from pollution.

Neither the significant water management issue nor the joint management objectives mention a specific sector, but the pressures analysis for the iRBD indicates that pollution from multiple sectors is a significant issue. Results from a 2014 UBA project (in Germany) using the MONERIS model additionally shows that 80 % of the nitrogen in surface and groundwater bodies in the Ems can be attributed to agriculture land. The iRBMP states that pollution from sewage plants is still an issue but much more minor compared to agriculture inputs. Chemical pollution from mercury, tributyltin and PAHs, mainly based on historical uses, is an issue, as well as salt inputs from mining.

As regarding quantitative management objectives, information is provided in the iRBMP regarding reductions needed in the agriculture sector. The information in the iRBMP points not to a reduction goal per se but to an average annual total nitrogen concentration objective of 2.8 mg / l for all inland waters in the German part of the Ems. An assessment by the LAWA in 2014 indicates that at least for one monitoring point (in Herbrum) that there needs to be reduction by 48 % or 7,305 tonnes of nitrogen in order to achieve 2.8 mg total nitrogen/liter.

National reporting to WISE indicates that Germany and the Netherlands identified general management objectives regarding nutrients from agriculture for their national shares of the iRBD. In addition, Germany reported to WISE that it has set quantitative targets for both nitrogen and phosphorus pollution for its share of the basin.

Coordination on addressing pollution from agriculture

According to the iRBMP, the Member States coordinated with each other during the development of their national PoMs in the identification of measures to address the significant water management issues of the basin. The iRBMP indicates a joint approach for selecting and prioritising measures but does not describe joint measures.

While the iRBMP states that measures were identified and prioritised for implementation at river basin level, the PoM summary chapter presents information on the number of measures being implemented in each Member State separately. The types of agriculture measures are summarised in general. Further details provided are Member State specific and reference is made to more information being available in the national plans; therefore, it is not known whether joint measures are planned.

Measures to address pressures

Agriculture sector

For the most part, both countries will implement similar measures to address agriculture pollution. According to the iRBMP, 1,465 measures are planned in the Ems iRBD, including measures to reduce 1) nutrient input by planting buffer strips; 2) reduce nutrient inputs and soil matter resulting from erosion and flooding; 3) surface runoff and 3) nutrient inputs from drainage. Drainage measures will focus on reducing phosphorus inputs, while buffer strips focus on reducing nutrient inputs and sedimentation. Buffer strips will also be planted to reduce pesticide pollution. Agriculture advice will be offered in Germany and the Netherlands. Conceptual measures are also being offered, for example agri-environment measures in targeted areas.

In order to enable a comparable grouping of measures in the national and international programme of measures, the European Commission introduced the concept of KTMs in 2012 to simplify reporting 69 . KTMs are groups of measures identified by Member States in the PoMs which target the same pressure or purpose. The individual measures included in the PoM (being part of the RBMP) are grouped into KTMs for the purpose of reporting. The same individual measure can be part of more than one KTM because it may be multipurpose. Both Member States reported to WISE applying KTM 2 – reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture and KTM 3 -reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. Germany additionally reported applying KTM 12 – advisory services.

Other sectors

Both Member States are implementing measures to address pollution from sources other than agriculture. Information from measures in the Netherlands is very limited in the iRBMP. The PoMs focuses on measures like construction of sewage treatment plans; the optimization of rainwater discharges; and the adaptation of the management of municipal sewage treatment plants. Further details are not provided.

Both Member States reported to WISE that they are implementing the following KTMs:

·KTM1 – Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants;

·KTM4 – Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil);

·KTM15 – Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances;

·KTM17 – Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off; and

·KTM21 – Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure.

In addition, Germany reported to WISE that it is implementing KTM16 – Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms); KTM23 – Natural water retention measures; and KTM25 – Measures to counteract acidification.

The information reported in WISE and the information in the PoM are the same.

1.3.10.Measures related to hydromorphological alterations

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

There are two relevant transboundary significant water management issues identified in the iRBMP, namely hydromorphological alterations of surface waters and lack of continuity of rivers. Three relevant management objectives were defined in the iRBMP:

·Reduction of the turbidity of the Tideems;

·Improvement of river morphology;

·Improvement of river continuity

Turbidity of the River Tideems is associated with poor sediment management. The objective of improving river morphology focuses on creating/maintaining habitat to ensure good status for biological quality elements. Within the objective "Improve river continuity", the common objective is to create conditions for migratory fish and round-mouths that make it possible to preserve or restore self-reproduction. The iRBMP does not provide information regarding quantitative management objectives.

Both Germany and the Netherlands reported addressing river continuity, other hydromorphological and sediment management pressures to WISE. Both Member States reported identifying general management objectives regarding river continuity to WISE, which is in line with the information provided in the iRBMP. Neither Member State reported identifying quantitative management objectives regarding river continuity in their national shares of the iRBD.

Coordination on addressing hydromorphological alterations

The Member States in the Ems have agreed to joint approach in the prioritisation of measures to address river continuity. Habitat requirements of 14 target species (fish and round mouths, sea and river necks, sea trout and eel) were evaluated to identify nationally significant migratory routes, the. The historical and current distribution of the species as well as their demands on spawning, nursery and feeding habitats were considered. The priority waterway network was subdivided into the following three categories: transregional hiking routes, connecting waters and spawning and nursery waters.

To identify locations where measures are most needed, an analysis of the existing transverse structures was carried in terms of the location, type and river continuity for fish species. Within the analysis, the necessary environmental conditions (e.g. water structure, water quality and ecological status) were considered and the impact of the transverse structures on these aspects was assessed.

Measures to address pressures

A total of 4,782 measures are planned to reduce the burden of runoff regulation and morphological changes and to improve river continuity. According to the programs of measures for the Ems, the focus of the measures is to improve the ecological status of surface waters and habitat conditions for aquatic communities should be improved. The following measures are foreseen:

·Measures to improve habitat along the bank (471 measures),

·Measures to improve the habitat by initiating / allowing natural water body development (424 measures),

·Habitat improvement measures in the water in the existing profile (465 measures),

·Measures to improve the habitat in the water by changing the course, shore and sole design (437 measures),

·Measures for the development and improvement of habitats (418 measures),

·Measures to adapt / optimize water conservation (336 measures),

·Measures to re-establish river continuity (745 measures)

The iRBMP does not describe joint measures between Germany and the Netherlands. The iRBMP describes multiple national projects to improve the status of transitional and coastal waters and to combat sediment turbidity.

The strategy for fish continuity in the iRBMP mentions that a previous project in the Netherlands identified all impasses along the priority fish corridors. 130 were identified and by 2015 fish ladders will have been built in 103 locations. Furthermore, from 2015-2021 fish ladders will be built at 21 locations.

Both Germany and the Netherlands reported to WISE implementing KTM5 ‘Improving longitudinal continuity’ and KTM6 ‘Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity’. Neither Member State reported to WISE the number of fish/continuity passes required to achieve the environmental objectives.



1.3.11.Economic analysis and water pricing policies

An economic analysis has been undertaken and was updated in 2013 for the second management cycle. The economic analysis covers the following topic: economic importance of water use (population, drinking water and sewage supply, industry, agriculture, energy, shipping, flood protection); update of the baseline scenarios (land use; population growth; economic growth; climate change; water use demand; agriculture; damns; shipping; floods); cost recovery of water uses, including environmental and resource costs; water pricing; and cost-effectiveness of measures.

A joint approach regarding the economic analysis and water pricing policies has not been applied in the Basin. Rather, each Member State undertook its own analysis and set its own water pricing policies. Annex 4 of the iRBMP presents detailed information regarding the economic analysis and water pricing policies of Germany and the Netherlands separately.

The iRBMP states that an evaluation by the European Commission of the 2004 economic analysis in the Ems found that the economic analysis carried out in the iRBD needed significant improvements. In order to address the Commission's recommendation, a much more detailed economic analysis was carried out for the second management plan. Overall, the update of the economic analysis for the Ems iRBD did not reveal significant changes in water uses compared to the first management plan. The developments predicted in the last economic analysis (population development, economic growth, water consumption in agriculture, industry and mining, etc.) have essentially occurred.

1.3.12.Considerations specific to Protected Areas

Protected Areas are addressed in the iRBMP. The following types of areas are found in the Ems: drinking water areas; bathing water areas; nitrate vulnerable zones; and bird and habitat areas. The iRBMP mentions that the inventory of protected areas was updated in 2013. The iRBMP provides a table of the protected areas in the Ems according to type, which is split according to Germany and the Netherlands. The iRBMP mentions that under bird and habitat protection areas, there is a transboundary protected area in the Ems-Dollart sub-catchment.

1.3.13.Climate Change and droughts

In the chapter on transboundary strategies to achieve environmental objectives, the iRBMP includes a section on climate change. The chapter describes the expected future climate change effects. The iRBMP mentions the need to take advantage of win-win measures that not only improve water management today but also help to increase the resilience of the water environment against future climate change effects. The need for adaptation measures is highlighted. The iRBMP states that measures in the Ems were assessed regarding their sensitivity to climate change impacts and measures were prioritised that would have a positive effect on water management under a wide range of climate change effects. Details on this approach are not included in the iRBMP. Further information can be found in the national RBMPs.

1.3.14.Recommendations

Coordination has taken place between the Member States on a number of aspects. For the Ems iRBD the following recommendations can be made to further improve cooperation:

·The next iRBMP should explain how heavily modified water body designation has been coordinated.

·The use of exemptions, their justification and coordination should be more transparent.

·There should be an agreement on sensitive quality elements for chemical and temperature pressures.

·Coordination of river basin specific pollutants and setting of common environmental quality standards should be improved. The corresponding environmental quality standards do not match in many cases.



1.4.Meuse River Basin District

1.4.1.General Information

Map 1.4.1     Meuse International River Basin District

Source: WISE reporting 2016

The Meuse International River Basin District (iRBD) is shared by Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), Germany, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The Meuse iRBD is allocated to cooperation Category 1, which means that an international agreement, a permanent co-operation body and international WFD RBMP is in place. The international RBMP for the Meuse was published on 8 December 2015 and can be downloaded on the Meuse Commission website 70 .

The table below presents the size of the total catchment area and national shares within the iRBD (km2; %).

Table 1.4.1     Member State share of the iRBD

Name of the International River Basin District

Total Area

km2

EU Member States

EU RBD Code

National Area within iRBD

km2

National Area within iRBD - %

Meuse 

 

 

 

34,564.00

Belgium (Flanders)

 BEMAAS_VL

1,601.00

4.6

Belgium (Wallonia)

 BEMEUSE_RW

12,300.00

35.58

Germany

 DE7000

3,977.00

11.5

France

 FRB1 and 2

8,919.00

25.8

Luxembourg

LU001

72.00

0.21

Netherlands

NLMS

7,500.00

22.27

Source: iRBMP and IMC

1.4.2.Governance and public participation

Cooperation framework: International, bilateral and/or multilateral agreements in place covering certain cooperation aspects

The International Meuse agreement (2002) governs international cooperation in the Meuse river basin district, including the implementation of the WFD. The agreement widened the role of the International Meuse Commission by assigning to it the task of coordinating the activities of its contracting parties in the implementation of the WFD. In particular, the Agreement stipulates that the International Meuse Commission has the remit of coordinating the elaboration of a single iRBMP for the entire district. It also refers to the coordination of the Article 5 analysis, of the monitoring programmes and of the programmes of measures.

The Meuse Commission is the foundation for WFD implementation. Working groups for the development of a joint river basin management plan were already established in the first river basin management cycle.

In addition to the Meuse agreement, multiple bilateral agreements are in place.

Joint activities within the iRBD

Development of an iRBMP and link to national RBMPs

According to the iRBMP, the national plans contributed to the development of the iRBMP. The international plan is based on the identified key water management issues of common interest, which were agreed during the review and update at the iRBD level. The international plan supplements the national plan. The iRBMP states that the international plan was developed progressively and is based on national and regional work, with a constant exchange of views to determine their compatibility and overall coherence. The international plan highlights the coordination of national plans and efforts to harmonize them, focusing on key water management issues. In addition to multilateral coordination, the national RBMPs drawn up by the states and regions for their respective territories have been coordinated bilaterally or trilaterally with respect to transboundary sub-basins and / or specific issues (e.g. groundwater) where necessary.

Areas of joint cooperation

According to the iRBMP 71 , public consultation is the responsibility of the individual Member States and Regions; however, the Member States and Regions did provide advice to one another during the development of the national RBMPs, which enabled the coordination of the national/regional Programme of Measures. In all Member States and Regions, public consultation on the international RBMP took place together with the national/regional plans.

Sectors and observers involved within the development of the iRBMP

The Meuse Commission currently has the following observers: 

·Secretary General of Benelux;

·Union Wallonne des Entreprises (UWE), an organisation of private employers in Wallonia (Belgium) focussing on business development;

·Inter-Environnement Wallonie (IEW), an independent environmental NGO that brings together about 150 associations;

·RIWA – Meuse-Maas, an international association of drinking water companies in Belgium and the Netherlands that use the River Meuse as a source for their drinking water production;

·Minaraad (The Environment and Nature Council of Flanders), an advisory body of the Flemish Government; and

·Aluseau, an association that promotes, in the general interest, public authorities and services involved in water management.

The NGO sectors involved in the development of the iRBMP include local/regional administrations, industry, public and private water service providers and environmental NGOs.

Existence of a transboundary accident warning system

A task of the Meuse Commission is to coordinate on a transboundary accident warning system. The iRBMP refers to a warning and alarm system that focuses on pollution.

To avoid or limit the consequences of accidental contamination, a warning and alarm system Meuse was introduced. The Meuse warning and alarm system is based on 7 main warning posts, which provide information on occurred or possible water pollution that may affect the water quality or the use of water. The main warning posts are constantly online and use a web-based program for mutual communication. As a result, the national/regional relevant authorities are quickly informed and brought in contact with each other. The warning and alarm system sends out an alarm message when serious contaminants that could also cause consequences for the downstream parties, are emitted. A few years ago, the system was extended beyond solely a warning system. It now has an information section with inputs from the Meuse Member States about observed minor impairment of water quality. The functionality of the communication system between the main posts is tested on a monthly basis. In addition, an alert exercise takes place once a year, examining the warning system’s broader operational readiness and communication with national and regional administrations. The results and experiences with the warning system are reported and discussed annually in the Meuse Commission plenary session

1.4.3.Characterisation of the River Basin District

Coordination of the Article 5 assessment

The pressures and impacts analysis was coordinated and updated in 2013, as well as the economic analysis. The results were integrated into the iRBMP.

Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies

Surface water

Annex 3 of the iRBMP includes a map of the transboundary catchments in the basin. The iRBMP does not mention whether international coordination took place for water body delineation 72 . The 2005 Article 5 report notes that the delineation of water bodies was done within the individual Member States. .

There are no transboundary lakes in the iRBD.

To determine whether the delineation of surface water bodies by the Member States has resulted in the same outcome, the Member State reported GIS data for a stretch of river in the Meuse basin was assessed. As shown in the map, below delineation between Belgium and Netherlands has been coordinated. Both delineations by Belgium and Netherlands for the same water body match almost completely.


Map 1.4.2         Comparison of the delineation of a river along the Belgian-Dutch border

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The brown line refers to water body BEVL11_203 delineated by Belgium and the grey line refers NL91GM delineated by the Netherlands. The starting and end points of both delineations do not fully match, but most parts of the water body do.

Groundwater

Annex 4 of the iRBMP has a map of groundwater bodies and transboundary aquifers. The iRBMP mentions that there was international coordination in their delineation on a bilateral or trilateral basis within the WG Groundwater of the Meuse Commission.

The Member States did not report GIS data to WISE for transboundary groundwater bodies, as there are none designated as transboundary groundwater bodies in this river basin.

Typology Coordination of surface water bodies

Water body typology and its coordination at international level is not mentioned in the iRBMP. The 2005 Article 5 report states that all the Member States and Regions in the iRBD "System B" for rivers and lakes. A coordinated approach for typologies was limited to rivers. As there are no transboundary lakes in the iRBD, coordination on typology was not carried out.

The coordinated approach to the typology of rivers distinguishes between the main stream of the Meuse and the tributaries in the iRBD. As a first step towards coordinating the typologies of the tributaries, the typologies used in the individual Member States and Region were merged. In a second step, the criteria and descriptors used in the typologies were compared. For the coordination of typologies, criteria and descriptors were assessed for their applicability. Finally, the types differentiated by the Member States and Regions were grouped into 14 different types on the basis of two descriptors: hydro-ecoregions and the size of the catchment area of the tributary. The 2005 report states that the typologies of Member State and Region are not uniform.

Another specific typology was developed for the Meuse river based on a subdivision of the geomorphological river sections. The typology does not correspond to the hydro-ecoregions, as the main stream has different substrate and runoff characteristics compared to the neighbouring areas in its floodplain. For this reason, the Meuse river has been classified as a different type in the Belgian and Dutch typologies. The sections are distinguished on the basis of the physical and geomorphological characteristics of the river and its watershed conditions. There is a common transboundary type between Belgium (Wallonia, Flanders) and the Netherlands.

The evidence from the GIS information indicates that typology differs for surface waterbodies at the border. For example, for the river stretch in Map 1.4.2 the Netherlands reported type RW-R-C1 - Central/Baltic, small, lowland, siliceous sand and Belgium (Flanders) report the type RW-R-L2 - Very large medium to high alkalinity (all GIGs) BE.

Coordination in the Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies

The iRBMP does not mention whether type-specific reference conditions were coordinated in the Meuse. A comparison of the data reported to WISE shows that the Member States used partially different quality elements for defining reference conditions for the same surface water type (according to intercalibration classes). There are similarities in the quality elements used, but the iRBMP does not mention whether there was a coordination among the Member States on this issue.

Coordination on Significant Water Management Issues

Joint significant water management issues have been identified and coordinated in the Meuse. These are:

·re-establish river continuity;

·ensure better harmony between hydropower and water protection goals;

·reduce pollution from point and diffuse sources;

·protect water bodies from nutrients and priority substances;

·water quantity in terms of low flows on the one hand and flooding on the other; and

·Consequences of climate change and possible adaptation measures.

1.4.4.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status

Monitoring of ecological status/potential

Joint monitoring programmes for surface waters and application of joint methods/joint surveys and interlaboratory tests

There is a joint monitoring programme for the Meuse river basin. This programme is called the Homogeneous Monitoring Network and is coordinated by the International Meuse Commission. It establishes joint methods and runs joint surveys for ecological surface water status.

Every three years, the Meuse Commission publishes a report with the most important results of the measured parameters per measuring station or measuring location. These are selected on the basis of important issues related to water management at the iRBD level. These key issues for water management are based on the water quality improvement programs agreed by the riparian countries. The published results concern a limited number of parameters that show the long-term development of water quality, especially in the Meuse main stream.

Out of the national / regional surveillance networks, 38 stations / sites were selected for the Homogeneous Monitoring Network. There are 38 Stations for Chemical and Physical/Chemical monitoring (16 on the main stream and 22 on the tributaries) and 36 stations for Biological monitoring (15 monitoring points on the main stream and 21 on the tributaries).

Sensitive Quality elements monitored (excluding river basin specific pollutants)

According to the WFD and as explained in the CIS guidance on monitoring 73 , for operational monitoring, Member States are required to monitor for those biological and hydromorphological quality elements most sensitive to the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject.. The iRBMP does not provide information on which the most sensitive biological quality elements are for pressures in the iRBD and does not mention whether the Member States/Regions harmonised the selection of the most biological quality elements.

Member States and Regions reported to WISE which biological quality elements they considered to be sensitive for a given pressure. In WISE the sensitive biological quality elements are listed for each pressure.

An important assessment parameter is whether there is a minimum agreement between the Member States and Regions sharing a border with each other on the sensitivity of biological quality elements. Such an agreement would be expressed by the fact that there is at least one biological quality element that is considered to be sensitive (for each pressure) in both Member States or Regions. Such a quality element can then be used as the least common denominator for comparable assessments of ecological status, provided that the intercalibration has been successful.

For rivers, the table below lists sensitive quality elements for each pressure. In all the Member States and Regions in the iRBD there is an agreement on sensitive quality elements for nutrients (macrophytes and phytobenthos), organic pollution (benthic invertebrates), hydrological (fish) and morphological pressures (benthic invertebrates and fish). In the case of chemical and temperature pressures, the Member States sharing a border share at least one quality element between them  74 . The Netherlands did not report quality elements for chemical and temperature pressures 75 , so there is no agreement between the Netherlands and Germany and the Netherlands and Belgium (Flanders).

Table 1.4.2        Sensitivity of BQEs towards different pressure types for river water bodies

Member State

Phytoplankton

Other aquatic flora

Macrophytes

Phytobenthic

Benthic invertebrates

Fish

Assessment method mainly sensitive to nutrient pollution

Belgium (Flanders)

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Belgium (Wallonia)

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

France (FRB1)

yes

yes

yes

France (FRB2)

yes

yes

yes

Germany

yes

yes

yes

yes

Luxembourg

yes

yes

yes

yes

Netherlands

no 76

yes

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to organic pollution

Belgium (Flanders)

yes

yes

yes

Belgium (Wallonia)

yes

yes

yes

yes

France (FRB1)

yes

yes

yes

yes

France (FRB2)

yes

yes

yes

yes

Germany

yes

Luxembourg

yes

yes

yes

Netherlands

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to chemical pollution

Belgium (Flanders)

yes

yes

yes

Belgium (Wallonia)

yes

yes

yes

yes

France (FRB1)

yes

yes

yes

France (FRB2)

yes

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Luxembourg

yes

yes

yes

yes

Netherlands

no 77

Assessment method mainly sensitive to elevated temperature

Belgium (Flanders)

Belgium (Wallonia)

yes

yes

yes

yes

France (FRB1)

France (FRB2)

Germany

yes

yes

Luxembourg

yes

yes

Netherlands

Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to hydrological changes

Belgium (Flanders)

yes

yes

yes

Belgium (Wallonia)

yes

yes

yes

France (FRB1)

yes

France (FRB2)

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Luxembourg

yes

yes

yes

Netherlands

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to morphological changes

Belgium (Flanders)

yes

yes

yes

yes

Belgium (Wallonia)

yes

yes

yes

France (FRB1)

yes

yes

France (FRB2)

yes

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Luxembourg

yes

yes

yes

Netherlands

yes

yes

Source: WISE reporting 2016

Coordination of River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored

The WFD requires Member States to identify and select river basin specific pollutants and their environmental quality standards at the national, river basin or water body level. The iRBMP mentions a common list of four river basin specific pollutants that are relevant for the iRBD (Cu, Zn, Co and PCB’s). Co has not been included on the list for the 2010-15 period. The other pollutants (Cu, Zn and PCB’s) have been measured and analysed by the Member States and Regions within the framework of the Homogeneous Monitoring Network Meuse.

As part of the reporting to WISE regarding the assessment of ecological status, Member States were asked to report information regarding river basin specific pollutants at RBD level 78 . For the reporting to WISE, Member States could report pollutants using pre-defined codes from a list set by the European Commission, and they could report pollutants to a category “other”. The “other” category is not uniform among the Member States and therefore the information reported for these pollutants cannot be compared within the iRBD.

The river basin specific pollutants reported by the Member States to WISE were evaluated. The summary of the evaluation concern three essential aspects:

10which substances have been selected for the entire basin or parts of it;

11whether the substances have an environmental quality standard and are monitored; and

12whether the environmental quality standards are the same or in one or another way comparable (in the same range/order of magnitude, for the same matrix).

For environmental quality standards of river basin specific pollutants, different aspects have to be considered to make comparisons. They can only be compared for a given substance if the specific pollutant matrix (water, sediment, biota etc), the unit (mg/L, µg/L etc.), the category (rivers, lakes, coastal water, territorial water and transitional water) and the standard (AA-EQS 79 , MAC-EQS 80 ) are comparable. Therefore, there are many different approaches and dimensions for such a comparison.

This assessment covers selected aspects of the topic at the iRBD scale for reasons of practicability. The most important aspects are environmental quality standards for 1) AA-EQS, 2) for the matrix water and 3) the setting of the standard at national level. The relevant results are a quantitative description of the coordination with respect to river basin specific pollutants.

A summary for the number of established environmental quality standards is given in the table below. The table shows the number of Member States and Regions that have established an environmental quality standard for a certain river basin specific pollutant. This shows how many standards defined at the national level can be compared between how many countries and describes the extent of harmonization 81 .

Table 1.4.3        Summary of the assessment of river basin specific pollutants for the Meuse basin

Number of Member State and Regions

Number of river basin specific pollutants with an environmental quality standard

National 82

All 83

1

71

55

2

30

40

3

16

21

4

1

14

5

0

0

6

0

0

Source: WISE reporting 2016

There are six Member States and Regions in the Meuse iRBD.  Table 1.4.3 shows that there is not one river basin specific pollutant with an environmental quality standard that is monitored in all six Member State or Region in the Meuse. There is only one specific pollutant with an environmental quality standard defined at the national level in four out of the five Member States and Regions. This means that there are few specific pollutants with quality standards set at the same geographical scale that are comparable in the iRBD.

River basin specific pollutants are only useful and supportive for the assessment of ecological status if an environmental quality standard has been adopted and the pollutants are monitored. The information the Member States and Regions reported to WISE was assessed using the following reporting elements:

7)RBSPvalue: If a value is provided in WISE criterion “EQS-yes” is fulfilled

8)chemicalLastMonitored: If a value>=2010 is provided in WISE the criterion “Monitored: yes” is fulfilled

For each river basin specific pollutants, the criteria mentioned above were evaluated according to the scheme given in table below. A filter is applied, considering the following schema elements: a) chemicalSubstanceCode, b) chemicalMatrix c) chemicalPurpose, d) rbspCategoryRW.

Table 1.4.4 shows how many river basin specific pollutants can be used for the assessment of ecological status. The number of pollutants that can be integrated into the assessment of ecological status ranges between eight (Belgium (Wallonia)) and 74 (Germany). Luxembourg and the Netherlands have a comprehensive set of pollutants that have been be used for status assessment while France has a short list of such status indicators. This information describes the role that river basin specific pollutants pay in the frame of the ecological assessment and whether the approaches are comparable. The results do not describe whether and how often theses pollutants have been used in the frame of status assessment.

Table 1.4.4         Synthesis of environmental quality standards and sampling of river basin specific pollutants with pre-defined codes in the WISE reporting 84

Member State or Region

Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: yes

Monitored: no Environmental quality standard: yes

Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: no

Substances (number of percentage) that can be used for the assessment of ecological status

Belgium (Flanders)

62

2

0

100 %

Belgium (Wallonia)

28 (52) 85

28

19

30 % (100 %)

France

9

0

115

7 %

Germany

74

3

93

44 %

Luxembourg

37

0

0

100 %

Netherlands

42

17

53

44 %

Source: WISE reporting 2016

Substances where it was reported (Belgium (Wallonia)) that they were monitored but there is no EQS for them:

CAS_14797-65-0 – Nitrite,CAS_14798-03-9 – Ammonium,CAS_15545-48-9 - Chlortoluron,CAS_1634-04-4 - MTBE,CAS_16984-48-8 - Fluoride,CAS_172960-62-2 - Metazachlor ESA,CAS_2008-58-4 - 2,6-dichlorobenzamide, CAS_21087-64-9 - Metribuzin, CAS_314-40-9 - Bromacil,CAS_5915-41-3 - Terbuthylazine,CAS_6190-65-4 - Desethylatrazine,CAS_7429-90-5 - Aluminium and its compounds,CAS_7439-89-6 - Iron and its compounds,CAS_7439-96-5 - Manganese and its compounds,CAS_7440-23-5 - Sodium,CAS_7440-36-0 - Antimony,CAS_7440-42-8 - Boron,CAS_7782-49-2 - Selenium and its compounds,CAS_94-75-7 - 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2-4 D,

Substances where it was reported for Belgium (Wallonia) that they were monitored AND and EQS exists:

CAS_25057-89-0 - Bentazone,CAS_7440-38-2 - Arsenic and its compounds,CAS_7440-47-3 - Chromium and its compounds,CAS_7440-50-8 - Copper and its compounds,CAS_7440-66-6 - Zinc and its compounds,CAS_94-74-6 - MCPA,EEA_33-64-7 - Total cyanide

Environmental quality standards for river basin specific pollutants

A comparison between environmental quality standards is given in the figure below.

