52019SC0043

Topic 8Characterisation of the River Basin District

8.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle

Topic 9Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies

Overall there was an increase in the number of water bodies delineated from the first to the second cycles ( Table 2.1 ).

For river water bodies, there was a 21 % increase overall. For lake water bodies, there was an increase of 9 % overall but a decrease of 20 % in the Adriatic RBD. For coastal water bodies, there was an 18 % increase in the Adriatic RBD and a decrease in transitional water bodies of 11 %.

The typology has been revised since the first cycle RBMP which resulted in the repetition of the process of delineation of river water bodies. The revised typology led to merging of water bodies that previously were of different types and splitting of water bodies that previously were of the same type. Additional criteria for water bodies were introduced in order to delineate water bodies that are more appropriate for water quality management, however these criteria were not explained in the second RBMP. The RBMP further states that considering the extent of changes in typology and delineation of water bodies, it is difficult to ensure comparability with the results obtained in the two cycles. The second RBMP did not provide any specific information on the consequences of re-delineation.

Table 2.2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Croatia between the second and first RBMPs. The minimum size of lakes has increased in the Adriatic RBD from 0.88 km2 to 1.35 km2. The minimum length of rivers has slightly decreased and the maximum length of rivers has decreased significantly in both RBDs. The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes 6 .

Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Croatia for the second and the first RBMPs

RBMP	RBD	Lakes		Rivers		Transitional		Coastal
		Number of water bodies	Total area (km2) of water bodies	Number of water bodies	Total length of water body (km)	Number of water bodies	Total area (km2) of water bodies	Number of water bodies	Total area (km2) of water bodies
2nd cycle	HRC	33	125	1 126	14 941
2nd cycle	HRJ	4	41	358	2 688	25	150	26	13 747
2nd cycle	Total	37	166	1 484	17 629	25	150	26	13 747

1st cycle	HRC	29	127	897	10 768
1st cycle	HRJ	5	42	334	2 273	28	145	22	13 752
1st cycle	Total	34	169	1 231	13 041	28	145	22	13 752

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Table 2.2 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Croatia in the second and the first RBMPs

RBMP	RBD	Lake area (km2)			River length (km)			Transitional (km2)			Coastal (km2)
		Min	Max	Average	Min	Max	Average	Min	Max	Average	Min	Max	Average
2nd cycle	HRC	0.51	16.17	3.8	0.01	94.69	14.26
2nd cycle	HRJ	1.35	30.48	10.15	0.02	47.66	8.07	0.01	35.72	5.98	0.64	4 238.81	528.74

1st cycle	HRC	0.51	17.88	4.38	0.03	133.69	12
1st cycle	HRJ	0.88	30.46	8.44	0.02	109.37	6.81	0.01	34.43	5.2	0.63	4 237.10	625.11

Source: WISE electronic reporting

In the first cycle, 86 % of identified surface water bodies were natural with 9 % being designated as heavily modified and 5 % as artificial water bodies. In the second cycle, the situation was quite different with 92 % natural, 8 % artificial and no heavily modified water bodies ( Figure 2.1 ).

The number of groundwater bodies remained the same in the Danube RBD, while for the Adriatic RBD there was an increase of 8 % ( Table 2.3 ).

Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Croatia designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and the first RBMPs. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Table 2.3 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Croatia for the second and first RBMPs

RBMP	RBD	Number	Area (km2)
			Minimum	Maximum	Average
2nd cycle	HRC	20	97.32	5 189.02	1 754.18
2nd cycle	HRJ	13	143.65	3 754.00	1 593.73
2nd cycle	Total	33

1st cycle	HRC	20
1st cycle	HRJ	12
1st cycle	Total	32			1 942

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Croatia on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. It is notable that the changes to the river and lake water bodies have been recorded as the creation of new water bodies.

Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Croatia between the second and the first RBMPs

Type of water body change for the second cycle RBMP	Groundwater	Rivers	Lakes	Transitional	Coastal
Splitting	3			6	4
Aggregation and splitting	1			5
Change				1	14
Extended area				5
Reduced area				5	2
Creation		1 484	37		2
Deletion		1 232	33	3
Change in code	29			3	4

Total water bodies before deletion	33	2 716	70	28	26
Delineated for the second cycle RBMP (after deletion from 1st cycle RBMP)	33	1 484	37	25	26

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Topic 10Identification of transboundary water bodies

Transboundary river water bodies have been designated in the Danube RBD and river, transitional and coastal transboundary water bodies have been designated in the Adriatic RBD. 15 transboundary groundwater bodies have been identified in the Danube RBD and six in the Adriatic RBD.

The RBMP explains that the transboundary water management is done under a framework of bilateral agreements with neighbouring states. There is no specific information about whether delineation or typology of water bodies was specifically covered by these agreements.

Topic 11Typology of surface water bodies

The number of surface water body types reported by Croatia for the first cycle and second RBMPs are displayed in Table 2.5 . In the second cycle Croatia reported five coastal water body types, 15 (6) 7 lake types, 28 river types and four transitional types. The numbers of lake, transitional and coastal water body types remained largely the same between the two cycles, but the number of river water body types has a significant decrease from 52 to 28. The second RBMP reported that the typology had been revised since the first RBMP, which allowed for the merging of water bodies.

Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Croatia for the first and second RBMPs

RBD	Rivers		Lakes		Transitional		Coastal
	2013	2016	2013	2016	2013	2016	2013	2016
HRC	29	18	10	11 (2)	0	0	0	0
HRJ	27	17	4	4	6	4	5	5
TOTAL	52	28	14	15 (6)	6	4	5	5

Source: WISE electronic reporting Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs. The numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by Croatia and do not match the data reported to WISE.

In Croatia, the typology system B has been applied. The reasons provided where that the system is more flexible and allows the definition of a typology that better describes the biological diversity of surface waters. Further testing of the abiotic typology with biological data allowed for the grouping of types with very similar biocenoses. There was work undertaken to determine the extent to which the layout and structure of the biota can be associated with the abiotic typology of the Croatian hydrographic network 8 .

Member States were asked to report “Not applicable” if there is no corresponding intercalibration type for national types. Many national types (heavily modified, artificial and natural) have been intercalibrated. Several of the national types for Croatia in all of the RBDs do not appear to have corresponding intercalibration types: 21 river water body types and 15 lake water body types 9 , 10 . It is unclear how the intercalibration process has been transferred to these national types 11 .

Topic 12Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies

Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Croatia for which reference conditions were established for the first and second RBMPs. Type specific reference conditions have been established for some, all or none relevant biological quality elements (all for all river water body types). Type specific reference conditions have been established for all physicochemical quality elements in rivers, transitional and coastal waters and for some, all or none for lake water body types. Type specific reference conditions have not been established for hydromorphological quality elements in any water category 12 .

Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Croatia with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of types in each category

Water category	Water types	Biological quality elements	Hydromorphological quality elements	Physicochemical quality elements
Lakes (15)	All			40 %
	Some	40 %		53 %
	None	60 %	100 %	7 %
Rivers (28)	All	100 %		100 %
	Some
	None		100 %
Transitional (4)	All			100 %
	Some	100 %
	None		100 %
Coastal (5)	All			100 %
	Some	100 %
	None		100 %

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Topic 13Characteristics of groundwater bodies

The characteristics of the geological formation and details on layering of groundwater bodies were reported in the second RBMP. Further characterisation work has been reported since the first RBMP with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages to surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems.

Topic 14Significant pressures on water bodies

In the second RBMP, the significant pressures reported most often are ‘Diffuse – Agricultural’ (57 % of surface waterbodies) and ‘Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network’ (54 %) ( Figure 2.2 ). Croatia reported on significant pressures in the first cycle at an aggregated level. The most significant pressure was found to be diffuse pollution (92 % of surface water bodies) followed by hydromorphological pressures (70 %) which are similar to the pressures reported for the second cycle RBMP.

Figure 2.2 The most significant pressures on surface water and groundwater bodies in Croatia for the second RBMP

Source: WISE electronic reporting

‘No significant pressure’ was reported for 90 % of groundwater bodies, and the most significant pressure was ‘Diffuse – Agricultural’ (6 %).

In the second RBMP, Croatia reported which significant pressures were not assessed for surface waters, a total of 30 in each RBD. The RBMP does not give any explanation for the excluded pressures 13 . For groundwater, only one pressure was reported not to have been assessed: ‘Groundwater - Recharges.’

Topic 15Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater

For surface waters, a combination of both expert judgement and numerical tools was used for defining diffuse and point pressures, and pressures from abstractions and flow diversions in each RBD. The significance of pressures is reported not to be defined in terms of thresholds or linked to the potential failure of objectives for both RBDs 14 . No further information was found on this in the RBMP or background documents.

Some changes to the methodology since the first RBMP were noted in the second RBMP. For point sources, estimates of pollutant emissions were made for all known types of point sources for the reference year 2012. Data on the abstraction of water for all known uses were collected and analysed. There was no change in the assessment of hydromorphological pressure data compared to the first RBMP and the completeness and reliability of the data is still limited.