There is limited agreement between the Member States and Regions. For about one in seven substances, all Member States that have set a standard use the same value (and for most of these substances, the standard is shared by only two Member States). For about one third of the substances, the environmental quality standards differ by one order of magnitude or more. This makes it difficult to compare status between the Member States and Regions. The different standards used may also partly explain why some Member State identify certain substances as river basin specific pollutants while other Member States do not.

Figure 1.4.1         Ratio between the maximum and the minimum environmental quality standard for river basin specific pollutants in the Meuse iRBD 86

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Status Classification

Use of monitoring results for classification – transboundary harmonization

According to the international RBMP, for the surface water bodies at the borders bilateral coordination has been carried out with a view to assessing consistency of good ecological status/good ecological potential or at least to examination and explain any differences. The iRBMP further states if there are differences in the assessment of water bodies at the borders, these can be either because on different pressure situations on both sides of the border or because of different valuation methods. Member States and regions have exchanged views and reported to the Meuse Commission on this issue.

Annex 8 of the iRBMP presents a table with the status of water bodies at the borders and the designation by each of the Member States or Regions. The table shows that there are differences in the status of adjacent water bodies. Some of the adjacent water bodies have the same status across the border, but for many of the adjacent water bodies the status is different among the Member States and Regions. For these adjacent water bodies, a bilateral exchange of information has been organized with the aim to come to more coherent assessment or to analyse and explain these differences.

Ecological status/potential classification for water bodies that form the border between iRBD countries

Using the same stretch of the river as for the assessment of coordination on water body delineation (see Map 1.4.2 ), it was assessed whether the status of the water body is the same on both sides of the border. The status of the water body was reported differently in Belgium and Netherlands. The Meuse Commission has subsequently clarified that these differences have been noted, analysed and explained.

Intercalibration exercise and Geographical Intercalibration Group (GIG)

The iRBMP does not mention intercalibration.

1.4.5.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status

Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters

There is a joint monitoring programme coordinated by the International Meuse Commission. The programme is based on common methodologies and results are comparable across the iRBD.

Out of the national / regional surveillance networks, 38 stations / sites were selected for the Homogeneous Monitoring Network of the International Meuse Commission. The choice of stations is based on their representativeness and relevance at the iRBD level. Every three years, the Commission publishes a report with the most important results of the measured parameters per measuring station or measuring location. These are selected on the basis of important issues related to water management at the iRBD level. These key issues for water management are based on the water quality improvement programs agreed by the rivals. The published results concern a limited number of parameters that show the long-term development of water quality, especially at the Meuse main stream.

Coordination of monitoring and assessment of chemical status

In 2009 the Member States and Regions produced a list of relevant substances (5 Priority substances, four River basin specific pollutants) of transboundary importance for which multilateral coordination of the programs of measures was considered necessary. The criteria for including a substance in this list were that at least two Meuse Commission Contracting Parties had indicated that their standards had been exceeded, the presence of an anthropogenic source and that the reduction programs required bilateral or multilateral coordination. The examination of this list for the Meuse relevant substances has shown that Diuron no longer met the selection criteria. However, cobalt met the criteria and today represents a substance relevant to the Meuse catchment area. All commonly selected Priority Substances have been included in chemical monitoring during the 2010-2015 management cycle.

The catchment of the Meuse is part of five Member States and differentiates seven different RBDs. For each national RBD, the number of analysed samples is listed in the table below. This analysis refers to the samples taken in the period from 2010-2015.

An important aspect for chemical status assessment is whether the water samples have been taken with the frequency recommended as a general rule in the WFD 87 . Monthly samples should be analysed for WFD compliant assessment of chemical status at a given site. Other frequencies need a justification based on expert judgement or technical knowledge. If the analysis excludes all frequencies that are lower than 12/year, the number of samples decreases from ~45 144 to ~21 890. About half of the samples (reported to WISE) in the Meuse catchment are WFD compliant without any further justification.

Table 1.4.5     Percentage of Priority Substance samples that have been taken with a WFD compliant frequency (monthly samples)

Member State

Percentage of Priority Substance samples with a frequency ≥12/year

Belgium (Flanders)

28 %

Belgium (Wallonia)

33 %

France

38 % (FRB1) and 79 % (FRB2)

Germany

50 %

Luxembourg

100 %

Netherlands

93 %

Meuse

48 %

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The total number of samples (see table below) was calculated by combining the information of the number of samples (see table below) was calculated by combining the information of the WISE reporting elements “chemicalfrequency” and “chemicalCycle”, as also illustrated in the reporting guidance under chapter 4.3.5. “chemicalCycle”, as also illustrated in the reporting guidance under chapter 4.3.5.

Table 1.4.6     Total Number of analysed samples for each Priority Substance and each national iRBD share for the period 2010-15 88

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Transboundary harmonisation of monitoring and assessment

For the surface water bodies at the borders, bilateral coordination has been carried out with a view to assuring coherency or at least examining and explaining any differences in status assessment. The tables in Annexes 9 of the iRBMP show the chemical status of surface water bodies at the boundaries (catchment area> 10 km²). If there are differences in the assessment of water bodies at the borders, they may be due either to different load situations on both sides of the border, to different valuation methods which may differ on both sides of the border or by results ‘near to’ class borders in the assessment methods. The Member States and Regions have exchanged views and reported to the Meuse Commission in this regard.

1.4.6.Monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater quantitative and chemical status

The iRBMP states that the Member States and Regions exchanged information regarding the monitoring of groundwater bodies being part of transboundary aquifers. According to the iRBMP, for groundwater bodies belonging to transboundary aquifers, bi- and trilateral coordination for status assessment took place between the iRBD sharing countries and regions concerned. Particular attention was paid to the assessment of adjacent groundwater bodies whose status has been assessed differently on both sides of the border. Differences in assessment on each side are explained by differences in the characteristics and extent of groundwater bodies.

1.4.7.Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential

Cooperation and joint activities regarding heavily modified water body designation

The iRBMP does not mention whether a joint method was used to designate heavily modified water bodies. As such, it is not possible to state what coordination and/or joint method on heavily modified water bodies designation was applied and whether it was for the entire iRBD and/or the main river in the iRBD.

Cooperation and Joint methods and approaches for the determination of Good Ecological Potential (GEP)

The iRBMP states that bilateral coordination was undertaken to ensure coherence in defining water status for water bodies in the Meuse iRBD. The iRBMP mentions that if there were differences in the designation of good ecological potential, it was a result of either differences in pressures on either side of the iRBD or difference in methodologies.

Member States and Regions were requested to report to WISE regarding their approach for determining good ecological potential. The information reported to WISE shows that Member States used different approaches. Belgium (Flanders), France and the Netherlands used a hybrid CIS/Prague approach. Germany and Luxembourg used the CIS approach, while Belgium (Wallonia) used the mitigation measures (Prague) approach. Phytoplankton was used by all the Member States except Germany and Luxembourg. Belgium (Flanders) and Luxembourg used Macrophytes. Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), France and Luxembourg used Phytobenthos. All the Member States and Regions except for France used Benthic invertebrates and Fish.

1.4.8.Environmental Objectives and Exemptions

Annex 15 of the iRBMP presents a table with the exemptions applied per Member States and Region. 66 % of the surface water bodies in the iRBD have applied Article 4 (4). France and Germany are also applying Article 4 (5) in three water bodies. 45 % of the groundwater bodies in the iRBD have applied Article 4 (4). Belgium (Wallonia) and Germany are also applying Article 4 (5). Article 4 (6) and Article 4(7) have not been applied.

According to the iRBMP, for surface waterbodies at the borders bi- and trilateral coordination between the Member States and Regions took place to ensure coherence on the status of water bodies and information was exchanged on achieving objectives. The chapter on exemptions in the iRBMP mentions which justifications for the application on exemptions are being used in the iRBMP but does not provide specific details on exemption coordination.

All the Member States in the Meuse basin except for Germany reported to WISE that exemptions in surface water bodies related to Art 4 (4) and Art 4 (5) were coordinated for surface water bodies. The Meuse Commission indicates that there is coordination between the Netherlands and Germany in terms of groundwater management and monitoring. The monitoring programme aims at analysing the (transboundary) impacts of groundwater abstractions, which are the reason why exemptions related to Art 4 (5) are used in Germany.

1.4.9.Programme of measures

As mentioned in the chapter on characterisation, to support the development of the national PoMs the Member States 89 and Regions agreed on common significant management issues. According to the iRBMP, measure selection was coordinated. An annex to the international plan presents a table that defines “common measures” categorized according to the different significant water management issues. National measures being taken within the different Member States and Regions are appropriately organized within this framework. All joint significant water management issues have been addressed by measures.

A joint programme on improving river continuity for migratory fish is mentioned. According to the iRBMP, the Master plan for migratory fish details the implementation of measures within the basin, including joint activities.

Coordination on addressing water scarcity and droughts

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

The iRBMP chapter on pressures refers to periods of low water levels, a situation which could be exacerbated by climate change. Water abstraction, especially for drinking water, could be negatively affected as a result. Water quantity in general has been mentioned as a significant water management issue, both in terms of low flows and in terms of flooding.

Belgium (Flanders) reported to WISE that water abstraction was a pressure for surface waters in its share of the basin due to industrial purposes and drinking water supply. Water abstraction was not reported by the other Member States and Regions.

Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity

As low water levels were mentioned in the pressures chapter of the iRBMP, the Meuse Commission is currently working on a joint document on water scarcity to provide a first framework on developing a strategy on dealing with water scarcity in the basin. As it is still in development, information on whether the Member States in the basin are adhering to the joint strategy is not available.

All the Member States and Regions have identified measures to address water use efficiency in their share of the basin. Within the iRBD, the measure category “Economic measures for water use efficiency” is linked to the water management issue of “water scarcity and sustainable water management” 90 . The Annex on measures shows that each Member State has chosen to implement different but coherent measures within their share of the Basin. These are 91 :

·Belgium (Flanders): Develop a water scarcity strategy; Sensitive the sector to ensure sustainable water use or the use of alternative water sources; Protection of water retention areas

·Belgium (Wallonia): Improvement of the understanding of climate change impacts on water management; Development of a long-term Strategy for the Communication and Sensitization of all water sector stakeholders; Finalize and Implement the Regional water management plan

·Germany: Increase natural retention; Increase water abstraction charges

·France: Use rainwater

·Luxembourg: No measures were included in the Annex 92

·Netherlands: More in-depth exploration of pricing for freshwater supplies to promote sustainable water use; By embedding the three-step strategy of "containment, storage, outflow" in national water policy, water management authorities explicitly focus on the conservation and use of on-land water as much as possible in the design and management of the water system; In the cycle of drinking water, sewerage and sewage treatment, the cooperation is intensified in order to further increase cost-effectiveness; Encouraging citizens to decouple rainwater drainage from the sewerage system to make wastewater treatment more efficient; Organization of an information campaign to increase the awareness of water and the value of water; As part of the delta program Freshwater (Deltaprogramma Zoetwater), an implementation program for measures in the main water system has been prepared for 2015 to 2028, in the regional water system and measures for some utilization functions. It aims to secure fresh water reservoirs and counteract salinization as well as retention and conservation where there is insufficient supply. There is also a research program added. In addition, a program with promising measures was created in the medium and longer term; In the event of water shortage or imminent water shortage, the three-step strategy is crucial for the distribution of available surface water. Based on this, depending on the amount of water available, the intake of water in certain sectors is reduced or even completely stopped; Examine the effects of climate change; Development of the delta program for high sandy soils (Deltaprogramma Hoge Zandgronden) for the fresh water supply; Implementation of the delta program agrarian water management (Deltaprogramma Agrarisch Waterbeheer).

In order to enable a comparable grouping of measures in the national and international programme of measures, the European Commission introduced the concept of KTMs in 2012 to simplify reporting 93 . KTMs are groups of measures identified by Member States in the PoMs which target the same pressure or purpose. The individual measures included in the PoM (being part of the RBMP) are grouped into KTMs for the purpose of reporting. The same individual measure can be part of more than one KTM because it may be multipurpose.

Belgium (Flanders) and Luxembourg are implementing KTM7 – Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows and KTM8 – Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households.

Coordination on addressing pollution from agriculture

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

Nutrient pollution from agriculture is addressed in the iRBMP. The chapter on transboundary significant water management issues in the iRBMP includes point source and diffuse pollution from agriculture as significant issue for both surface and groundwater bodies. A joint management objective has beendefined in the iRBMP, namely taking measures to reduce the inputs of nutrients – nitrogen, phosphorus and organic material – to prevent eutrophication and the use of oxygen in the waters.National reporting to WISE indicates that Belgium (Flanders), Germany and the Netherlands identified general management objectives regarding nutrients from agriculture for their national shares of the iRBD, while Belgium (Wallonia), France and Luxembourg did not.

The iRBMP describes a basin-wide assessment regarding the potential status achievement of transitional, coastal and marine waters by 2021 and 2027 and how the concentrations of total nutrient pollution in the Meuse main stream and selected tributaries influence these waters. The analysis shows that through already implemented and planned measures will lead to a reduction in total nutrient concentration by 2021 between 1-5 % and by 2027 between 2-18 % in comparison to 2012 values.

Germany reported to WISE that it has set quantitative targets for both nitrogen and phosphorus pollution for its share of the basin.

Measures to address pollution from agriculture

Two measure categories are included in the iRBMP:

·Combating point and diffuse pollution linked to agriculture in surface waters

·Combating diffuse pollution of nitrate and pesticides in groundwaters

For surface waters, the measures to be implemented are as follows:

·Belgium (Flanders) - Agri-environment measures to reduce nutrient emission; Efficient phosphorus and nitrate fertilization; Improve feed efficiency; Information and farm advice within the Manure Action Plan

·Belgium (Wallonia): Monitoring access of livestock to rivers; Development of a participatory pilot study in the agriculture sector in order to achieve good status in WBs; Implementation and Evaluation of measures in the Plan for sustainable use of inputs in agriculture; Stricter controls for the implementation of the plan for sustainable use of inputs in agriculture; Support the improved exchange of manure among farmers; Address erosion from agriculture fields and its resulting sedimentation of rivers; Creation of buffer strips (under the RDP programme); Reduce nutrient inputs from agriculture through improved livestock feeding; supporting organic farming; developing ecological important agriculture parcels

·Germany: Reduce impacts of diffuse sources (agriculture not specifically mentioned); Creation of water buffer strips; Agriculture advisory programme

·France: Reduce fertilizer spreading and erosion through implementing requirements greater than the Nitrates Directive; Intercropping; Water buffer strips; Permanent crops

·Luxembourg: No agriculture related measures 94

·Netherlands: Compliance with the phosphate entry limit is ensured by: continuing the authorization of pig and poultry keeping, by introducing compulsory manure processing, by introducing a system of responsible growth of dairy cattle farming. Improving the cleaning efficiency of wastewater treatment plants Reduction of pollution of surface waters by farmers: rules for the use of (mineral) fertilizers and pesticides so that as little as possible gets into the surface water. Implementation of the Delta Program for Agricultural Water Management (Deltaprogramma Agrarisch Waterbeheer)

For groundwater bodies, the measures to be implemented are as follows:

·Belgium (Flanders): Nutrients: see measures for surface waters. Pesticides: Addressing the excessive introduction of pesticides into soil and GWBs through the designation of sensitive areas, Banning use of persistent pesticides

·Belgium (Wallonia): Development of a participatory pilot study in the agriculture sector in order to achieve good status in WBs; Implementation and Evaluation of measures in the Plan for sustainable use of inputs in agriculture; Stricter controls for the implementation of the plan for sustainable use of inputs in agriculture; Support the improved exchange of manure among farmers; Address erosion from agriculture fields and its resulting sedimentation of rivers; Creation of buffer strips (under the RDP programme); Reduce nutrient inputs from agriculture through improved livestock feeding; supporting organic farming; Implementation of the Walloon Pesticide Reduction Program Pesticides - warning systems

·Germany: Reduction of diffuse source pollution (agriculture not specifically mentioned); Promoting catch crop cultivation; Intensified agricultural advice

·France: Limiting the transmission of inputs and erosion beyond the requirements of the Nitrates Directive; Intercropping; Creation of water buffer strips; Greening of the areas with permanent crops; Limiting the input of pesticides from agriculture and / or using alternative practices; Organic farming; Increase or maintain green areas; Limit the diffuse or point source pollution of pesticides from non-agricultural use and / or use alternative practice

·Netherlands: All actions required under the WFD and the Groundwater Directive will be based on existing policies based on the Dutch Soil Protection Act (Wet Bodembescherming) to effectively eliminate contaminants from contaminated soils or address existing accumulations of contaminants. Research + Measures to protect the groundwater supply; Approach to nutrients, pesticides and "new substances" ("emerging substances"). Preparation of a communication protocol.

All Member States reported using KTM 2 – Measures to address nutrient pollution and KTM 3 – Measures to address pesticides. Germany, France and Luxembourg additionally reported using KTM 12 on advisory services.

Coordination on addressing pollution from sectors other than agriculture

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

The iRBMP 95 includes pollution from sectors other than agriculture as a transboundary significant water management issue. A joint management objective has been defined in the iRBMP, namely to take measures to reduce the emissions to surface waters for Meuse relevant substances and for priority substances to the levels as defined by the respective parties. All the Member States and Regions reported to WISE that chemical pollution is an issue.

Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture

The following "joint measures" are included in the Annex 96 :

·Combating point and diffuse pollution in surface waters

·Combating diffuse pollution in groundwaters.

The following measures are being implemented to address pollution from sectors other than agriculture 97 :

·Belgium (Flanders): Further development of collective and individual sewage; Further optimization of the rehabilitation infrastructure and increase of the sewage treatment plant; Authorizations, revision of sectoral discharge conditions Implementation of the reduction program for dangerous substances; Erosion control measures; Sustainable rehabilitation of contaminated watercourses

·Belgium (Wallonia): Continuation of the construction of collective treatment plants; Improvement of the sewage collection and the degree of connection to the sewage system; Compliance with residential property standards in areas with independent treatment; Establishment of a service for the supervision and improvement of independent reprocessing; Revision of environmental permits depending on the environmental objectives assigned to water bodies; Testing other than IPPC industrial companies; Improvement of knowledge on industrial discharges; Improvement of computers tools in connection with the monitoring of industrial discharges; Sensitization of industrial operators; Reduction of emissions of so-called priority substances by supplementing environmental permits with environmental quality standards parameters

·Germany: Improvement of rainwater disposal; Optimization of wastewater treatment plants, collecting sewage disposal; Optimization of wastewater treatment plants (if necessary: addition of a 4th purification stage for the elimination of micropollutants (medicines, etc.) Survey of wastewater discharge; Reduction of impurities from the industry

·France: Overall study and leading renovation project; Improvement of management and treatment of rainwater; Rainwater seepage; Collecting rainwater; Establishment / improvement of sewage treatment plants; Installation / renovation of the collection and pipeline network; Establishment / refurbishment of non-collective sewage treatment plants; Reduction of contamination from industry and trade; Adapting the collection and processing of industrial discharges; Clean techniques; Revision of the emission limit values; Reduction or elimination of conventional contaminants; Control of contamination by micropollutants from industry and trade;

·Luxembourg: Improvement of rainfall management, Reduction (legislation and awareness) of discharges at source 98

·Netherlands: Improving the cleaning efficiency of wastewater treatment plants; Point sources: The type and quantity of waste to be discharged into surface waters are regulated by a licensing system. It is working on a circulation-specific concept for dealing with drugs and other micropollutants. Gradual reduction of the use of micro-plastics in cosmetics in the Netherlands as well as specific purification of waste water from healthcare facilities. Drinking water companies and water boards are investigating ways to eliminate medicines from the water cycle, in addition to researching the effects of sources and the approach to sources. Further elimination of eutrophic / contaminated sludge; Proceeding against the discharge of mixing systems and other uncleaned discharges; Continued decoupling of the paved surface of the canal system; Preparation of a communication protocol

All the Member States and Regions reported KTM to WISE. The following measures were reported to be implemented by all Member States and Regions:

·KTM1 – Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants;

·KTM4 – Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil).

In addition, all the Member States except Luxembourg reported that they are implementing KTM15 – Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances. Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), Germany and France reported applying KTM16 – Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms).

All the Member States except France reported that they are implementing KTM17 – Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off; All the Member States except Belgium (Wallonia) reported that they are implementing KTM21 – Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure. Luxembourg reported applying KTM22 – Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry.

All the Member States and Regions except for Belgium (Wallonia) and the Netherlands reported applying KTM23 – Natural water retention measures. Belgium (Flanders) and Germany reported applying KTM25 – Measures to counteract acidification.

Coordination on addressing hydromorphological alterations

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

One of the transboundary significant water management issues identified in the iRBMP is to re-establish river continuity. The description of the significant water management issue describes two objectives: (1) restoration of river continuity for fish migration and (2) ensuring that hydropower and water protection are in symbiosis. The iRBMP mentions the need for natural transport of sediment in the context of natural river continuity but it does not describe the need for sediment management in the objectives section.

All Member States and Regions in the basin reported addressing river continuity and other hydromorphological pressures to WISE. Germany and the Netherlands also reported sediment management.

All Member States and Regions reported identifying general management objectives regarding river continuity to WISE, which is in line with the information provided in the iRBMP. In addition, all the Member States and Regions with the exception of the Netherlands reported identifying quantitative management objectives regarding river continuity in their national shares of the iRBD.

Measures related to hydromorphological alterations

Within the Masterplan Fish migration, the Member States and Regions in the Meuse coordinate to implement measures to improve hydromorphology of rivers, such as removal of technical infrastructure, constructing fish passes and the installing (protective) rakes (Rechen) at the inlet of hydroelectric power plants to protect migrating fish. They also coordinated on an inventory of the types of migrating fish, their need for habitat and the barriers to migration. In addition, they have coordinated on the restoration and protection of wetlands and reconnecting old reaches of the rivers. The iRBMP also refers to a cooperation programme between the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium (Wallonia) on breeding fish to ensure that salmon numbers are maintained.

The following "joint measures" are included in the Annex:

·Re-establishment and restoration of water bodies, and

·Improving ecological continuity and continuity of power plants.

The national measures to be implemented are as follows:

·Belgium (Flanders): Control program for invasive plants; addressing barriers to migratory fish; Integrated bank management; Restoration of water structure

·Belgium (Wallonia) 99 : Restoration of continuity with tributaries and longitudinal continuity of rivers; Restoration and management of alluvial forests along the rivers; Achieve the objectives in the Natura 2000 areas; Establishment of links between dependent terrestrial ecosystems and groundwater; Enable wetlands to regulate diffuse pollution; Maintaining minimum ecological flows in flowing waters; Hydropower use while preserving aquatic ecosystems

·Germany: Reduction of hydromorphological alterations river restoration measures (e.g. removal of bank construction, re-connection of old arms, introduction of deadwood, etc.); Ecological water maintenance; Improvement of river continuity

·France: Restoration of rivers; Renaturation of watercourses; Improving the ecological continuity of rivers; Land management of wetlands; Restoration of wetlands; Organic farming

·Luxembourg: Reduction of hydraulic and hydrological pressures, stakeholder involvement 100

·Netherlands: Remeandering; Application of side troughs; Construction of fish ladders; Changes to in water level; Connection of wetlands; Creation of special areas for flora, fauna and fish; Implementation of active landscape management; The Maaswerken program creates new nature (Maas 1100 ha, Zandmaas 700 ha)

In addition, Annex 17 provides a table detailing the objectives, the problems and measures to improve river continuity for fish migration. These measures are presented at basin-level. They focus on migration pathways and spawning habitats. Such measures include:

·Restriction of fishing activities;

·Project "de Kier";

·Fish ladders;

·Fish management systems;

·Optimization of reservoir management;

·Optimization of low water management (reservoir management);

·Ecological water development and water restoration;

·Priority sewage disposal / remediation of water sediment with respect to migratory habitat rehabilitation of migratory fish habitat;

·Sediment management (measures to reduce unnatural sediment pollution); and

·Restoration of meanders and erosion sedimentation, ecological water body development.

All Member States and Regions reported implementing KTM5 – Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) and KTM6 – Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity.

1.4.10.Economic analysis and water pricing policies

An economic analysis has been undertaken and is part of the iRBMP. According to the iRBMP, the economic analysis took place within the Member States and Regions, focussing on cost recovery and cost-efficiency of measures and a joint approach was not taken. It states that the Member States and Regions exchanged information on water uses during the update of the Article 5 Characterisation report. The iRBMP provides limited information on the economic analysis.

1.4.11.Considerations specific to Protected Areas

Protected Areas are addressed in the iRBMP. The iRBMP mentions that a Protected Areas inventory was carried by each Member State and Region. The iRBMP does not summarize the national PA inventories. The iRBMP mentions that there is one transboundary Natura 2000 area in the Meuse. This area is management through a bilateral agreement between the two Member States. Within this Protected Area, both Belgium (Flanders) and the Netherlands have undertaken individual flood protection improvements, however, these national activities were coordinated with each other.

1.4.12.Climate Change and droughts

The iRBMP states that the Meuse Commission undertook an inventory on currently running initiatives and activities of the Rhine Commission, the Danube Commission and individual Member States and Regions to obtain an overview on the need for coordination and information exchange regarding climate change and the need for adaptation measures. The iRBMP states that adaptation measures are necessary, and to this end a work programme was developed in December 2014 to increase information exchange on national and international activities on climate change impacts in the RBD and potential future adaptation measures. The Meuse Commission is working on a joint report on water scarcity that will help to develop a first framework for a future approach to dealing with exceptional low water events in the Meuse catchment area.

1.4.13.Recommendations

For the Meuse iRBD, important efforts have been made on international coordination between the Member States on a number of aspects.

The following recommendations can be made to further improve cooperation:

·While bilateral coordination has been carried out for status assessment, the status of a number of water bodies remains different on either side of the border. Efforts should be made to further coordinate and harmonise assessment methods.

·Coordination of river basin specific pollutants and setting of common environmental quality standards should be improved. Few substances are relevant for more than one Member State and the corresponding environmental quality standards do not match in a number of cases.

·The iRBMP should better clarify how chemical monitoring is carried out in the iRBD, taking into account the requirements for WFD compliance in terms of the monitoring frequency.

·The approach for the designation of heavily modified water bodies and the definition of good ecological potential should be further harmonised and clearly outlined in the iRBMP.

·The iRBMP should provide clear information on the measures taken by each Member State, particularly with regard to diffuse sources of pollution.



1.5.Odra River Basin District

1.5.1.General Information

Map 1.5.1     Odra International River Basin District

Source: ICPO 2018

The Odra International River Basin District (iRBD) is shared by the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland. The Odra iRBD is allocated to cooperation Category 1, which means that an international agreement, a permanent co-operation body and international WFD RBMP is in place. The iRBMP can be downloaded on the Odra Commission website 101 .

The table below presents the size of the total catchment area and national shares within the iRBD (km2; %). The table includes information reported to WISE and the information included in the iRBMP 102 . The table shows that the information in the iRBMP and WISE slightly differ.

Table 1.5.1     Member State share of the iRBD

Name of the International River Basin District

Total Area - (km2)

EU Member States in iRBD

EU RBD Code

National Area within iRBD – (km2)

National Area within iRBD - (%)

Odra

124,115

Czech Republic

CZ6000

7,240

5.36

Germany

DE6000

9,705

7.16

Poland

PL6000

107,170

87.48

Source: iRBMP

1.5.2.Governance and public participation

Cooperation framework: International, bilateral and/or multilateral agreements in place covering certain cooperation aspects

The International Commission for the Protection of the Odra River (ICPO) was established on the basis of a Convention, which entered into force in 1999 prior to the entry into force of the WFD. Following the adoption of the WFD, the Odra Commission added additional key objectives and tasks to the mandates of their Working Groups, namely: 1) provide for precautions against the risk of flood damage and achieve a sustained reduction thereof; 2) coordinate the implementation of the WFD in the Odra river basin and 3) coordinate implementation of the Flood Directive in the Odra river basin. The Odra Commission has a number of work groups/experts groups that aid in the implementation of the WFD, namely: Steering Group WFD (G1), Working Group Accidental pollution (G3), Working Group Data management (G5), Sub-working Group Monitoring (GM) and Sub-working Group Planning in Management of Waters/RBMP (GP)). Mandates of ICPO working groups G2 and G4 do not contain tasks connected to the implementation strategy of WFD in Odra iRBD. The groups have regular meetings, the frequency of which differs from annually to several times per year.