The extent of diffuse sources considered has expanded since the first RBMP. Some diffuse sources have been considered in full detail, based on reliable data, and, for some, only estimations of the emissions have been made. Particular attention has been given to diffuse pollution from agriculture. In the program of supplementary measures of the first RBMP, activities were undertaken to investigate the impact of agricultural production on surface and groundwater status. A model of the spatial distribution of nitrogen and phosphorus applications originating from mineral and organic fertilisers was developed. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of pesticides and active substances in pesticides, by pesticide groups and cultures has been modelled.

For groundwater, a combination of expert judgement and numerical tools was used for defining diffuse and point source pressures. Numerical tools were used only for abstraction pressures in the Adriatic RBD and a combination was used in the Danube RBD. Artificial recharge pressures have not been assessed. For groundwater, significance of pressures is reported to be defined in terms of thresholds but not linked to the potential failure of objectives. The second RBMP explains that significant pressures in groundwater are related to the failure of groundwater quality and quantity thresholds.

Topic 16Significant impacts on water bodies

In the second RBMP, the most significant impact on surface water bodies was ‘Nutrient pollution’ (43 %) ( Figure 2.3 ), with 40 % reported as having “no significant impact”. For groundwater, 90 % were reported as “no significant impact”. The most significant impact was ‘Nutrient pollution’ (6 %). Croatia did not report on impacts in the first RBMP.

Figure 2.3 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Croatia for the second RBMP. Percentages of numbers of water bodies

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Topic 17Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status

In each RBD, 15 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good chemical status. The pollutants responsible for groundwater bodies being at risk of failing good chemical status have been reported.

In the Adriatic RBD 15 % of groundwater bodies were also reported to be at risk of failing to meet good quantitative status, while none were reported to be at risk in the Danube RBD. Further information on the quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies is provided in Chapters 5 and 6 of this report.

Topic 18Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures

There are some inconsistencies in the WISE reporting of pressures for which measures are planned and the significant pressures reported at the water body level. For example, in the Danube RBD, ‘Anthropogenic pressure – Unknown’ has been reported as a significant pressure at surface water body level but this pressure has not been reported as being tackled in the Programme of Measures. Similarly, ‘Abstraction or flow diversion – Hydropower’ is reported as being addressed in the Programme of Measures but is not identified as a significant pressure at a surface water body level.

The Priority Substances and other substances causing failure of good chemical status have been reported. The measures to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2021 and the indicator of the gap have been reported. However, there are some substances for which a gap to good status will remain (e.g. fluoranthene). Further information on the implementation of the Programme of Measures is provided in Chapters 9 to 13 of this report.

Topic 19Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances

Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS Directive) 15 requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (or suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances.

Croatia reported that only 6 of the 41 Priority Substances were included in the inventories in each RBD. The RBMP explained that the inventory will be completed in the future following the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document No 28 - Preparation of Priority Substances Emissions Inventory 16 . Firstly, the pollutants that are relevant to water pollution in Croatia will be identified and then data will be collected for the assessment of emissions, releases and losses of those pollutants to the aquatic environment.

The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. The Guidance Document identifies a tiered approach to assessing emissions, but Croatia reported using a different methodology. The data quality was assessed as uncertain.

19.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle

Overall there was an increase in the number of water bodies delineated from the first to the second RBMP. For river water bodies, there was a 21 % increase overall. For lake water bodies, there was an increase of 9 % overall but a decrease of 20 % in the Adriatic RBD. For coastal water bodies, there was an 18 % increase in the Adriatic RBD and a decrease in transitional water bodies of 11 %. The number of groundwater bodies remained the same in the Danube RBD and there was an increase of 8 % for the Adriatic RBD. In the second RBMP, 86 % of identified surface water bodies were natural with 9 % being designated as heavily modified and 5 % as artificial water bodies. In the first RBMP, the situation was quite different with 92 % natural, 8 % artificial and no heavily modified water bodies.

The number of river water body types had a significant decrease, from 52 to only 28 types. The second RBMP reported that the typology had been revised since the first RBMP, which allowed for the merging of water bodies.

Croatia reported on significant pressures in the first RBMP at an aggregated level. The most significant pressure was found to be diffuse pollution followed by hydromorphological pressures, which are similar to the pressures reported for the second RBMP.

19.2Progress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

·Recommendation: Review the pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment in the second RBMPs and ensure that the measures are based on the updated pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment of water bodies.

Assessment: This recommendation applies to more than one Topic. In terms of characterisation, Croatia has reported the pressures and impacts at a water body level. Croatia reported that only 6 of the 41 Priority Substances were included in the inventories in each RBD.

For surface waters, a combination of both expert judgement and numerical tools were used for defining diffuse and point pressures, and pressures from abstractions and flow diversions in each RBD. For groundwaters, a combination of expert judgement and numerical tools was used for defining diffuse and point source pressures. Numerical tools were used for abstraction pressures in the Adriatic RBD and a combination was used in the Danube RBD. Therefore, there does not appear to be an overreliance on expert judgement.

The measures to tackle Priority Substances and other substances causing the failure of good chemical status by 2021 and the gap indicator have been reported. However, there are some substances for which a gap to good status will remain (e.g. Fluoranthene).

Overall this recommendation has been partially fulfilled.

Topic 20Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies

20.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP

Topic 21Monitoring of ecological status/potential

Monitoring programmes

Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. Territorial waters are not a water body category under WFD. However, it should be noted that under Article 2(1) of the WFD, territorial waters are included for the assessment and reporting of chemical status.

Monitoring programmes were reported for rivers and lakes in both RBDs, and for coastal and transitional waters in the Adriatic RBD which had also identified these two water categories. The relevant water categories were all included in a surface water monitoring programmes. No monitoring was reported for territorial waters.

Monitoring sites

Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes from the first to the second RBMP, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMP.

Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Croatia for the second and first RBMP. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in 2013, the 2016 data does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring

	Rivers		Lakes		Transitional		Coastal
	Surv.	Op	Surv.	Op	Surv.	Op	Surv.	Op
Second RBMP
HR_C	32	118	3	7
HR_J	8	17	3	7	81	23	49	29
Total by type of site	40	135	6	14	81	23	49	29
Total number of monitoring sites	152 (175)		19 (20)		88		69
First RBMP
HR_C	32	107	1	3
HR_J	6	10	4	3	52		87
Total by type of site	38	117	5	6	52	0	87	0
Total number of monitoring sites	132		10		52		87

Sources: Member States electronic reporting to WISE in 2013 and 2016. The numbers in parentheses were subsequently communicated by Croatia.

Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Croatia

Monitoring Purpose	Lakes	Rivers	Transitional	Coastal
CHE - Chemical status	5	124	28	37
DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i	1
ECO - Ecological status	1	194	87	69
HAB - Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v	16	181	42	13
INT - International network of other international convention		14
MSF - Marine Strategy Framework Directive monitoring network				34
NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv	2	51
OPE - Operational monitoring	14	135	23	29
REF - Reference network monitoring site			11	9
RIV - International network of a river convention (including bilateral agreements)		10
SEA - International network of a sea convention			2	10
SHE - Shellfish designated waters - WFD Annex IV.1.ii			7	8
SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring	8	43	4	11
SUR - Surveillance monitoring	6	40	81	49
Total sites irrespective of purpose	25	309	91	69

Source: WISE electronic reporting

For the first RBMP, there were no sites for operational monitoring in coastal and transitional waters in the Adriatic RBD, for the second RBMP 29 sites and 23 sites were reported for coastal and transitional waters, respectively. There were also increases in the number of operational sites in river and lakes in both RBDs compared to the first RBMP. Whilst there was a decrease in the number of coastal and lake sites used for surveillance purposes in the Adriatic RBD for the second RBMP, there was no change in the number of surveillance sites in rivers in the Danube RBD and increases in lake sites in the Danube RBD, and in transitional waters and rivers in the Adriatic RBD.

The number of monitoring sites in the 2015 Commission Staff Working Document 17 for the first RBMP are the wrong way around in terms of surveillance and operational monitoring – this has been corrected in Table 3.1 .

Monitored quality elements (excluding RBSPs)

Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of lakes and rivers for the second RBMP. No differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring.

Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMP in Croatia (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note; quality element may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring

Biological quality elements

Hydromorphological quality elements

Phytoplankton

Macrophytes

Phytobenthos

Benthic invertebrates

Fish

Angiosperms

Macroalgae

Other aquatic flora

Other species

Hydrological or tidal regime

Continuity conditions

Morphological conditions

Lakes

Rivers

Yes

Transitional

Yes

Coastal

Yes

General physicochemical quality elements
	Transparency conditions	Thermal conditions	Oxygenation conditions	Salinity conditions	Acidification status	Nitrogen conditions	Phosphorus Conditions	Silicate	Other determinand for nutrient conditions
Lakes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No
Rivers		Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Transitional	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No
Coastal	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No

Source: WISE electronic reporting 18

There are significant gaps in the monitoring of required and expected quality elements. Fish, macrophytes and phytoplankton are not monitored in lakes. Angiosperms and macroalgae are not monitored in coastal waters or transitional waters, though macrophytes are reported for both. Hydromorphological quality elements are not reported to be monitored in any water category. A wide range of physicochemical quality elements are reported at the specific determinand level (e.g. nitrite as part of nutrient conditions), but there still are gaps.