Prior to the entry into force of the Odra Convention, bilateral agreements between the Odra countries were in place. The main agreement governing river basin management in the basin now is the Odra Convention.

The following bilateral agreements are in place:

·Agreement of 19 May 1992 between the Republic of Poland and the Federal Republic of Germany on cooperation in the scope of transboundary water management (Dz. U. of 1997, No. 11)

·Agreement of 21 March 1958 between the Government of the Polish Peoples Republic and the Czechoslovak Republic on transboundary water management, which was replaced by the agreement of 5 October 2015 between the Government of the Polish Republic and Czech Republic

·Agreement of 12 December 1995 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Czech Republic on cooperation in the scope of transboundary water management (BGBl. 1997 Teil II)

Joint activities within the iRBD

Development of an iRBMP and link to national RBMPs

The development of the iRBMP has mainly influenced the development of the national programme of measures through the commonly identified water management issues. In 2013 the Odra Commision developed a Strategy to define and address common significant water management issues in the basin. The focus of the Strategy was on transboundary issues, namely morphological changes to surface water bodies and maintenance and restoration of river continuity; water abstraction and canalisation; and significant pollutants input including nutrients. The Strategy contains approaches for the cooperation of these issues, as well as proposes measures for the PoM. The iRBMP states that the content of the Strategy contributed to the update of the identification of water management issues at national level as well as the update of the RBMPs.

Areas of joint cooperation

Within the auspices of the Odra Commission, the Member States in the Odra have cooperated on the development and public consultation of the international RBMP, namely through a common public participation on the international plan, including consultation with stakeholders and financial resources for joint cooperation.

Sectors and observers involved within the development of the iRBMP

The iRBMP states that each of the Member States in the iRBD undertook measures to ensure active participation by stakeholders. To this end, national and/or regional working groups were created to enable active participation in the implementation process of the WFD. Interest Groups were also invited to participate. Stakeholders can apply to the Odra Commission as observers following agreed procedures. Four NGOs (BUND, WWF Germany, WWF Poland, Kammerunion Elbe/Odra) are observers to the Commission and mainly participate in the working groups for WFD and FD implementation.

Existence of a transboundary accident warning system

Working group G3 on “Accidental pollution” of the Odra Commission address accidental pollution in the basin and developed measures to protect water bodies from pollution. The accidental pollution plan for the Odra aims to provide an overview of the most important aspects of preventing and addressing accidents to reduce impacts. The plan presents an overview of the main legislation in the Member States, maps of protected areas, potential sources of accidental pollution and recommendations for prevention.

Part of the accidental pollution plan is the international accident warning system plan for the Odra, which details with transboundary accidents. The system is in place to enable the Member States to inform each other of pollution events. The plan includes measures to address accidents through national level measures.

1.5.3.Characterisation of the River Basin District

Coordination of the Article 5 assessment

The Odra Commission published a common Article 5 report in 2005 and it was updated for the second cycle.

Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies

Surface water

The iRBMP state that significant progress regarding international coordination for the common delineation of the border-forming bodies of water (categories and status) has been made in the Odra compared to the first management plan. However, a consistent delineation could not be agreed on for all water bodies. As such, some water bodies will continue to be presented in a cartographically differentiated manner.

To determine whether the delineation of surface water bodies by the Member States has resulted in the same outcome, the Member State reported GIS data for a stretch of river in the Odra basin was assessed. The Map below shows an example where delineation matches between the two Member States.

Map 1.5.2        Assessment if delineation of surface water body has been taken place as indicated in WISE

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The brown line refers to water body DERW_DEBB6-2 delineated by Germany and the grey line refers PLRW60002119199 delineated by Poland. The starting and end points of both delineations match so only the German delineation is visible.

Groundwater

No transboundary groundwater bodies were delineated in the Odra iRBD.

Typology Coordination of surface water bodies

The iRBMP states that within the context of the intercalibration work that was carried out by the Odra Commission, typology differences were discussed but differences in typology among the Member States still remain. The iRBMP does not state whether the Member States used System A or System B for typology classification.

Coordination in the Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies

The iRBMP presents a summary for each individual Member States describing the approach taken to establish reference conditions. A comparison of the data reported to WISE shows that the ICPO Member States used partially different quality elements for defining reference conditions for the same surface water type (according to intercalibration classes). There are overlaps in the quality elements used, but the iRBMP does not mention whether there was a coordination among the Member States on this issue 103 .

Coordination on Significant Water Management Issues

Joint significant water management issues of transboundary importance for the Odra River Basin have been identified, namely:

·Morphological alterations to surface water bodies, and

·Water pollution of surface water bodies

However, in the background document from 2013 "Strategy to joint address common significant water management issues in the Odra” water abstraction and canalization was mentioned as significant water management issue. This water management issue is not mentioned in the second iRBMP, as the strategy concludes that the issue of water abstraction and canalisation is only a significant water management issue in some areas of regional importance in the international Odra River Basin.

1.5.4.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status

Monitoring of ecological status/potential

Joint monitoring programmes for surface waters and application of joint methods/joint surveys and interlaboratory tests

According to the iRBMP, the national methodologies of the Member States in the iRBD Odra for ecological water monitoring are not uniformly designed so that they can better consider the respective natural conditions, the different forms of water pollution, as well as specific techniques of data acquisition and analysis.

The iRBMP states that surveillance and operational monitoring was carried out. It presents two separate tables showing the number of surveillance and operational monitoring sites per sub-catchment of the Odra. How many of these sites are relevant for international monitoring is not stated 104 .

Sensitive Quality elements (excluding river basin specific pollutants)

According to the WFD and as explained in the CIS guidance on monitoring 105 , for operational monitoring, Member States are required to monitor for those biological and hydromorphological quality elements most sensitive to the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. .

According to the iRBMP, in the Polish share of the Odra benthic invertebrates are used to assess ecological status. The biological quality element is the greatest reason why a surface water body was classified as less than good. Phytobenthos is also mentioned. The situation is similar in the Czech Republic, where benthic invertebrates is the biological quality element leading most often to a classification of less than good. Information on sensitive biological quality elements in Germany is only presented for coastal waters (Stettiner Haffs) in the iRBMP. The main source for less than good status is phytoplankton, followed by macrophytes and benthic invertebrates. The iRBMP does not mention which biological quality elements are used for assessing status for lakes and rivers in Germany.

Member States were requested to report to WISE which biological quality elements they considered to be sensitive for a given pressure. The table below differentiates four biological quality elements, nine different pressures and four different water categories.

An important assessment parameter is whether there is a minimum agreement between the Member States sharing a border with each other on the sensitivity of biological quality elements. Such an agreement would be expressed by the fact that there is at least one biological quality element that is considered to be sensitive (for each pressure) in the border-sharing Member States. Such a quality element can then be used as the least common denominator for comparable assessments of ecological status, provided that the intercalibration has been successful.

For rivers, the table below lists sensitive quality elements for each pressure. There is a full agreement between all three riparian countries on sensitive quality elements for nutrients (other aquatic flora; both sub-elements Macrophytes and Phytobenthos), organic pollution (benthic invertebrates) and morphological pressures (benthic invertebrates and fish). For chemical, temperature and hydrological pressures there is no consensus for at least one biological quality element.



Table 1.5.2     Sensitivity of biological quality elements towards different pressure types for river water bodies

Member State

Phy-toplankton

Other aquatic flora

Macrophytes

Phy-tobenthos

Benthic invertebrates

Fish

Assessment method mainly sensitive to nutrient pollution

Czech Republic

yes

yes

yes

Germany

yes

yes

yes

yes

Poland

yes

yes

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to organic pollution

Czech Republic

yes

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Poland

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to chemical pollution

Czech Republic

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Poland

Assessment method mainly sensitive to elevated temperature

Czech Republic

Germany

yes

yes

Poland

Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to hydrological changes

Czech Republic

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Poland

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to morphological changes

Czech Republic

yes

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Poland

yes

yes

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Coordination of River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSPs) and matrices monitored

There are three Member States in the Odra iRBD. Table 1.5.3 shows that three pollutants have an environmental quality standard in all riparian countries. 36 environmental quality standards can be compared between in two riparian countries, 22 out of these 36 are between Czech Republic and Germany. This means that there are few specific pollutants with quality standards set at the same geographical scale that are comparable in the iRBD.



Table 1.5.3     Summary of the assessment of selected and relevant river basin specific pollutants for the Odra basin

Number of Member States

Number of river basin specific pollutants with an environmental quality standard

River basin specific pollutant scale

National 106

All 107

1

91

91

2

36

36

3

3

3

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

River basin specific pollutants are only useful and supportive for the assessment of ecological status if an environmental quality standard has been adopted and the pollutants are monitored. The information the Member States and Regions reported to WISE was assessed using the following reporting elements:

1)RBSPvalue: If a value is provided in WISE criterion “EQS-yes” is fulfilled

2)chemicalLastMonitored: If a value>=2010 is provided in WISE the criterion “Monitored: yes” is fulfilled

For each river basin specific pollutants, the criteria mentioned above were evaluated according to the scheme given in table below. A filter is applied, considering the following schema elements: a) chemicalSubstanceCode, b) chemicalMatrix c) chemicalPurpose, d) rbspCategoryRW.

Table 1.5.4 shows how many river basin specific pollutants can be used for the assessment of ecological status. The number of pollutants that can be integrated into the assessment of ecological status ranges between 21 for Poland and 71 for Germany.


Table 1.5.4     Synthesis of environmental quality standards and sampling of river basin specific pollutants with pre-defined codes in the WISE reporting 108

Member State

Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: yes

Monitored: no Environmental quality standard: yes

Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: no

Substances (number and percentage) that can be used for the assessment of the ecological status

Czech Republic

66

71

21

66 / 73 %

Germany

71

6

58

71 / 55 %

Poland

21

3

24

21 / 47 %

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Environmental quality standards for river basin specific pollutants

A comparison between environmental quality standards is given in the figure below.

There is limited agreement between the Member States. There are no substances with the same environmental quality standard in all three Member States. There are eight (out of 39) pollutants with the same environmental quality standard but this standard is shared between Germany and Czech Republic. For most of the substances, the environmental quality standards differ by one order of magnitude or more. This makes it difficult to compare status between the all the Member States sharing the iRBD. The different standards used may also partly explain why some Member State identify certain substances as river basin specific pollutants while other Member States do not.

Figure 1.5.1     Ratio between the minimum and the maximum environmental quality standard for river basin specific pollutants in the Odra iRBD 109

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Status Classification

Use of monitoring results for classification – transboundary harmonization

The results of the classification of surface water bodies sharing or cross the border were brought together and harmonised. A number of measures were taken in the iRBD to achieve comparable valuation results:

·Description of all methods used in the iRBD Odra for assessing the ecological status, including derivation of the references and the respective class boundaries;

·Conducted a two-day workshop on individual biological quality components. Here, the national procedures with regard to the investigation technique (field survey), the taxonomic work-up as well as the calculation procedure were explained in more detail; and

·Tabulation of the basic characteristics and results of the ecological and chemical assessment of transboundary and border-forming bodies of water in the iRBD Odra;

The chapter on assessment of transboundary water bodies indicates that 33 border water bodies, of which 30 rivers, two lakes and one coastal or transitional waters, were identified in the iRBD. 15 water bodies were assigned the same ecological status / potential, 15 water bodies differed in the assessment by one class, two water bodies by two classes.

Intercalibration exercise and Geographical Intercalibration Group (GIG)

According to the iRBMP, the Odra belongs to the following GIGs: Baltic Sea, Central Europe / Baltic and Eastern Europe. The national class boundaries of good ecological status are compared in the GIGs in complex procedures and adjusted as necessary.

1.5.5.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status

Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters

Joint monitoring programme for surface waters and application of joint methods/joint surveys and interlaboratory tests

The iRBMP states that monitoring is carried out by the individual Member States.

Coordination of monitoring and assessment of chemical status

The iRBMP states that monitoring and status classification is carried out at national level but that in general a coordination to harmonise the national approaches has taken place. For the first management plan, chemical status was assessed using the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for priority and priority hazardous substances in accordance with the Directive 2008/105 / EC on Environmental Quality Standards (UQN. The adoption of the new Directive on EQS has changed the number of priority substances and, in some cases, changes have been made to the relevant environmental quality standards and assessment methods. To update the management plan, the chemical status of Germany and the Czech Republic was assessed in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2013/39 / EU.

The chapter on establishing an inventory of substances in line with the EQS Directive states that since the definition of "relevant" varies among the Member States in the Odra, it was agreed that for the selection and identification of relevant substances in iRBD, data and information collected under the monitoring programs and the results of the chemical assessment of surface water bodies for the period 2010 to 2012 would be used. In some cases, data on the use of pesticides and on emissions from point sources of pollutants collected under the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) was considered. The result of the identification of the relevant priority substances and of the pollutants in the Odra is presented in the Plan.

An important aspect for chemical status assessment is whether the water samples have been taken with the frequency recommended as a general rule in the WFD 110 . Monthly samples should be analysed for WFD compliant assessment of chemical status at a given site. Other frequencies need a justification based on expert judgement or technical knowledge. Table 1.5.5 and Table 1.5.6 show that almost all Priority substances have been analysed in all three riparian countries. The total number of samples and the share of samples (reported to WISE) that can be used for WFD compliant assessment of chemical status are similar in the three countries. All these figures indicate that the assessment of chemical status yields comparable results.