Morphological conditions were used in the classification of all water categories, hydrological regime was also used in rivers and lakes and continuity in rivers. The classification of all hydromorphological quality elements in all water categories was based on expert judgment: none of these elements were reported to be monitored. This introduces uncertainty on the robustness of the classification of ecological status/potential in Croatia.

Monitoring sites in lakes in the Adriatic RBD are only used for chemical monitoring: this means that biological quality elements, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements are not monitored, with only River Basin Specific Pollutants and Priority Substances being included.

Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a RBMP i.e. six years. For phytoplankton, this equates to twice during the monitoring year and the other biological quality elements once during the year. As a guideline, operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement.

None of the biological quality elements used for the surveillance or operational monitoring of coastal and transitional waters were sampled at, or more than, the WFD minimum frequency. In contrast, three of the five biological quality elements used for surveillance, and two of the four used for operational monitoring were sampled at, or more than, the minimum frequency at all sites where they were monitored. The one site used for monitoring lakes (including for phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates) was not used for surveillance or operational purposes.

Monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants

In total eight different River Basin Specific Pollutants (mostly metals) were reported to be monitored in Croatia, according to the WISE reporting. These substances are: arsenic, chromium, copper, cobalt, zinc, fluoride, AOX and PCBs. However, Croatia subsequently clarified that cobalt is not considered as a River Basin Specific Pollutant. Consequently the right number of River Basin Specific Pollutants monitored is seven.

All substances were monitored in water for status assessment and four were monitored in sediment for trend assessment.

For status assessment all seven river basin specific pollutants confirmed by Croatia were monitored in rivers, two in coastal and transitional waters and four in lakes. The number of monitoring sites for each water body type in the second RBMP is shown in Table 3.4 .

Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMP and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants reported in the first RBMP in Croatia. Note the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also not all Member State reported information at the site level meaning that there were no equivalent data for the first RBMP

RBMP		Lakes	Rivers	Transitional	Coastal
second	Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants	9	141	26	38
first	Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants	NR	NR	NR	NR

Sources: WISE electronic reporting.

NR: Not reported at the site level

Each of the seven River Basin Specific Pollutants was monitored at a frequency at least as high as the WFD recommended minimum frequency in most of the monitoring sites.

Croatia identified and reported non-priority specific pollutants as part of their first RBMP (to be monitored in lakes and rivers), however this information was not reported at the site level. It is therefore not possible to make comparison at the site level between the two RBMP.

Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies

None of the water bodies used for surveillance monitoring in lakes, rivers, transitional and coastal water was monitored for all required biological and hydromorphological quality elements. Around 84 % of coastal and transitional water bodies included in surveillance monitoring were monitored for all required physicochemical quality elements: none of the rivers and lake water bodies was monitored for all required elements.

Proportionally more surface water bodies in Croatia were included in operational monitoring (10 %) compared to surveillance (6 %). There are discrepancies in the number of lakes and transitional water bodies reported in the WISE monitoring schema compared to those reported in the WISE surface water body schema. More are reported in the former compared to the latter.

For the first RBMP, there was no operational monitoring in coastal and transitional waters: for the second RBMP there was. Overall for the first RBMP, 9 % of surface water bodies were included in operational monitoring and 7 % in surveillance monitoring: the respective values for the second RBMP were 10 % and 6 %. It should be borne in mind that there was a 20 % increase in the number of surface water bodies from 1 315 for the first RBMP to 1 572 for the second RBMP. Figure 3.1 shows the proportion of surface water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Croatia for the first and second RBMP for each water category.

Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Croatia for the first RBMP (2013) and second RBMP (2016). Note: no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Note that there are discrepancies in the number of transitional water bodies reported in the WISE monitoring schema compared to those reported in the WISE Surface Water Body schema resulting in percentages greater than 100.

Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Croatia. This shows the desired distribution of surveillance monitoring sites among the ecological status/potential class.

Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Croatia

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Operational monitoring of surface water bodies

No biological quality element was used in the operational monitoring of lakes in Croatia. Predominantly benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos were used for operational monitoring of rivers though macrophytes and phytoplankton were also used to a lesser extent: fish were not monitored. Phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates were mainly used in coastal and transitional waters with macrophytes also used in both categories and fish in transitional waters.

Transboundary surface water body monitoring

Croatia reported transboundary coastal, river, transitional and groundwater bodies. Monitoring sites that are part of international network of river or other convention or of a sea convention were reported for coastal waters (10 sites), rivers (24 sites) and transitional waters (two sites).

Topic 22Assessment and classification of ecological status/potential of surface water

Ecological Status/potential of surface water

The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Croatia for the second RBMP is illustrated in Map 3.1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status.

Croatia delineated a high number of river water bodies (1 484). This large number seems to complicate the ecological status assessment.

Figure 3.3 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Croatia for the first RBMP with that for the second (based on the most recent assessment of status/potential) and that expected by 2015).

A detailed breakdown of ecological status/potential in each RBD and water category can be viewed in the WISE electronic reports.

There was a decrease in the proportion of surface water bodies at good or better ecological status/potential from 51 % for the first RBMP to 42 % for the second.

The significance of the changes in status/potential need to be considered in terms of, for example, changes in the delineation of water bodies. There was a 20 % increase in the number of delineated surface water bodies between the two RBMPs with the largest increase being in river water bodies (1 231 for the first RBMP to 1 484 for the second).

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Croatia is shown in Figure 3.4 . The expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential for a large proportion of river and lake water bodies remains unknown.

Map 3.1 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Croatia based on the most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

	High
	Good
	Moderate
	Poor
	Bad
	Unknown
	RBDs
	Countries outside the European Union

Figure 3.3 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Croatia for the second RBMP, for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for both cycles. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2010 to 2015. The year of the assessment of status for first RBMP is not known

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 3.4 Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Croatia. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Confidence in Ecological Status assessment

Figure 3.5 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential.

Figure 3.5 Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Croatia based on the most recently assessed status/potential

Source: WISE electronic reporting

A medium level of confidence was reported for all surface water bodies classified for ecological status/potential for the first RBMP in Croatia. For the second RBMP, all three levels of confidence were reported with 14 % at high, 47 % at medium and 39 % at a low level of confidence.

Classification of ecological status at the quality element level

Only a very small fraction of water bodies has been classified on the basis of biological quality element assessments. The ecological status of most water bodies is based on physicochemical or hydromorphological quality elements. The biological elements have only been used in the classification for about 15 % of water bodies. Coastal water bodies are best covered by biological classification ( Figure 3.6 ).

Figure 3.6 Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of surface water bodies in Croatia. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential, and those that are monitored but not classified or not applicable, are not presented

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the two RBMPs. It should be noted that this comparison should be treated with some caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements from the first to the second RBMP. Some additional biological quality elements have been introduced in the second RBMP: macroalgae, phytobenthos, macrophytes and some indicate a deterioration in status in the second RBMP (benthic invertebrates and fish).

Figure 3.7 Comparison of ecological status/potential in Croatia according to classified biological quality elements in surface waters from the first to the second RBMP. The numbers in parentheses are the number of surface water bodies with a classification for that element.

Source: WISE electronic reporting.

Figure 3.8 illustrates the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes in Croatia for the second RBMP; confirming that only 15 % of river water bodies are classified on the basis of all four types of quality element with the remainder of rivers and other water categories classified on the basis of just three.

Figure 3.8 The classification of the ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Croatia using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element. Note: The 4 types are: biological; hydromorphological, general physicochemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants.

Source: Extracted from WISE.

Assessment methods for the biological quality elements

No methods were reported for angiosperms in coastal and transitional waters, and for macroalgae in transitional waters though a method for macrophytes was reported.

Furthermore, Croatia lacks an assessment method for fish in lakes that is currently under development. The method for assessing the ecological potential of the various water categories is also still under development.

No biological quality element assessment method was reported to be sensitive to chemical pollution in rivers even though this impact was reported to be significant in both RBDs.

The RBMP give some indications on changes since the first RBMP. It says that on the basis of the new findings emerging from the research projects carried out in the period from 2009 to 2013, the need for revision of the typology for some surface water categories and for the re-determination of water bodies in accordance with the new typology has been identified. The collected findings have resulted in substantial modifications and improvements in the surface water status assessment system in relation to the first RBMP. This applies in particular to the increase in the number of quality elements for which the reference values and class boundaries, primarily the biological elements, are set.

There is limited information in the RBMP on changes between the first and second RBMP in the assessment methodologies for the biological quality elements. All changes are given in a common (ecology status and potential, chemical status, ecological status is said to be assessed through biological and chemical status) summary on surface water status. The elements of changes can be repeated as for the ecological and chemical status given above: the biggest change is use of higher number of biological elements for assessment, but overall there is a lack of spatial and temporal coverage of data. At the national level only 180 river water bodies were assessed, or approximately 13 % of all river water bodies. Coverage of biological monitoring is higher in the Danube RBD (15 % of water bodies). Only 5 % of river water bodies are rated in the Adriatic RBD. This is to be tackled with measures in this new RBMP 2016-2021.

Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems

All five coastal water and four transitional water types were reported to have an equivalent common intercalibration type. 21 of the 28 19 river types do not have a common intercalibration type: it will be important that the results of intercalibration are adequately translated to these 21 national types. None of the 6 lake types have an equivalent common intercalibration type: this calls into question the comparability of the classification of the ecological status/potential of lakes with other Member States.

The published RBMPs indicate that Croatia did not participate in the first and second cycles of intercalibration exercises because at that time it was not a member of the European Union. Therefore, the national classification system of biological elements in surface inland waters did not have enough data to carry out the intercalibration process. However, intercalibration will be carried out subsequently as instructed by the European Commission's guide "Procedure to fit new or revised national classifications to the completed Intercalibration exercise". 20

Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements

The expected hydromorphological quality elements are assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in rivers and lakes. However the classification boundaries are not related to the class boundaries of the sensitive biological quality elements in rivers. The classification boundaries for morphological conditions in lakes are related to the class boundaries of the sensitive biological quality elements. Only morphological conditions are assessed in transitional and coastal waters and the class boundaries are related to the sensitive biological quality elements.

Classification methods for general physiochemical quality elements

The reported physicochemical quality elements are assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in all water categories. However, not all the relevant elements are assessed and the classification boundaries are not related to the class boundaries of the sensitive biological quality elements for some of the elements.

In rivers, only oxygenation and nutrient conditions are assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and their classification boundaries are related to the class boundaries of the sensitive biological quality elements. For lakes, three elements (transparency, oxygenation and nutrient conditions) are assessed and again all are related to the classification boundaries of the sensitive biological quality elements. Three (transparency, oxygenation and nutrient conditions) of the five elements assessed in transitional and coastal waters were also classified in relation to the sensitive biological quality elements, two (thermal and salinity conditions) were not.

The reported standards for physicochemical quality elements in rivers and lakes have not been defined for individual types separately. This holds the risk of inappropriate status classification because, for instance, different river types naturally vary in their national nutrient concentrations.

Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards

The RBMP indicates that river basin specific pollutants have been identified by a number of means including from the measured concentrations in water bodies arising from monitoring programmes, from estimated concentrations in water bodies derived from modelling exercises which consider production, use and emission data and on the risk posed by releases of substances from both point and diffuse sources in the RBD.

Environmental Quality Standards are reported for seven River Basin Specific Pollutants, only for water. Six of these are set for rivers, six for lakes and two in coastal and transitional waters. The standards were not reported to be derived in accordance with the 2011 Technical Guidance Document No. 27 21 for all substances in all water categories 22 .

It is interesting to note that although standards were reported for coastal and transitional waters, River Basin Specific Pollutants were not reported as classified in these categories of water (see Figure 3.9 below). In addition, in lakes, River Basin Specific pollutants are classified only on the basis of grouping.

The analytical methods used meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/90/EC 23 for the strictest standard applied for six or the seven substances and complied with Article 4(2) for the other.

Use of monitoring results for classification

The basis of the classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.9 .

Morphological conditions were used in the classification of all water categories, hydrological regime were also used in rivers and lakes and continuity in rivers. The classification of all hydromorphological quality elements in all categories was based on expert judgment and none was monitored. This introduces uncertainty and undermines the robustness of the classification on ecological status/potential in Croatia.

The classification of biological quality elements in all water categories was based on monitoring results though in some cases (particularly in rivers), the elements were monitored in fewer water bodies than were subsequently classified: this raises the question on how some water bodies were classified based on monitoring results when they were not monitored.

Grouping was used for classifying some physicochemical elements and River Basin Specific Pollutants in rivers and lakes. Grouping was not used for any biological quality element or hydromorphological quality element in any of the water categories. River Basin Specific Pollutants were only classified in lakes and rivers even though they are monitored in all four water categories: monitoring results were only used in the classification of rivers. This raises the question as to how grouping was undertaken when classifying lakes for these substances when none had been classified based on monitoring results.

Figure 3.9 Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Croatia. The percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category.

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle)

The ‘one-out, all-out’ principle has been applied in deriving the overall classification of the ecological status of a water body.

Figure 3.10 illustrates the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes in Croatia for the second RBMP.

Figure 3.10 The percentage of surface water bodies in Croatia where no biological quality element or no hydromorphological (HYMO) or no general physicochemical (PHYSCHEM) or no river basin specific pollutant (RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential

Source: Member State reporting to WISE

22.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP

For the first RBMP, there were no sites for operational monitoring in coastal and transitional waters in the Adriatic RBD: for the second RBMP 29 sites and 23 sites, respectively were reported. There were also increases in the number of operational sites in river and lakes in both RBDs compared to the first RBMP. Whilst there was a decrease in the number of coastal and lake sites used for surveillance purposes in the Adriatic RBD for the second RBMP, there was no change in the number of surveillance sites in rivers in the Danube RBD and increases in lake sites in the Danube RBD, and in transitional waters and rivers in the Adriatic RBD.

For the first RBMP there was no operational monitoring in coastal and transitional waters: for the second RBMP there was. Overall for the first RBMP, 9 % of surface water bodies were included in operational monitoring and 7 % in surveillance monitoring: the respective values for the second RBMP were 10 % and 6 %. It should be borne in mind that there was a 20 % increase in the number of surface water bodies from 1315 for the first RBMP to 1572 for the second.

There was a decrease in the proportion of surface water bodies at good or better ecological status/potential from 51 % for the first RBMP to 42 % for the second. However, the significance of the changes in status/potential need to be considered in terms of, for example, changes in the delineation of water bodies. There was a 20 % increase in the number of delineated surface water bodies from the first to the second RBMP with the largest increase being in river water bodies (1231 for the first RBMP to 1484 for the second).

22.2Progress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

Assessment: Hydromorphological quality elements are not monitored in Croatia. There has been no progress on this aspect. Fish are still not monitored in lakes. There has been progress on this aspect.

The assessment methods for most biological quality elements are in place (except for fish in lakes, angiosperms in coastal and transitional waters, and for macroalgae in transitional waters and for ecological potential assessment). Some of these gaps are currently addressed by ongoing research projects.

Croatia subsequently indicated that work has been and is underway to further develop methods for the status assessment of water bodies. This includes the implementation of hydromorphological monitoring and assessment in rivers and a project was initiated for implementation of hydromorphological monitoring and the development of methodologies for monitoring and assessment of hydromorphological indicators in natural lakes and transitional and coastal waters. There is also a project which would obtain adequate information regarding the status of fish populations in natural lakes. The methods for angiosperms in transitional and coastal waters have also been developed.

In conclusion, there has been progress on this recommendation and it has been partially fulfilled.

·Recommendation: An adequate WFD compliant assessment and monitoring framework is a necessary pre-requisite to design effective Programme of Measures and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives.

Assessment: Croatia reported what determinands were included as physicochemical quality elements: however the expected and required elements were not monitored in all water bodies. Some progress has been made on this aspect. Angiosperms and macroalgae are still not monitored in transitional waters but there has been some progress with regards to benthic invertebrates. However, there has been deterioration in implementation of monitoring on coastal waters where angiosperms and macroalgae were reported not to be monitored for the second RBMP. No hydromorphological quality elements in any of the four water categories were reported to be monitored.

In conclusion, there has not been sufficient progress on this recommendation and it is not fulfilled.

·Recommendation: Review and update the list of river basin specific pollutants

There was no information associated with the first RBMP on which RBSPs had been selected. Though information was found in the second RBMP on how RBSPs were selected, there was no information on how these had changed since the first plan. Croatia subsequently clarified that the first and second RBMPs used the same RBSPs.

This recommendation is not fulfilled.

Topic 23Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies

23.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP

Topic 24Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters

Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for monitoring of chemical status

Member States have to implement surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in accordance with the requirements of the WFD 24 for the assessment of ecological status/potential and chemical status.

Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate the impact assessment procedure, to efficiently and effectively review the design of their monitoring programmes, and to assess the long-term changes in natural conditions and those resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity. For operational purposes, monitoring is required to establish the status of waterbodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such waterbodies resulting from the programme of measures.

Section 3.1.1. of this report summarises the characteristics of the surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in Croatia for the second RBMP.

Figure 4.1 summarises the proportion of sites used for the monitoring of chemical status in surface waters for the second RBMP. No distinction is made between sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes.

More detailed information can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency 25 .

As shown, 20 %, 40 %, 54 % and 31 % of monitoring sites are used for monitoring of chemical status in lakes, rivers, coastal waters and transitional waters respectively. No territorial waters are delineated, monitored or assessed for chemical status in Croatia 26 .

Figure 4.1 Proportion of sites used for monitoring of chemical status and, for comparison, ecological status, in Croatia. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of monitoring sites irrespective of their purpose

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in surface freshwaters for the second RBMP. No distinction is made between sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. Also given is the proportion of water bodies monitored for any purpose and, for comparative purpose, those for ecological status. According to the information reported to WISE, all coastal water bodies and 96 % transitional water bodies 27 (there are 25 of these) are monitored for chemical status whereas only 14 % and 7 % of lake and river water bodies respectively are monitored for chemical status. Croatia subsequently clarified that all transitional water bodies are actually monitored for chemical status. 28

In the Danube RBD, only 17 % of river water bodies that fail to achieve good chemical status are monitored as part of the operational monitoring programme for chemical status whereas in the Adriatic RBD Croatia clarified that all coastal and transitional water bodies and 35 % of river water bodies that fail to achieve good chemical status are monitored for chemical status.