Table 1.5.5     Percentage of Priority Substance samples (matrix water) that have been taken with the frequency recommended in the WFD (monthly samples)

Member State

Percentage of Priority Substance samples with a frequency >12/year

Czech Republic

50 % (out of 15 700 samples)

Germany

66 % (out of 17 300 samples)

Poland

59 % (out of 16 100 samples)

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The total number of samples (see table below) was calculated by combining the information of the WISE reporting elements “chemicalfrequency” and “chemicalCycle”, as also illustrated in the reporting guidance under chapter 4.3.5.

Table 1.5.6     Total Number of analysed samples for each Priority Substance and each national iRBD share for the period 2010-15 111

Number of samples for Priority substances (period 2010-2015)

Czech Republic

Germany

Poland

CAS_104-40-5 - 4-nonylphenol

174

12

339

CAS_107-06-2 - 1,2-Dichloroethane

432

391

506.5

CAS_115-29-7 - Endosulfan

120

498

382.5

CAS_117-81-7 - Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)

342

498

339

CAS_118-74-1 - Hexachlorobenzene

466

603

384.5

CAS_12002-48-1 - Trichlorobenzenes (all isomers)

490

319

528.5

CAS_120-12-7 - Anthracene

492

515

339

CAS_122-34-9 - Simazine

466

499

339

CAS_127-18-4 - Tetrachloroethylene

462

399

528.4

CAS_140-66-9 - Octylphenol (4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol)

396

498

339

CAS_1582-09-8 - Trifluralin

466

426

339

CAS_15972-60-8 - Alachlor

466

498

339

CAS_1912-24-9 - Atrazine

466

499

339

CAS_206-44-0 - Fluoranthene

498

619

382.5

CAS_2921-88-2 - Chlorpyrifos

234

426

339

CAS_330-54-1 - Diuron

294

458

339

CAS_34123-59-6 - Isoproturon

312

458

405

CAS_36643-28-4 - Tributyltin-cation

72

407

363

CAS_470-90-6 - Chlorfenvinphos

398

426

339

CAS_50-29-3 - DDT, p,p'

430

603

405

CAS_50-32-8 - Benzo(a)pyrene

498

619

598.9

CAS_56-23-5 - Carbon tetrachloride

402

392

494

CAS_608-73-1 - Hexachlorocyclohexane

460

425

479

CAS_608-93-5 - Pentachlorobenzene

460

499

339

CAS_67-66-3 - Trichloromethane

522

392

536.5

CAS_71-43-2 - Benzene

522

392

528.5

CAS_7439-92-1 - Lead and its compounds

546

600.2

600.2

CAS_7439-97-6 - Mercury and its compounds

495

111.2

585.1

CAS_7440-02-0 - Nickel and its compounds

612

598.2

601.7

CAS_7440-43-9 - Cadmium and its compounds

510

600.2

675.2

CAS_75-09-2 - Dichloromethane

462

392

339

CAS_79-01-6 - Trichloroethylene

462

399

485.4

CAS_85535-84-8 - Chloroalkanes C10-13

60

138

339

CAS_87-68-3 - Hexachlorobutadiene

466

603

365

CAS_87-86-5 - Pentachlorophenol

396

221

341

CAS_91-20-3 - Naphthalene

522

515

339

EEA_32-02-0 - Total cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin + dieldrin + endrin + isodrin)

382

425

EEA_32-03-1 - Total DDT (DDT, p,p' + DDT, o,p' + DDE, p,p' + DDD, p,p')

400

529

487.1

EEA_32-04-2 - Brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154)

413

339

EEA_32-23-5 - Total Benzo(b)fluor-anthene (CAS_205-99-2) + Benzo(k)fluor-anthene (CAS_207-08-9)

EEA_32-24-6 - Total Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene (CAS_191-24-2) + Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene (CAS_193-39-5)

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Transboundary harmonisation of monitoring and assessment

The iRBMP states that results of the classification of surface water bodies sharing or crossing the border were brought together and harmonised. To achieve comparable valuation results, an exercise was carried out that tabulated the basic characteristics and results of the chemical assessment of transboundary and border-forming bodies of water in the iRBD Odra.

1.5.6.Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential

Cooperation and joint activities regarding heavily modified water body designation

According to the iRBMP, significant progress has been made compared to the first management plan with regard to the location and designation of water bodies as heavily modified and the assessment of status. However, due to the differences in methodologies, the iRBMP indicates that a common delineation and/or designation could not be achieved for all transboundary water bodies and the remaining differences appear in the maps for the iRBD.

This information can be confirmed by the assessment of the GIS data reported to WISE by the Member States. Map Map 1.5.2 shows a stretch of river that was designated as heavily modified by Poland but as a natural water body by Germany.

Cooperation and Joint methods and approaches for the determination of Good Ecological Potential

According to the iRBMP, each ICPO Member State has its own methodologies for determining good ecological potential but that the approaches were coordinated through a two-day workshop to minimize differences.

Member States were requested to report to WISE on their approach for defining good ecological potential. Poland reported that the approach used for the definition of good ecological potential followed the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance approach. The Czech Republic reporting using the CIS Guidance Approach, while Germany reported using a Hybrid CIS/Prague Approach. Germany and the Czech Republic both use fish and benthic invertebrates; the Czech Republic also uses Phytoplankton and Macrophytes. Both Member States offer similar mitigation measures.

1.5.7.Environmental Objectives and Exemptions

Exemptions have been applied at national level and there is no joint methodology in the iRBD. The iRBMP indicates that Art. 4 (4) has been applied in 73 % of the rivers in the iRBD and 79 % of the lakes. Art 4(5) has been applied in Poland (1 % of rivers) and the Czech Republic (53 % of rivers and 5 % of lakes); it has not been applied in Germany. Art. 4 (7) has not been applied in the iRBD.

All three Member States reported to WISE that exemptions have not been coordinated for surface water bodies.

1.5.8.Programme of Measures

Following the decision of the Odra Commission Heads of Delegation and the WFD Steering Group in 2011-2012, sub-working groups developed appropriate strategies for the joint resolution of the key water management issues in the Odra. These strategies identified the problem areas in the Odra in preparation for the establishment of the second RBMP for the 2015-2021 period. The strategies include a common approach to addressing issues as well as proposals under the programs of measures. The result of this work is the 2013 background document on the Strategy to address common water management issues detailing joint measures. This information informed the development of national PoMs. Furthermore, the iRBMP has a dedicated sub-chapter on the measures the Member States will carry out to address the transboundary significant water management issues.

One joint measure (since 2009) was described in the iRBMP. A joint study "Modelling of nutrient emissions for the International Odra River Basin District from point discharges and various diffuse sources for historical, current and future nutrient emissions" was undertaken and finalized in 2014. In addition, the 2013 Strategy mentions a long-term cooperation between Germany and Poland (since the 1990s but still ongoing) on protection of sturgeon in the Odra basin.

All joint significant water management issues have been addressed by measures in the strategy document. All pressures have been addressed, including water abstraction and canalisation, despite this joint significant water management issue not being described in the iRBMP.

The measures the Member States will undertake to address the joint significant water management issues in the ICPO strategy paper will be addressed at national level. It is not foreseen that measures will be implemented through international mechanisms. The Odra Commission discussed in its working groups which measures to prioritise in the basin, and the measures presented in the iRBMP at national level for each Member State is consistent with the Strategy.

Coordination on addressing pollution from agriculture and other sectors

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

Nutrient pollution from agriculture and pollutants from other sectors are addressed in the iRBMP. The iRBMP defines water pollution as one of the main management objectives identified at international level. The transboundary management objective identified in the iRBMP is "Significant pollution of surface waters through inputs". Within this objective, the aim is to:

·Reduce nutrient and pollutant loading of surface waters, as well as in the transitional and coastal waters of the Szczecin Lagoon through appropriate measures to achieve the environmental objectives; and

·Identify reduction targets, considering the requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and measures for the future reduction of nutrient inputs considering the outcomes of the Odra Commission’s Modelling project.

·The information in the chapter does not specify further the objectives in terms of which sectors are targeted; as such, it has been assumed that these management objectives address pollution from all sectors.

The iRBMP does provide information regarding quantitative management objectives within the Odra, either at national or international level.

The 2013 Strategy highlights that measures will be taken at national level but also describes common measures to take. These measures include support measures and technical measures in the agriculture sector.

Measures to address pollution from agriculture

The 2013 strategy document summarises and combines national measures into a so-called “Catalogue”. It is clearly indicated that the national measures are not always harmonized for the international level. It is highlighted that more details are found in the respective national plans. Joint measures are mentioned in the iRBMP but are not described in detail.

The 2013 Strategy defines measures to be taken at two "levels": 1) Monitoring and Planning level and 2) Implementation level. Relevant measures for the agriculture sector include:

Common Monitoring and Planning level

·Strategy for nutrient pollution: Standardization of methodological procedures for identification and quantification of diffuse pollution sources; Conduct modelling of quantification and localization of Nitrogen and phosphorus inputs into surface waters including their transport in the water network. This activity is being addressed in the project "Modelling of nutrient inputs from point to point and various diffuse sources for the International River Basin District Odra for historical, current and future nutrient emissions" using MONERIS.

·Assessment of transboundary water bodies

·Common public consultation to increase acceptance of measures

·Implementation level

·Enforcement of good agricultural practice also outside the nutrient vulnerable zones in the International iRBD, in accordance with Directive 91/676 / EC;

·Minimization of nutrient surpluses when fertilizing agricultural land, including establishing binding rules and their control for fertilization on slopes and in the vicinity of surface water bodies;

·Implement measures to reduce soil erosion and nitrate leaching into surface waters and groundwater; and

·Minimization of water erosion in the catchment area, in particular on agricultural land, by means of biotechnical and organizational erosion-reducing measures.

The Odra Commission discussed in its working groups which measures to prioritise in the basin, and the measures presented in the iRBMP at national level for each Member State is consistent with the Strategy.

In order to enable a comparable grouping of measures in the national and international programme of measures, the European Commission introduced the concept of KTMs in 2012 to simplify reporting 112 . KTMs are groups of measures identified by Member States in the PoMs which target the same pressure or purpose. The individual measures included in the PoM (being part of the RBMP) are grouped into KTMs for the purpose of reporting. The same individual measure can be part of more than one KTM because it may be multipurpose.

All Member States reported applying KTM2 – Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture and KTM 3 - Reduce Pesticides pollution from Agriculture. In addition, Germany reported applying KTM12 - Advisory Services

Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture

Relevant measures to address pollution from other sources than agriculture include:

·Increasing the capacity and efficiency of existing wastewater treatment plants.

·Increase in the number of inhabitants connected to the sewage system.

·Expansion of sewage networks and new sewage treatment plants to achieve at least European standards.

·Long-term successive increase in the effectiveness of phosphorus and nitrogen elimination to the level of the best available technology.

·Supporting the development of biological treatment infrastructure for wastewater treatment in small settlements <2000 persons.

·Proposals for applying the best available technologies for the treatment of industrial wastewater.

·Preventing or reducing the consequences of accidental pollution of waters, even in the case of floods and especially droughts.

·Targeted reduction of priority substances and successively eliminate emissions, discharges or losses into surface waters and the groundwater.

·Support measures to reduce the impact mining has on water status.

·Introduce procedures for eliminating pollution of surface waters through intensive and semi-intensive fish farming on the condition that their sustainable development is ensured.

·Restriction of the use of selected substances (for example phosphorus in detergents and dishwashing detergents).

All ICPO Member States reported KTMs to WISE. The table below shows which KTMs reported by each Member State or Region.

All Member States reported to WISE that they are implementing the following KTMs:

·KTM1 – Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants;

·KTM4 – Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil);

·KTM15 – Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances;

·KTM21 – Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure.

In addition, Germany and the Czech Republic reporting applying:

·KTM16 – Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms)

·KTM17 – Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off; and

·KTM23 – Natural water retention measures.

Germany and Poland also reported applying KTM25 – Measures to counteract acidification.

Coordination on addressing hydromorphological alterations Measures related to hydromorphological alterations

Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives

River continuity and other hydromorphological issues are addressed in the iRBMP. Sediment management is not addressed. In the iRBMP, under the identified water management issue "morphological alterations to surface waterbodies", the following joint objectives were set for the iRBD:

·Developing requirements for the restoration of linear continuity and the creation of natural aquatic structures for aquatic organisms in the Odra and suitable tributaries;

·Restoration of adequate habitats with suitable spawning grounds and nursery areas for fish and round mouths in the Odra and suitable tributaries;

·Coordinated and compatible water management development and maintenance of the water management objectives; and

·Development and maintenance of the waterways, considering the management objectives.

Quantitative targets for river continuity are not described in the iRBMP. The iRBMP did not indicate the number of fish/continuity passes required to achieve the environmental objectives. The Czech Republic and Germany both reported to WISE that they identified general management objectives regarding river continuity. The Czech Republic reported to WISE that it established quantitative targets for river continuity.

Measures to address hydromorphological alterations

The 2013 Strategy details the problem analysis of river continuity issues within each Member State, focussing however on the three main transboundary rivers within the basin. The Strategy follows with an analysis of the necessary measures for re-establishing river continuity through the national programmes within each Member State, followed by a prioritisation of locations and measures. For the international level rivers that act as migration corridors are especially prioritized. A strategy was developed based on a previous Polish study, the methodology of which has been applied for the whole basin. The iRBMP itself provides limited information regarding international cooperation on river continuity and other hydromorphological measures.

The joint Strategy helped to define priority locations for measures to restore river continuity. How this was taken up at national level is not clear as the iRBMP refers to the national plans for the implementation of measures.

The 2013 strategy document includes a list of measures to address hydromorphological pressures. National measures presented in the iRBMP point to measures like:

·Measures to ensure minimum ecological flow

·Shortening reservoirs

·Measures to restore natural water flows

·Measures to promote natural retention, for example relocation of dikes and dams

·Measures to improve the hydrology of lakes

·Measures to reduce the impact of coastal infrastructure

·Measures to re-establish river continuity on water bodies with dam infrastructure

·Measures to initiate natural water development

·Measures to improve the structure of surface waters

·Measures to improve the morphology of lakes

·Measures to reduce the impact of structures for navigation

·Measures to reduce other hydromorphological pressures

All Member States reported to WISE that they are implementing KTM5 – Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) and KTM6 – Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity KTMs.

The Strategy does not present joint measures to address river continuity.

1.5.9.Economic analysis and water pricing policies

An economic analysis in the Odra was first undertaken by the Odra Commission in 2005 for the River Basin Districts Analysis (Art.5 Report). In frame of the ICPO, the sub-working Group “Economic Analysis” within the Working Group WFD G1 was responsible for coordinating the exchange of data and information pertaining to economic issues within the area of water management in the International Odra Basin for the first management cycle. At the end of 2012, the Odra Commission decided to close this sub-working Group. When developing the second iRBMP, this task was assigned to the experts within the Working Group WFD G1.

The economic analysis chapter covers the following subjects:

·Economic significance of water uses;

·Development forecast for water uses by 2021;

·Cost recovery of water services, including environmental and resource costs;

·Assessment of the most cost-effective measure selection; and

·Economic justifications for exemptions.

The iRBMP states that details of the economic analysis can be found in the national plans.

The chapter on water uses focuses on those relevant in the international context: water abstraction for public drinking water and sewage systems; water abstraction from industry; water abstraction from agriculture; power stations; flood protection; and navigation.

The information is presented in tables indicating the information for each Member State. Industrial water use for mining is presented according to basin region, whereas water use for power stations and navigation is presented according to Member State. Cost recovery information focuses on public supply and also covers industry and agriculture. Information regarding cost-effectiveness analysis of measures indicates that this was not done in a separate process but that such issues are integrated within measure selection in general within each Member State. As there are no joint measures being carried out in the basin, a joint cost-effectiveness analysis was not carried out.

1.5.10.Considerations specific to Protected Areas

The iRBMP presents an overview of the Protected Areas in the iRBD. Details regarding the definitions of the types of Protected Areas in the inventory can be found in the national plan. The iRBMP provides a table of the Protected Areas in the Odra for each Member State.

1.5.11.Climate Change and droughts

The iRBMP has a specific chapter dedicated to climate change. Therein, it states that climate change is not a significant issue for the current cycle and hence no measures to address climate change have been developed. The plan mentions that actions will likely need to be included in the next management cycle.

1.5.12.Recommendations

For the Odra iRBD, important efforts have been made on international coordination between the Member States on a number of aspects.

The following recommendations can be made to further improve cooperation:

·The iRBMP should better outline how typology was coordinated.

·The Member States should consider setting up joint monitoring for transboundary water bodies.

·The common understanding on sensitive biological quality elements in relation to different pressures should be improved.

·River basin specific pollutants and comparable environmental quality standards should be coordinated.

·The approach for the designation of heavily modified water bodies and defining good ecological potential should be further harmonised.

·More detailed quantitative information on measures should be provided in the iRBMP in order to impove transparency in terms of the actions taken to achieve the WFD objectives.

·A joint methodology for setting exemptions on transboundary water bodies should be developed.

·

1.6.Rhine River Basin District

1.6.1.General Information

Map 1.6.1     Rhine International River Basin District

Source: WISE reporting 2016

The Rhine International River Basin District (iRBD) is shared by Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland. France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Switzerland, together with the European Union, are Contracting Parties to the Convention on the Protection of the Rhine. The Convention is the legal basis for the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR). To expand international coordination in the basin to cover all iRBD sharing countries, a Coordinating Committee was established that also includes Austria, Liechtenstein, Belgium (Wallonia) and Italy. The Coordinating Committee is tasked with the implementation of the WFD in the Rhine. The International River Basin District Management Plan for the Rhine (iRBMP) was elaborated in the frame of the Coordinating Committee.

The Rhine iRBD is allocated to cooperation Category 1, which means that an international agreement, a permanent co-operation body and an international WFD RBMP is in place. The international RBMP for the Rhine was published in December 2015. The iRBMP can be downloaded on the Rhine Commission website 113 and on the national pages from Germany 114 , the Netherlands 115 , Luxembourg 116 and Belgium (Wallonia) 117 .

Although geographically Italy is part of the iRBD, in practice and due to the small share in the catchment, it does not participate in the work of the Coordinating Committee Rhine. Italy assigned its share of the Rhine basin to the ITB Po River Basin District and designated it as a Category 2 basin. Italy reported to WISE information for the entire Po River Basin District and not just the share of its national district within the Rhine. As the information Italy reported to WISE is not Rhine specific, it was not included in this report.

The table below presents the size of the total catchment area and national shares within the iRBD (km2; %). The table includes information reported to WISE and the information included in the iRBMP.

Table 1.6.1     Member State share of the iRBD

Name of the International River Basin District

Total Area - (km2)

EU Member States

EU RBD Code

National Area within iRBD - (km2)

National Area within iRBD - (% of iRBD)

Rhine

197,270

Austria

AT2000 

2,370

1.2

Belgium

(Wallonia)

 BERHIN_RW

800

.4

France

 FRC

23,830

12.1

Germany

DE2000

105,420

53.4

Italy

ITB

100

.1

Liechtenstein

LI-1

200

.1

Luxembourg

LU000

2,520

1.3

Netherlands

NLRN

34,100

17.3

Switzerland

27,930

14.2

Source: iRBMP

1.6.2.Governance and public participation

Cooperation framework: International, bilateral and/or multilateral agreements in place covering certain cooperation aspects

The Convention on the Protection of the Rhine is the main international agreement governing the Rhine River Basin. Before the Rhine Convention, which was signed in 1999, the Treaty of Bern (1963) was in place as cooperation basis in the Rhine River Basin. The ICPR is the governing body addressing water management in the basin.

The Commission predates the signing of the WFD and FD. In order to coordinate implementation of EU directives in the international Rhine catchment, a common working platform, the Coordinating Committee Rhine was created within the Commission, integrating states in the Rhine catchment (Liechtenstein, Austria and Belgium (Wallonia)) which are not contracting parties to the Commission. In January 2001, the ministers in charge of the Rhine adopted the programme “Rhine 2020“, the “Programme on the Sustainable Development of the Rhine”. Among others, the programme “Rhine 2020” supports the implementation of the EU-WFD and embraces the Action Plan on Floods. Switzerland is not bound by the WFD but does support EU Member States in their coordination and harmonisation work within the framework of conventions under international law and national Swiss law. Under the framework of the Rhine Commission, three Working Groups are in place under which several Expert Groups are operative.

In addition, there are multiple bilateral/multilateral agreements in place besides the overall international agreement.

Joint activities within the iRBD

Development of an iRBMP and link to national RBMPs

As in 2009, the iRBMP for (Part A) was drafted jointly by the representatives of all states concerned within the Rhine Commission and the Coordination Committee in charge of implementing the WFD. With respect to surface water bodies, the document again focusses on the main stream of the Rhine and major tributaries, such as Neckar, Main, and Moselle with catchment areas above 2,500 km². For some of the surface waters (e.g. Moselle) reference is made to sub-catchment transboundary management plans or to the national management plans (parts B).

Areas of joint cooperation

According to the iRBMP, consultation at international level consisted of making the international documents available on the Rhine Commission’s website and communicating them to the observers in the Rhine Commission (see 1.2.3) and the general public. A reaction was formulated on the received statements and published on the Rhine Commission’s website 118 . Further public consultation outreach was done at the national level.

Sectors and observers involved within the development of the iRBMP

In the Rhine there are three types of observers:

·States which are interested in the Commission’s work. Belgium, Liechtenstein and Austria have an observer status to the ICPR and enjoy the same rights in the Rhine Coordination Committee as the parties to the ICPR convention.

·Intergovernmental organisations whose work is related to the Convention. These include for the development of the iRBMP the International Commissions for the Protection of the Moselle and the Saar, the International Water Protection Commission for Lake Constance, the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine and the International Commission for the Meuse.

·NGOs, as far as their areas of interest or tasks are concerned 119 .

The NGO sectors involved in the development of the iRBMP include industry, hydropower, navigation, public and private water service providers, research, flooding, environmental NGOs and a sportfishing organisation.

Existence of a transboundary accident warning system

In 1986, the Rhine Commission introduced a Warning and Alarm Plan to avert danger due to water pollution and to detect and prosecute the originators of pollution incidents (discharges, accidents in industry or navigation).

Seven international main warning centres collect and distribute reports. When assessing an alarm, the international main warning centres and the competent authorities have a flow time model, a set of guidance values for “alarm-relevant” concentrations and loads, lists of experts, substance data banks and further means at their disposal. Within the Rhine Plan, the reports are shared on upstream (search reports) and downstream (information or warning) with standardised forms in three languages (German, French, Dutch).

The International Main Alert Centres issue warnings beyond the information reports in cases of water pollution incidents if the amounts or concentrations concerned may detrimentally impact the water quality of the Rhine or drinking water supply along the Rhine and/or are liable to raise great public interest. In general, during the period under review, there was about one warning per year. Some sub-basins in the Rhine river basin district (e.g. the International Commissions for the Protection of Moselle and Saar) have their own warning and alarm plans in place which are detailed in the national and/or international reports.

1.6.3.Characterisation of the River Basin District

Coordination of the Article 5 assessment

The Member States in the Rhine coordinated in 2004 for the Art. 5 assessment report. This report was updated and its results were integrated into the second river basin management cycle.

Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies

Surface water

The iRBMP includes a map of surface water bodies in the Rhine. The methodology for surface water body delineation is not described in the 2015 iRBMP; rather, the plan refers to the 2004 Art. 5 report.

The international plan focuses on a specific sub-set of water bodies in the international basin. Common criteria were developed in the first river basin management cycle for the identification of which surface water bodies are of basin-wide importance, namely:

·Rivers were included that are mostly within the Rhine or tributaries with catchment areas >2,500 km2;

·Lake Constance and IJssel; and

·Transitional and coastal water in the lower part of the Delta Rhine.

Delineation of surface water bodies followed the criteria from the CIS guidance document “Identification of water bodies”. The 2004 report mentions that the criteria were evaluated and weighted differently within the Member States, which has led to differences in the number and size of surface water bodies delineated at national level.

During the assessment of the iRBMP, the GIS data reported to WISE by the Member States was analysed to determine whether the national approaches for the delineation of surface water bodies resulted in a comparable outcome. As shown in the following maps, the national approaches used for delineation have resulted in similar but not the same delineation for rivers in the iRBD.

Map 1.6.2     Comparison of the delineation of a river along the French-German border

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The brown line refers to water body DERW_DEBW_3-O delineated by Germany and the grey line refers FRCR2 delineated by the France. The starting and end points of both delineations match.

Map 1.6.3     Comparison of the delineation of a river along the Luxembourg-German border

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The brown line refers to water body LUII-1-A and LUII-1-Bdelineated by the Luxembourg and the grey line refers DERW_DERP_2620 delineated by Germany (Rhineland-Palatinate). The end points of both delineations match but Luxembourg additionally delineated a tributary.

Map 1.6.4     Comparison of the delineation of a river along the Dutch-German border

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

The grey line refers to water body NL07_0001 delineated by the Netherlands and the brown line refers DERW_DENW279982_20_28 delineated by the Germany. The end points of both delineations show that the Dutch delineation of the water body is longer than the German one 120 .

Groundwater

Groundwater delineation was carried out separately in the Member States using different approaches, which has led to difference in the sizes of the groundwater bodies. However, the 2004 report mentions that the delineation of transboundary water bodies was coordinated between the relevant Member States and indicates that this coordination is apparent in the groundwater body map for the Rhine.

Typology Coordination of surface water bodies

Typology was coordinated in the Rhine (see iRBMP Rhine, map K 4). The Rhine catchment area spreads over five of the System A ecoregions:

·Eco-region 4 (Alps, altitude > 800 m),

·Eco-regions 8 and 9 (western and central high hills, altitude 200 – 800 m) and

·Eco-regions 13 and 14 (western and central lowlands, altitude < 200 m).

Water bodies of basin-wide importance (i.e. those with catchments >2,500 km2) were classified using a common approach developed within the ICPR. For the Rhine main stream, the sectioning of the river into 19 parts was done through a top-down process using abiotic criteria. For each part of the river, so-called “Passports” or files were created, where reference conditions are used as a basis. The typology of the main stream of the Rhine is extensively presented in a separate report which also includes the profiles of the different types of river sections 121 .

For surface water bodies not considered of basin-wide importance, the Member States in the Rhine have chosen System B to describe the types of surface water bodies. The parameters for the comparison of types and possibly their combination into a type were applied in a comparable manner in the Member States, e.g. sub-ecoregions (Austria, France, Germany), dominant sediment substratum (France, Germany, Netherlands) and finally the size of waters (all) on the basis of the obligatory parameters of System A of the WFD (ecoregion, altitude, geology). The different size classes specified by the Member States (size of the catchment area and water body width were used) were then jointly harmonised.

Coordination in the Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies

Type-specific reference conditions were developed at a national level for the different types of water bodies.

Coordination on Significant Water Management Issues

Joint significant water management issues have been identified and coordinated in the Rhine. Unchanged since 2009, the issues are:

·“Restoration” of biological river continuity, increased habitat diversity;

·Reduction of diffuse inputs interfering with surface waters and groundwater (nutrients, pesticides, metals, dangerous substances from historical contamination and others)

·Further reduction of classical pollution of industrial and municipal point sources

·Harmonisation of water uses (navigation, energy production, flood protection, regional land use and others) with environmental objectives.

When addressing the four major management issues, effects of climate change and changes in the discharge regime of the Rhine, including more frequent flood events, longer lasting phases of low water, and rising water temperatures, must be taken into account.

1.6.4.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status

Monitoring of ecological status/potential

A joint biological monitoring programme has been in place in the Rhine since 1990. A surveillance monitoring network to assess ecological status of surface water bodies was established in 2006. The joint monitoring network covers the surface water bodies of basin-wide importance (i.e. Rhine main stream, large tributaries, large lakes, the Delta area and canals important for navigation). During 2012 and 2013, the surveillance monitoring programme was conducted for the second cycle of the WFD. A joint operational monitoring programme is not described in the iRBMP.