Figure 4.2 Proportion of total water bodies in each category monitored, monitored for chemical status and, for comparison, monitored for ecological status, in Croatia. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of water bodies in that category

Source: WISE electronic reporting.

Long term trend monitoring and monitoring of Priority substances in water, sediment and biota for status assessment

Monitoring for status assessment

Requirements

Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order to provide inter alia a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009), mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene have to be monitored in biota for status assessment, unless Member States derived a standard for another matrix, which is at least as protective as the biota standard.

Spatial Coverage

According to WISE, in the Danube RBD, 36 groups of Priority Substances are monitored in water and all 41 groups of Priority Substances are monitored in water in the Adriatic RBD. However, Croatia subsequently clarified that in each RBD, 37 substances are monitored: brominated diphenylethers, chloroalkanes, tributyltin compounds and trifluralin are not monitored in any of the two RBDs.

In the Adriatic RBD, all coastal water bodies and 92 % of transitional water bodies are monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances. For the Danube RBD (lake and river water bodies only), 90 % of water bodies are not monitored for any Priority Substance. For river water bodies and lake water bodies in the Adriatic RBD, over 90 % and 75 % are not monitored for any Priority Substances respectively but the remaining 25 % of lake water bodies are monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances.

Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are not monitored for status assessment in biota in Croatia. 29

Frequencies

The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the RBMP cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment should take place at least once every year according to the EQS Directive. In all cases greater intervals can be applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement.

Monitoring frequencies of 12 times per year and at least once per cycle in water were reported for 31 groups of Priority Substances at the monitoring site level for a least some sites. This is consistent with the minimum recommended frequency of the Directive for surveillance, but not for operational, monitoring. Frequencies of less than 12 times per year and at least once per cycle were reported for 41 groups of Priority Substances at some sites 30 . No explanation could be found for these reduced frequencies. However, Croatia mentioned that a supplementary measure is planned in the Programmes of Measures to improve chemical status monitoring 31 .

Monitoring for long-term trend assessment

Requirements

Article 3.3 of the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 14 priority substances 32 that tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota, for the purpose of long-term trend assessment.

Spatial Coverage

Of the 14 groups of Priority Substances which the environmental quality standard Directive requires the monitoring of the long-term trend in biota and/or sediment, both RBDs in Croatia monitor in river water bodies only; lead, mercury, nickel and cadmium. In the Adriatic RBD, hexachlorobenzene is also monitored in riverine sediment as well as a number of other Priority Substances that are not part of the 14 listed specifically in the EQS Directive.

Frequencies

Monitoring should take place at least once every three years, unless technical knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval.

All substances are monitored once or twice a year and every year in the cycle which is above the minimum recommended frequency.

Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in each RBD

Annex V of the WFD states, in Section 1.3.1 (Design of surveillance monitoring), that “Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a river basin management plan for [inter alia]: priority list pollutants which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin.” Section 1.3.2 (Design of operational monitoring) of the Directive states that “In order to assess the magnitude of the pressure to which bodies of surface water are subject Member States shall monitor for those quality elements which are indicative of the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. In order to assess the impact of these pressures, Member States shall monitor as relevant [inter alia]: all priority substances discharged, and other pollutants discharged in significant quantities.”

Member States are therefore required to monitor all Priority Substances which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin.

In both RBDs in Croatia, six groups of Priority Substances are reported to be in an inventory, discharged, and also monitored (i.e. all groups of Priority Substances discharged are monitored). These substances are: anthracene, fluoranthene, lead, mercury; nickel and cadmium. As only six substances are considered in the inventories, it is unclear whether others (in particular the four non monitored substances) are discharged as well, and in which RBD.

Performances of analytical methods used

For 25 groups of Priority Substances in the Danube RBD, the analytical methods used meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/90/EC for the strictest standard were applied. For 12 out of the remaining 16 groups Priority Substances reported, the analytical methods complied with the requirements laid down in Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/90/EC using best available techniques not entailing excessive costs.

According to WISE, in the Adriatic RBD, the analytical methods for endosulfan and tributyltin comply neither with Article 4(1) nor Article 4(2).

The method of dealing with measurements of Priority Substances lower than the limit of quantification is reported to be as specified in Article 5 of the Technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status Directive (2009/90/EC).

Topic 25Chemical Status of surface water bodies

Member States are required to report the year on which the assessment of chemical status is based. This may be the year that the surface water body was monitored. In case of grouping this may be the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies within a group that are used to extrapolate results to non-monitored surface water bodies within the same group. Overall the chemical assessments were carried out in the period 2012-2015 for the Adriatic RBD and 2012 for the Danube RBD.

The chemical status of surface water bodies in Croatia for the second RBMP is illustrated in Map 4.1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status and shows that overall in Croatia 92 % of water bodies are at good chemical status and 8 % are failing to achieve good chemical status.

Map 4.1 Chemical status of surface water bodies in Croatia based on the most recently assessed status of the surface water bodies

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The chemical status of surface water bodies in Croatia for the first and second RBMP is given in Table 4.1 . Overall between the two cycles, the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status decreased from 97 to 92 % and the proportion that failed to achieve good status increased from 3 to 8 %.

Table 4.1 Chemical status of surface water bodies in Croatia for the second and first RBMP. Note: the number in parenthesis next to the water category is the number of water bodies. Note: Chemical status assessment is based on the standards laid down in EQS Directive 2008/105/EC (version in force on 13 January 2009). Some Member States did not implement the Directive in the first RBMP as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMP

Category	Good		Failing to achieve good		Unknown
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
second RBMP
Lakes (37)	37	100 %
Rivers (1484)	1366	92 %	118	8 %
Transitional (25)	18	72 %	7	28 %
Coastal (26)	22	85 %	4	15 %
Total (1572)	1443	92 %	129	8 %
First RBMP
Lakes (34)	34	100 %
Rivers (1231)	1201	98 %	30	2 %
Transitional (28)	25	89 %	1	4 %	2	7 %
Coastal (22)	19	86 %	3	14 %
Total (1315)	1279	97 %	34	3 %	2	0.2 %

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMP. Overall, 50 % of surface water bodies in Croatia were classified for chemical status with low confidence, 39 % with medium confidence and only 11 % with high confidence. Confidence in the classification of chemical status for the first RBMP was not reported.

Grouping is used to classify non monitored water bodies (water bodies in a same group are influenced by the same pressure type or the same combination of different pressure types and magnitude(s)). The proportion of water bodies classified with low confidence reflects the use of grouping in surface freshwaters where the extent of monitoring was more limited than for transitional and coastal waters.

Figure 4.3 Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies in Croatia based on the most recently assessed status/potential

Source: WISE electronic reporting

The assessment of chemical status for the second RBMP was expected to be based on the standards laid down in EQS Directive 2008/105/EC (version in force on 13 January 2009 33 ). Some Member States did not implement the Directive in the first RBMP as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMP.

More information on the chemical status in each RBD and water category can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency 34 .

Directive 2013/39/EU amended the EQS Directive. In particular, it sets more stringent environmental quality standards for seven substances 35 . Member States were asked to report whether the new standards caused the status of the surface water body to appear to deteriorate. Across the two RBDs in Croatia, this was the case for 23 % of surface water bodies for fluoranthene and for 5 % of surface water bodies for nickel. Information for only six substances was reported (and was not provided for naphthalene).

Figure 4.4 compares the chemical status of surface water bodies in Croatia for the first RBMP with that for the second RBMP (based on the most recent assessment of status) and that expected by 2015. This shows the 5 % decrease in surface water bodies at good status and the fact that the expected status in 2015 was very similar to what was given in the second RBMP.

Figure 4.4 Chemical status of surface water bodies in Croatia for the second RBMP, for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for both cycles. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2012-2015. The year of the assessment of status for first RBMP is not known

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Good chemical status should be reached by 2021 in relation to the revised environmental quality standards, unless Member States apply exemptions under WFD Article 4(4) or less stringent objectives under WFD Article 4(5).

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good chemical status. The information for Croatia is shown in Figure 4.5 . Lakes achieved good chemical status by 2015 and coastal waters and transitional waters are expected to achieve good status by the end of the second RBMP (2021). There is some uncertainty for less than 5 % of rivers as to whether good status will be achieved by the end of the third cycle (2027) for which unknown is reported. The expected or actual improvement in the chemical status of surface water bodies at the end of the first RBMP was reported to be less than described in the RBMP.

Figure 4.5 Expected date of achievement of good chemical of surface water bodies in Croatia. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Priority substances causing the failure of good chemical status

Member States were expected to report exceedances based on the revised, more stringent Environmental Quality Standards from Directive 2013/39/EU.

The Priority Substances causing the greatest proportion of water bodies to fail good chemical status were mercury (6 % of surface water bodies); fluoranthene (4 %); lead (2 %) and nickel (2 %).

The “top-ten” substance are shown in Figure 4.6 .

Figure 4.6 The top-ten Priority Substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status in surface water bodies in Croatia

Source: WISE electronic reporting

The largest proportion of exceedances were for the annual average environmental quality standard for fluoranthene (26 % of surface water bodies failing good status), lead (7 %) and mercury (6 %). In terms of exceedance of both types of standard (annual average and maximum allowable concentration), the largest proportion was for hexachlorocyclohexane (0.3 %).

Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances

According to Article 8(a) of the EQS Directive 36 , eight priority substances and groups of priority substances are behaving like ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances 37 . These substances are generally expected to cause widespread exceedances, and their emissions can be challenging to tackle (e.g. due to long-range atmospheric transport and deposition). In order to show the progress made in tackling other priority substances, Member States have the possibility to present the information related to chemical status separately for these substances.

The influence of ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic Priority Substances on chemical status was assessed as limited in Croatia. Only 1 % of surface waterbodies would improve for failing good status to good status if these substances were not taken into account.

This is illustrated in the 2018 State of Water report of the European Environment Agency. 38

The absence of monitoring in biota may partly explain the limited exceedances found for mercury.

Priority substances used in the assessment of chemical status compared to those monitored

According to WISE, in the Danube RBD, four groups of Priority Substances are not monitored and not used in the assessment: trifluralin; tributyltin-cation; chloroalkanes C10-13, and brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154). Croatia clarified that all other substances are used in the assessment of status and monitored.

According to WISE, in the Adriatic RBD, brominated diphenylethers, endosulfan and tributyltin are monitored and used in the assessment in some water categories but not in others. Croatia subsequently clarified that in both the Adriatic RBD and the Danube RBD, brominated diphenylethers, chloroalkanes, tributyltin compounds and trifluralin are not monitored in rivers and lakes.

Application of alternative environmental quality standards for water, biota and sediment

According to the EQS Directive, Member States may opt to apply environmental quality standards for another matrix than the one specified in the Directive for a given substance. If they do so, they have to ensure the environmental quality standard they set in the other matrix (or matrices) offers at least the same level of protection as the standard established in the Directive.

Croatia reported that all of the environmental quality standards laid down in Part A of Annex I of the Directive 2008/105/EC from the version in force on 13 January 2009 had been applied with the exception of hexachlorobutadiene, hexachlorobenzene and mercury and its compounds in both RBDs. The information reported in WISE for these substances is not entirely clear, however, Croatia subsequently confirmed that these standards used actually correspond to the standard in water present in the EQS Directive.

Use of mixing zones

Article 4 of the EQS Directive provides Member States with the option of designating mixing zones adjacent to points of discharge in surface waters. Concentrations of priority substances may exceed the relevant environmental quality standard within such mixing zones if they do not affect the compliance of the rest of the surface water body with those standards. Member States that designate mixing zones are required to include within their RBMP a description of the approaches and methodologies applied to define such zones, and a description of the measures taken to reduce the extent of the mixing zones in the future.

Mixing zones have not been designated in Croatia.

Background Concentrations and Bioavailability

The EQS Directive stipulates that Member States have the possibility, when assessing the monitoring results against the environmental quality standard, to take into account:

(a) natural background concentrations for metals and their compounds, if they prevent compliance with the environmental quality standard, and;

(b) hardness, pH or other water quality parameters that affect the bioavailability of metals.

No information is provided for Croatia as to whether natural background concentrations for metals and their compounds are taken into consideration where such concentrations prevent compliance with the relevant environmental quality standard. Also, no information is provided as to whether water quality parameters that affect the bioavailability of metals have been taken into account when assessing monitoring results against relevant environmental quality standards.

25.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP

Between the first and second RBMP, there was a net increase in monitoring sites and surface water bodies monitored for operational purposes for chemical status assessment (an increase of 76 sites and 43 water bodies) both due to a relatively large increase in river monitoring. For surveillance monitoring, the number of sites has increased by eight and the number of water bodies has decreased by 14 since the first RBMP. Croatia states in its RBMP that the number of monitoring sites has indeed increased as well as the number of monitored Priority Substances. It is also stated in the RBMP that more comprehensive and reliable database for the assessment of water status is being developed for the forthcoming cycle to develop a better understanding of the causes of exceedances and to better assess the effects of measures.

According to the first RBMP, not all Priority Substances could be analysed since none of the approved laboratories were equipped for the determination of certain substances.

Croatia states in its second RBMP that the system of surface water chemical assessment has been completely “normatively regulated” with the number of monitoring sites, indicators and monitoring frequencies increasing. It is reported that recently, Croatian Waters have introduced the "Monitoring Alignment Program (2016)" which is concerned with the improvement of all monitoring in the jurisdiction of Croatian Waters, including: (i) Monitoring of water status, (ii) Hydrological and meteorological monitoring, (iii) Monitoring of water pressures and emissions, (iv) Monitoring of water structures (buildings), and (v) Monitoring established in the Strategic Environmental Assessment Plans for water management documents. The monitoring program is the basis for the adoption of annual monitoring plans and water management plans established by the Water Law.

The other main change is with regard to chemical status of surface water bodies. It should be noted that there has been a re-delineation of water bodies between the two cycles and therefore a comparison of status between the two cycles should be treated with some caution (the number of water bodies reported increased from 1315 in the first RBMP to 1572 in the second RBMP and it appears that unknown water bodies in the first RBMP were categorised as Heavily Modified in the second) where, between the two cycles, there has been a decrease in the proportion of surface water bodies in Croatia as a whole with good chemical status. The proportion of water bodies at good status has decreased from 97 % to 92 % and the proportion that failed to achieve good status has increased from 3 % to 8 %.

25.2Croatia provided no information on which substances resulted in an improvement of water bodies from failing to achieve good status to good statusProgress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

·Recommendation: Complete the development of methods for the status assessment of water bodies and determination of reference conditions and apply them through the implementation of robust monitoring programmes (start monitoring hydromorphological parameters in lakes and transitional and coastal waters and fish in lakes). An adequate WFD compliant assessment and monitoring framework is a necessary pre-requisite to design effective Programmes of Measures and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives.

Assessment: The monitoring programme for chemical status in Croatia covers up to 54 % of monitoring sites across all surface water categories (with the exception of territorial waters). Monitoring covers all transitional and coastal water bodies but only up to 14 % of surface freshwaters (Overall about 10 % of water bodies are monitored for chemical status). The number of sites and waterbodies monitored for chemical status have increased, as well as the number of priority substances monitored, which represents a significant progress since the first RBMP. Grouping is used to assess the status of unmonitored waterbodies, but this is associated with a lower confidence in the assessment.

Monitoring for status assessment in water is undertaken for up to 37 groups of Priority Substances. All discharged substances are monitored, in accordance with the requirement of the Directive (however the inventories contain only six substances, so it is not entirely clear that all discharged substances have been fully identified). Four substances are still neither monitored nor used in the assessment of status. Monitoring is undertaken with a frequency that is consistent with the minimum recommended frequency for surveillance, but not for operational, monitoring, and no explanation could be found for the reduced frequencies. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are not monitored for status assessment in biota 39 in Croatia, which is expected to lead to the underestimation of the proportion of water bodies failing to achieve good status.

Croatia monitors some, but not all of the 14 required substances in sediment for trend assessment, at a frequency that is above the minimum recommended frequency.

As stated in Section 1.2, the RBMP imply that a more comprehensive and reliable database for the assessment of water status is being developed for the forthcoming RBMP to develop a better understanding of the causes of exceedances and to better assess the effects of measures.

While some progress has been made with this recommendation, it is partially fulfilled.

Topic 26Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies

26.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP

Topic 27Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater

The total number of groundwater bodies in Croatia is 33 ( Table 2.3 ). 11 groundwater bodies are not object of monitoring for quantitative status ( Table 5.2 ). This means that 33 % of groundwater bodies are not monitored.

The RBMP and background documents indicate that in all river basin districts grouping was applied. Elements considered for grouping are similar geology, hydrogeology, stratigraphy, porosity (inter-granular, fracture, fracture-cavernous), geochemical composition (silicate, carbonate), geological forms (caves, pits, sinks, sinkhole zones), groundwater directions and flow rates (groundwater tracing analysis), groundwater feed and relation with surface flows and finally also the groundwater body position within the river basins.

The groundwater bodies cover 55,802 km² of the mainland territory and 11 larger islands with existing groundwater abstraction for public water supply purposes. There are no groundwater bodies on other islands and islets.

Table 5.1 Proportion of groundwater bodies in Croatia monitored for quantitative status

RBD	No of groundwater bodies with quantitative monitoring	Total No. groundwater bodies	% of total groundwater bodies monitored for quantitative status
HRC	13	20	65 %
HRJ	9	13	69.23 %

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Table 5.2 Number of groundwater bodies in Croatia directly monitored and purpose of monitoring

RBD	Total groundwater bodies directly monitored	Monitoring Purpose
		AGR - Groundwater abstraction site for irrigation	CHE – Chemical status	DRI – Groundwater abstraction site for human consumption	DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i	HAB - Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v	NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv	QUA – Quantitat-ive status	SOE - EIONET State of Environ-ment monitoring	SUR – Surveillance monitoring	TRE - Chemical trend assessment
HRC	16		15	11	16	15	4	13	15	15	15
HRJ	13	2 (0)	13	11	11	13	2	9	8	13	13

Source: WISE electronic reporting. The numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by Croatia and do not match the data reported to WISE.