Sensitive quality elements monitored (excluding river basin specific pollutants)

According to the WFD and as explained in the CIS guidance on monitoring 122 , for operational monitoring, Member States are required to monitor for those biological and hydromorphological quality elements most sensitive to the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. The iRBMP mentions that a co-ordinated investigation of the biological quality elements was carried out for the main stream of the Rhine. Detailed information is provided for the following biological quality elements:

·Phytoplankton: Not all of the Member States in the Rhine have set ecological objectives for phytoplankton 123 . The joint monitoring programme analysed phytoplankton for the entire stretch of the Rhine main stream, focussing on nutrient pollution pressures. According to the iRBMP, phytoplankton is the most important biological quality element indicating eutrophication in transitional and coastal waters.

·Macrophytes: This element is used to assess nutrient pollution, hydrological and morphological pressures in the iRBD. No reference condition for macrophytes have been described for the Rhine by the time the second iRBMP was published.

·Phytobenthos: This element is used to assess nutrient, saline and acidity pressures in all surface water body types in the iRBD.

·Benthic invertebrates: This element is used to assess nutrients and morphological pressures. The occurrence of invasive species was also included in the analysis of this quality element.

·Fish: This element is used to assess nutrient pollution, chemical pollution, temperature, hydrological and morphological pressures, including river continuity. The status of migratory fish populations was also described in the iRBMP, including data gathered related to the implementation of the ICPR “Masterplan Migratory Fish Rhine” 124 .

Member States reported to WISE which biological quality elements they considered to be sensitive for a given pressure. In WISE the sensitive biological quality elements are listed for each pressure. The table below differentiates biological quality elements, different pressures and different water categories.

An important assessment parameter is whether there is a minimum agreement between the iRBD sharing countries sharing a border with each other on the sensitivity of biological quality elements. Such an agreement would be expressed by the fact that there is at least one biological quality element that is considered to be sensitive (for each pressure) in both Member States. Such a quality element can then be used as the least common denominator for comparable assessments of ecological status, provided that the intercalibration has been successful.

For rivers, the table below lists sensitive quality elements for each pressure. In all the Member States in the iRBD, there is an agreement on sensitive quality elements for nutrients (other aquatic flora, macrophytes and phytobenthos), organic pollution (benthic invertebrates), hydrological (fish) and morphological pressures (benthic invertebrates). In the case of temperature pressures, most of the Member States sharing a border share at least one quality element between them 125 . The Netherlands did not report quality elements for chemical and temperature pressures, Austria did not report quality elements for chemical pressures and France did not report temperature pressures.



Table 1.6.2     Sensitivity of BQEs towards different pressure types for river water bodies

Member State

Phytoplankton

Other aquatic flora

Macrophytes

Phytobenthos

Benthic invertebrates

Fish

Assessment method mainly sensitive to nutrient pollution

Austria

 

yes

yes

 

 

Belgium

 

 Yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

France

yes

Yes

yes

yes

Germany

yes

 Yes

yes

yes

yes

 

Luxembourg

yes

 

yes

yes

yes

yes

Netherlands

 

Yes

yes

yes

 

 

Assessment method mainly sensitive to organic pollution

Austria

yes

Belgium

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

France

yes

yes

yes

yes

Germany

yes

Luxembourg

yes

yes

yes

Netherlands

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to chemical pollution

Austria

Belgium

yes

yes

yes

yes

France

yes

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Luxembourg

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Netherlands

Assessment method mainly sensitive to elevated temperature

Austria

yes

Belgium

yes

yes

yes

yes

France

Germany

yes

yes

Luxembourg

yes

yes

Netherlands

Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to hydrological changes

Austria

yes

yes

Belgium

yes

yes

yes

France

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Luxembourg

Yes

yes

yes

yes

Netherlands

yes

yes

Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to morphological changes

Austria

yes

yes

yes

Belgium

yes

yes

yes

France

yes

yes

Germany

yes

yes

Luxembourg

yes

yes

yes

Netherlands

yes

yes

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Coordination of river basin specific pollutants and matrices monitored

The WFD requires Member States to identify and select river basin specific pollutants and their thresholds at the national, river basin or water body level.

ICPR river basin specific pollutants were first identified in the 1970s and since 1999 the list has been updated every three years. The iRBMP refers to the list of specific pollutants in 2007, 2011 and 2014. The list includes heavy metals, industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Specific pollutants are monitored on a yearly basis at international monitoring sites. According to the iRBMP, for 13 of the 15 substances relevant for the Rhine environmental quality standards have been derived. An environmental quality standard for the substance copper is currently being developed for use in the third management cycle.

As part of the reporting to WISE regarding the assessment of ecological status, Member States were asked to report information regarding river basin specific pollutants at RBD level 126 . For the reporting to WISE, Member States could report pollutants using pre-defined codes from a list set by the European Commission, and they could report pollutants to a category “other”. The “other” category is not uniform among the Member States and therefore the information reported for these pollutants cannot be compared within the iRBD.

The river basin specific pollutants reported by the Member States to WISE were evaluated. The summary of the evaluation concern three essential aspects:

13which substances have been selected for the entire basin or parts of it;

14whether the substances have an environmental quality standard and are monitored; and

15whether the environmental quality standards are the same or in one or another way comparable (in the same range/order of magnitude, for the same matrix).

For environmental quality standards of river basin specific pollutants, different aspects have to be taken into account to make comparisons. They can only be compared for a given substance if the specific pollutant matrix (water, sediment, biota etc), the unit (mg/L, µg/L etc.), the scale at which the standard is applied (national, water body, river basin etc.), the category (rivers, lakes, coastal water, territorial water and transitional water) and the standard (AA-EQS 127 , MAC-EQS 128 ) are comparable. Therefore, there are many different approaches and dimensions for such a comparison.

This assessment covers selected aspects of the topic at the iRBD scale for reasons of practicability. The most important aspects are environmental quality standards for 1) AA-EQS, 2) for the matrix water and 3) setting of the standard at the national level. The relevant results are a quantitative description of the harmonisation and cooperation with respect to river basin specific pollutants.

A summary for the number of established environmental quality standards is given in the table below. The table shows the number of Member States that have established an environmental quality standard for a certain river basin specific pollutant. This shows how many standards defined at the national level can be compared between how many countries and describes the extent of harmonization 129 .

Table 1.6.3     Summary of the assessment of river basin specific pollutants for the Rhine basin

Number of Member States

Number of river basin specific pollutants with an environmental quality standard

River basin specific pollutant scale

National 130

All 131

1

66

71

2

30

30

3

17

16

4

11

1

5

4

0

6

0

0

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

There are six Member States that are part of the Rhine (excluding Italy). Table 1.6.3 shows that there is not one river basin specific pollutant with an environmental quality standard that is monitored in all six Member States in the Rhine. There are only four specific pollutants with an environmental quality standard defined at the national level in five out of the six Member States. This means that there are few specific pollutants with quality standards set at the same geographical scale that are comparable in the iRBD.

Although the iRBMP mentions that environmental quality standards were developed for 13 pollutants for the Rhine, the information reported to WISE indicates that there is no river basin specific pollutant with an environmental quality standard for the national scale in all the Member States in the Rhine (i.e. no substance is shared between the six riparian countries).

River basin specific pollutants are only useful and supportive for the assessment of ecological status if an environmental quality standard has been adopted and the pollutants are monitored. The information the Member States reported to WISE was assessed using the following reporting elements:

3)RBSPvalue: If a value is provided in WISE criterion “EQS-yes” is fulfilled

4)chemicalLastMonitored: If a value>=2010 is provided in WISE the criterion “Monitored: yes” is fulfilled

For each river basin specific pollutant, the criteria mentioned above were evaluated according to the scheme given in table below. A filter is applied, considering the following schema elements: a) chemicalSubstanceCode, b) chemicalMatrix c) chemicalPurpose, d) rbspCategoryRW. Table 1.6.4 shows how many river basin specific pollutants can be used for the assessment of ecological status. The number of pollutants that can be integrated into the assessment of ecological status ranges between 7 (Austria and Belgium) and 56 (Netherlands). Luxembourg, the Netherlands and to a lesser extent also Germany and Belgium have a comprehensive set of pollutants that have been used for status assessment while most other countries have a short list of such status indicators. This information describes the role that river basin specific pollutants pay in the frame of the ecological assessment and whether the approaches are comparable. The results do not describe whether and how often theses pollutants have been used in the frame of status assessment.

Table 1.6.4     Synthesis of environmental quality standards and sampling of river basin specific pollutants with pre-defined codes in the WISE reporting 132

Member State or Region

Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: yes

Monitored: no Environmental quality standard: yes

Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: no

Substances (number and percentage) that can be used for the assessment of ecological status

Austria

7

15

84

7 / 8 %

Belgium (Wallonia)

7

29

17

7 / 29 %

France

8

1

41

8 / 16 %

Germany

77

0

185

77 / 29 %

Luxembourg

37

0

0

37 / 100 %

Netherlands

56

3

51

56 / 52 %

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Environmental quality standards for river basin specific pollutants

A comparison between environmental quality standards is given in the figure below.

There is limited agreement between the Member States. There is only one pollutant where the same environmental quality standard is shared between three countries. There are six pollutants with the same environmental quality standard but this standard is shared only between Luxembourg and Germany. For the majority of substances, the environmental quality standards differ by one order of magnitude or more. This makes it difficult to compare status between the Member States. The different standards used may also partly explain why some Member State identify certain substances as river basin specific pollutants while other Member States do not.

Figure 1.6.1     Ratio between the maximum and the minimum environmental quality standard for river basin specific pollutants in the Rhine iRBD 133

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Status Classification

Use of monitoring results for classification – transboundary harmonization

All Member States have determined the criteria for the classification of the ecological status or potential according to WFD Annex V for each type of water body/water and for most of the quality elements. The iRBMP refers to a map that presents the national classification in the iRBD and refers to the national plan for more information.

Annex 1 of the iRBMP shows the results of the monitoring programme for ecological status/potential for each surface water body in the Rhine. It shows which water bodies are shared by which Member States and shows how the different Member States classified all the quality elements. While Member States classified the ecological status/potential of individual quality elements for shared transboundary water bodies independently, through coordination the Member States agreed on a common total ecological status/potential classification. The table shows the final result of the classification of quality elements based on coordination. None of the water bodies have differing total classifications following coordination.

During the assessment of the iRBMP, the GIS data reported to WISE by the Member States was analysed to determine whether the national approaches for the ecological status assessment of surface water bodies resulted in a comparable outcome. Using the same stretches of the river as for the assessment of coordination on water body delineation (see the maps in section 2.2.1), it was assessed whether the status of the water body is the same on both sides of the border. While the water body between Germany and Luxembourg has the same ecological status/potential, the water body between France and Germany and between Germany and the Netherlands differ. This finding contradicts the information in Annex 1, which shows that the total ecological status/potential of all transboundary surface water bodies has been agreed between the Member States.

Intercalibration exercise and Geographical Intercalibration Group (GIG)

The rivers Rhine, Moselle and Saar are very large transboundary rivers. The European Working Group X-GIG Very Large Rivers is working on the intercalibration and classification of biological quality elements according to the WFD for very large rivers (catchment > 10,000 km²). All the Member States in the Rhine participate in this intercalibration.

According to the iRBMP, the main problems for large rivers are lacking reference status and methodological difficulties with respect to the analysis of biological quality elements. Also, the data sets of the different countries are partly inhomogeneous, e.g. with respect to the taxonomic resolution or the kind of contamination.

Due to this situation, it has so far only been possible to intercalibrate phytobenthos, which mainly only reacts to one contamination: phosphorus content.

The intercalibration for very large rivers was not finalised by the time the iRBMP was published. This relates to macrozoobenthos, fish and phytoplankton. While there are sufficient data available for an intercalibration of the quality element fish, issues still remain regarding to what extent the floodplain, which is an important element of a river system for the fish fauna, is significant for the classification. So far, most Member States use procedures which mainly classify the main stream.

1.6.5.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status

Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters

Joint monitoring programme for surface waters and application of joint methods/joint surveys

A joint chemical monitoring programme has been in place in the Rhine since 1950. An international coordinated surveillance monitoring network to assess the chemical status of surface water bodies was reported in 2006. During 2012 and 2013, the chemical surveillance monitoring programme was again conducted for the second cycle of the WFD. The joint monitoring network covers the Rhine main stream, large tributaries and the Delta area (56 surveillance monitoring stations).

The basis for the monitoring programme assessed in this report is the list of substances determined in the EQS-Directive. From 2015-2016, the updated EQS Directive was transposed into the national laws of the Member States. The environmental quality standards have been revised for seven substances.

Coordination of monitoring and assessment of chemical status

The ubiquitous substances / groups of substances PBDE, mercury, PAH and TBT have led to a chemical status “failing to achieve good” in the Rhine catchment. Values in excess of the environmental quality standards at almost all stations for almost all water bodies in the Rhine catchment have been monitored.

For the 12 new substances of the Directive 2013/39/EU for which environmental quality standards have been determined (9 pesticides: aclonifen, bifenox, heptachlorine and heptachlor epoxide, dicofol, quinoxyfen, cybutryn, terbutryn, dichlorvos, cypermethrin; other substances: dioxins, hexabromocyclododecane, perfluoroctanesulphonate) there are no (sufficient) data on the classification of the status of water bodies at all Rhine surveillance monitoring stations. The new identified priority substances and their environmental quality standards will be taken into account when drafting additional surveillance programmes and programmes of measures to be presented by the end of December 2018.

An important aspect for chemical status assessment is whether the water samples have been taken with the frequency recommended as a general rule in the WFD 134 . Monthly samples should be analysed for WFD compliant assessment of chemical status at a given site. Other frequencies need a justification based on expert judgement or technical knowledge. If the analysis excludes all frequencies that are lower than 12/year, the number of samples decreases from ~129 088 to ~88 300. This means that 68.4 % of the samples (reported to WISE) of Priority Substances in the Rhine catchment can be used for WFD compliant assessment of chemical status without any further justification. In some Member States, almost all samples can be used for WFD compliant status assessment, while in others the share of compliant samples is 41 %. All figures are listed in the table below.

Table 1.6.5     Percentage of Priority Substance samples that have been taken with a WFD compliant frequency (monthly samples)

Member State

Percentage of Priority Substance samples with a frequency ≥12/year

Samples usable for assessment of chemical status without any further explanation

Austria

72 % (out of 415 samples)

300

Belgium (Wallonia)

76 % (out of 3 588 samples)

2 736

France