Table 5.3 Number of groundwater monitoring sites in Croatia and their purpose

RBD	Total groundwater monitoring sites	Monitoring Purpose
		AGR - Groundwater abstraction site for irrigation	CHE – Chemical status	DRI – Groundwater abstraction site for human consumption	DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i	HAB - Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v	NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv	QUA – Quantitat-ive status	SOE - EIONET State of Environ-ment monitoring	SUR – Surveillance monitoring	TRE - Chemical trend assessment
HRC	351		232 (233)	33	250	233	115	119	24	233	233
HRJ	54	2	45 (47)	35 (37)	36 (37)	45 (47)	11	24	8	46 (48)	45 (47)

Source: WISE electronic reporting. The numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by Croatia and do not match the data reported to WISE.

The number of groundwater bodies increased slightly from 32 in the first RBMP to 33 in the second RBMP and also the total groundwater body area increased by about 6 %. 29 groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP.

The total number of monitored groundwater bodies remained the same; in one river basin district it increased by two and, in the other it decreased by two. The total number of monitoring sites for quantitative status is listed in Table 5.3 and shows a slight decrease from 144 in the first RBMP to 143 in the second RBMP. In the Danube RBD, the number of sites increased by 16 and in the Adriatic RBD the number of sites decreased by 17.

30 of 33 groundwater bodies are identified as Drinking Water Protected Areas, located in both RBDs.

Topic 28Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater

Map 5.1 displays the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies. It shows that 32 of 33 groundwater bodies (97 %) were in good quantitative status and one (3 %) is failing good status ( Figure 5.1 ). In terms of area, this means that about 0.5 % of the total groundwater body area is failing good quantitative status.

Figure 5.2 shows the confidence in status classifications. In the second RBMP, all groundwater bodies have a clear status. This situation has improved since the first RBMPs where two groundwater bodies had unknown status.

The total number of groundwater bodies failing good quantitative status decreased significantly from three in the first RBMP to one in the second RBMP (from 1.9 % to 0.5 % of the total groundwater body area). The RBMP and background documents give no reasons for this improvement.

In both river basin districts water balance was assessed by a comparison of annual average groundwater abstraction against the ‘available groundwater resource’ for every groundwater body.

The reasons for the failure of good quantitative status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 5.3 . For the groundwater body that is failing good status, this is due to failing the water balance test, which means that the long-term annual average rate of groundwater abstraction is exceeding the available groundwater resource therefore causing saline intrusion. The expected date of achievement of good quantitative status in this groundwater body is unknown ( Figure 5.4 ).

Map 5.1 Map of the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 5.1 Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in Croatia for the second RBMP, for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the number of groundwater bodies for both cycles. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2008 to 2014. The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMP is not known

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 5.2 Confidence in the classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies in Croatia based on the most recent assessment of status

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 5.3 Reasons for the failure of good quantitative status of groundwater in Croatia based on the most recent assessment of status

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Notes:

‘Water balance’ = long-term annual average rate of abstraction exceeds the available groundwater resource which may result in a decrease of groundwater levels.

‘Surface water’ = Failure to achieve Environmental Objectives (Article 4 WFD) for associated surface water bodies resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions; significant diminution of the status of surface waters resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions.

‘Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems’ = Significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration.

‘Saline or other intrusion’ = Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes in flow direction.

Figure 5.4 Expected date of achievement of good quantitative and good chemical status of groundwater bodies in Croatia. 33 groundwater bodies were delineated for second RBMP

Source: WISE electronic reporting

In both river basin districts, the criterion of ‘available groundwater resource’ has been fully applied in accordance with WFD Article 2(27). In the Danube RBD, all environmental objectives have been considered in status assessment. In the Adriatic RBD, all environmental objectives except water balance have been considered in status assessment. 40

In total two groundwater bodies (6 %) (both in the Adriatic RBD) are at risk of failing good quantitative status. Both groundwater bodies are at risk of failing good quantitative status due to failing the water balance test and one also due to saline intrusion. In both groundwater bodies, actual or potential legitimate uses or functions of groundwater are endangered.

Topic 29Consideration of groundwater associated surface waters and/or groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems

For 30 groundwater bodies groundwater associated surface waters have been reported. They are not related to risk and they have been considered in status assessment in all river basin districts.

In total 17 groundwater bodies are linked to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. They are not related to risk and they have been considered in status assessment in all river basin districts. The needs of these ecosystems have not been considered in status assessment.

29.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP

The RBMP includes a chapter summarising the changes or updates for this topic. Compared to the first RBMP progress has been made in the assessment of groundwater quantitative status, as methodologies have been developed. One of the major changes was the analysis of surface water status associated with groundwater, as well as the status of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. The range of data for assessing the quantitative status of groundwater in the present plan has increased. However, due to inadequate availability of spatial and temporal data, the reliability of results is rather low. There are still areas which have limited monitoring.

The number of groundwater bodies increased slightly, from 32 in the first RBMP to 33 in the second RBMP and the total groundwater body area also increased by about 6 %. 29 groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP.

The monitoring situation remained unchanged.

The status situation has improved. The total number of groundwater bodies failing good quantitative status decreased significantly from three in the first RBMP to one in the second RBMP (from 1.9 % to 0.5 % of the total groundwater body area). The RBMP and supporting background documents did not give reasons for this improvement.

29.2Progress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first cycle RBMP and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

·Recommendation: Make improvements to groundwater monitoring, investigate and address reasons for saline intrusions.

Assessment: The total number of monitoring sites was slightly reduced by one site to 143, with an increase of 16 sites in the Danube RBD and a decrease of 17 sites in the Adriatic RBD. Still 11 groundwater bodies (33 %) are without quantitative monitoring. In the second cycle both associated surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems are considered. This recommendation is partially fulfilled.

Topic 30Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies

30.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP

Topic 31Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater

The total number of groundwater bodies in Croatia is 33 ( Table 2.3 ). In total, five groundwater bodies (15 %) are not object of surveillance monitoring ( Table 5.2 ) and there is no operational monitoring, although five groundwater bodies are reported at risk.

The RBMP and supporting background documents indicates that in both RBDs grouping was applied. Elements considered for grouping are similar geology, hydrogeology, stratigraphy, porosity (inter-granular, fracture, fracture-cavernous), geochemical composition (silicate, carbonate), geological forms (caves, pits, sinks, sinkhole zones), groundwater directions and flow rates (groundwater tracing analysis), groundwater feed and relation with surface flows and, finally also, the groundwater body position within the river basins. The groundwater bodies cover 55,082 km² of the mainland territory and 11 larger islands with existing groundwater abstraction for public water supply purposes. There are no groundwater bodies on other islands and islets.

The number of groundwater bodies with surveillance monitoring increased from 26 in the first RBMP to 28 in the second RBMP. 41 The number of monitoring sites is listed in Table 5.3 and shows that the number of surveillance monitoring sites has increased slightly, from 264 in the first RBMP to 279 in the second RBMP. There is still no operational monitoring; this was not reported in the first RBMP nor in the second RBMP. 42

All substances at risk of causing deterioration in chemical status are subject to surveillance monitoring. The second RBMP and supporting background documents provide indications that at least all substances causing risk and all Annex I and Annex II substances are considered in the operational monitoring programme, but operational monitoring sites were still not reported.

All WFD core parameters (nitrate, ammonium, electrical conductivity, oxygen and pH) are monitored.

Topic 32Assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater

Map 6.1 and Figure 6.1 show the most recently assessed chemical status of groundwater bodies. It shows that 30 of 33 groundwater bodies (91 %) were in good chemical status, and the remaining three groundwater bodies (9 %) were failing good status. In terms of area, this means that about 1.5 % of the total groundwater body area is failing good chemical status. Figure 6.2 shows the confidence in status classifications. All groundwater bodies had, and still have, a clear status, in the first and in the second RBMP.

The total number of groundwater bodies failing good status decreased since the first RBMP from four (12 %) to three (9 %) (see Figure 6.1 ). In terms of groundwater body area, the percentage of groundwater bodies in poor status decreased from 2.6 % in the first RBMP to 1.5 % in the second RBMP. The expected date of achievement of good chemical status in Croatia is shown in Figure 5.4 . The RBMP and background documents state that the improvement of status is due to changes in the pressure situation but also due to implemented measures being effective. Changes in the groundwater status only refer to nitrates, because in the first RBMP pesticides and other substances were not monitored and not assessed. In the first RBMP, poor chemical status (for nitrates) was established in the areas of Varaždin, Zagreb and Southern Istria, while in the second RBMP this is the case in the Varaždin area and in Eastern Slavonia - the Drava and Danube basin. 43 This could suggest an improvement in nitrate pollution in the area of the group of groundwater bodies of Zagreb, but a deterioration of the situation in Eastern Slavonia - the Drava and Danube basin. As stated in the current RBMP, monitoring will now include at least all substances listed in the Groundwater Directive Annex II Part B.

The reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 6. 3. For two groundwater bodies, the general assessment of the chemical status for the groundwater body as a whole was failed. This assessment considers the significant environmental risk from pollutants across a groundwater body and a significant impairment of the ability to support human uses. One groundwater body is failing good chemical status due to saline or other intrusion. Figure 6.4 shows the pollutants causing failure of status.

In both RBDs, the calculation of the extent of exceedance is based on the groundwater body area. In both RBDs, groundwater threshold values have been established for all pollutants or indicators of pollution causing a risk of failure of good chemical status and natural background levels, as well as all Annex II substances, have been considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values.

A trend assessment methodology, as well as a trend reversal methodology, is available and assessments have been performed in both RBDs.

Map 6.1 Map of the most recently assessed chemical status of groundwater bodies in Croatia

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Figure 6.1 Chemical status of groundwater bodies in Croatia for the second RBMP, for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is the number of groundwater bodies for both cycles. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2009 to 2013. The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMP is not known

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 6.2 Confidence in the classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies in Croatia based on the most recent assessment of status

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 6.3 Reasons for failing good chemical status in Croatia for the most recent assessment of status

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Notes:

‘Surface water’ = Failure to achieve Environmental Objectives (Article 4 WFD) in associated surface water bodies or significant diminution of the ecological or chemical status of such surface water bodies.

‘Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems’ = Significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend directly on the groundwater body.

‘Saline or other intrusion’ = Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes in flow direction.

‘Drinking Water Protected Area’ = Deterioration in quality of waters for human consumption.

‘General water quality assessment’ = Significant impairment of human uses; significant environmental risk from pollutants across the groundwater body.

Figure 6.4 Top groundwater pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in Croatia

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Note: only two pollutants reported as causing failure.

Topic 33Consideration of groundwater associated surface waters and/ or groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems

For 30 groundwater bodies, groundwater associated surface waters have been reported. Groundwater associated surface waters have not been reported as being considered in status assessment.

In total, 17 groundwater bodies are linked with groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have not been considered in status assessment in both RBDs. 44

Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values.

Figure 6.5 shows the percentage of groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status and good quantitative status.

Figure 6.5 Percentage of groundwater bodies in Croatia at risk of failing good chemical status and good quantitative status for the second RBMP

Source: WISE electronic reporting

33.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP

Each RBMP consists of a dedicated chapter summarising the changes or updates for this topic. Compared to the first RBMP, progress has been made in the assessment of groundwater chemical status. Methodologies have been developed. One of the major changes was the analysis of surface water status associated with groundwater, as well as the status of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. The range of data for assessing the chemical status of groundwater in the second RBMP has increased; however, due to still inadequate spatial and temporal availability of data, the reliability of results is rather low.

The monitoring improved slightly but operational monitoring was still not in place and surveillance monitoring was not complete. All WFD core parameters are subject to monitoring.

Croatia subsequently clarified that all groundwater bodies are now covered by surveillance monitoring and operational monitoring sites were put in place in the meantime.

The status situation improved as the number of groundwater bodies in poor status decreased from four to three. The RBMP and background documents explain that the improvement of status is due to changes in the pressure situation but also to implemented measures being effective. The status assessment of the first RBMP just focussed on nitrates, while in the second RBMP other substances were included. No trend assessment is reported to be applied. However, Croatia stated that a study on trend assessment has been published in 2016.

33.2Progress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

·Recommendation: Make improvements to groundwater monitoring, investigate and address reasons for saline intrusions.

Assessment: Operational monitoring was still not fully in place and not being used for the second RBMP. The number of groundwater bodies covered by surveillance monitoring increased slightly from 26 groundwater bodies in the first RBMP to 28 in the second RBMP. There is still no consideration of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems in status assessment, although there is one groundwater body where damage of such ecosystems is causing risk of failing the environmental objectives.

Croatia subsequently clarified that that operational monitoring sites have been established in 2015, that associated surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have both been considered in status assessment in both RBDs.

Therefore this recommendation is partially fulfilled.

Topic 34Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential

34.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP for designation

Topic 35Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies

In the second RBMP, 135 heavily modified water bodies have been designated in the two RBDs. Artificial water bodies are identified in both RBDs ( Figure 7.1 ). 12 heavily modified water bodies are reservoirs and were originally rivers. These are designated as river heavily modified water bodies.

Figure 7.1 Proportion of total water bodies in each category in Croatia that has been designated as heavily modified or artificial

Source: WISE electronic reporting

The main water uses for which river water bodies are designated as heavily modified are flood protection, agriculture-land drainage and navigation. For a considerable number of river heavily modified water bodies (76), the use for designation is not specified in WISE (“other”). For some river heavily modified water bodies (20), hydropower is the main water use. For the

Four coastal heavily modified water bodies, navigation and urban development are the main uses. For the transitional heavily modified water body, wider environment and urban development are the main uses linked to designation, followed by agricultural land drainage.

The main physical alterations of river heavily modified water bodies are channelisation, straightening, bed stabilisation, bank reinforcement and weirs, dams, reservoirs. For the coastal heavily modified water bodies, the main alterations are land reclamation, coastal modifications, ports. For the transitional heavily modified water body, the main alterations are channelisation, straightening, bed stabilisation, bank reinforcement and land reclamation, coastal modifications and ports.

In general, the information provided on artificial water body and heavily modified water bodies does not describe the methodology used and is of a general nature. The RBMP and background documents available do not give any detailed information on criteria to define substantial changes in character due to physical modifications. As part of the pressure and impact analysis, the RBMP describes that the impact of physical interventions is estimated by means of a numerical model based on recorded hydromorphological pressures and expert judgement regarding the impact of an individual pressure on hydromorphological indicators. Concerning the designation process of heavily modified water bodies, no information is provided on how the significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment have been defined or how other means to achieve the beneficial objectives served by the modifications of the heavily modified water bodies have been assessed.

Topic 36Definition of Good Ecological Potential for Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies

Good ecological potential is reported as not defined. There are ongoing projects to develop a good ecological potential methodology. Croatia will build a methodology for the evaluation of good ecological potential, in accordance with the WFD and relevant Common Implementation Strategy Guidance, including the identification of mitigation measures for each water body.

For rivers, one methodology is reported to assess benthic invertebrates and fish, which is sensitive to altered habitats due to hydrological and morphological changes. The same methodology is reported to assess fish in lakes. For coastal waters, two methods are reported as sensitive to hydrological and morphological changes for macroalgae and benthic invertebrates. For transitional waters, one method is reported as sensitive to hydrological and morphological changes for macrophytes. 45

36.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP

The first RBMP covered the period 2013-2015 and did not include the number of finally designated heavily modified water bodies; it only made suggestions for the selection of candidate heavily modified water bodies. However, in the second RBMP, there is still reference to candidate artificial water bodies and heavily modified water bodies, which suggests that designations are not yet verified. Furthermore, the RBMP indicates that future monitoring will further determine artificial water bodies and heavily modified water bodies.

In the Danube RBD, there are in the second RBMP six more lake water bodies and 20 less river water bodies designated as artificial, compared to the first cycle RBMP. In the Adriatic RBD, there are two additional river artificial water body designations.

36.2Progress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

·Recommendation: Ensure the appropriate designation of heavily modified water bodies and develop a methodology for establishing good ecological potential. These methodologies should be documented in the RBMPs.

Assessment: The information provided on artificial water bodies and heavily modified water bodies does not describe the methodology used and is of a general nature. The RBMP and background documents available do not give any detailed information on criteria to define substantial changes in character due to physical modifications, nor ways to assess significant adverse effects of restoration measures and other means to achieve the beneficial objectives of the heavily modified water bodies. It seems that heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies are still identified as candidates while further methodological development and verifications via monitoring are pending. In addition, no methodology is yet established for defining good ecological potential. Therefore, this recommendation has not been fulfilled yet.

Topic 37Environmental objectives and exemptions

37.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP

Topic 38Environmental objectives

The environmental objectives are defined in Article 4 of the WFD. The aim is long-term sustainable water management based on a high level of protection of the aquatic environment. Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater bodies, i.e. good status by 2015. Within that general objective, specific environmental objectives are defined for heavily modified water bodies (good ecological potential and good chemical status by 2015 46 ), groundwaters (good chemical and quantitative status by 2015), and for Protected Areas (achievement of the objectives of the associated Directive by 2015 unless otherwise specified).

Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water and for qualitative and quantitative status in groundwater have been reported in all RBD and are defined on water body level, but there are remaining unknowns.

Member States are also required to specify additional environmental objectives and standards in Protected Areas where these are required to ensure the requirements of the associated Directive are met. An assessment of such additional objectives for Croatia is provided in Chapter 15 of this report.

Assessments of the current status of surface and groundwater bodies in Croatia are provided elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical status of surface waters (Chapter 4); quantitative status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 5); chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6); status of surface and groundwater bodies associated with Protected Areas (Chapter 15).

For the second RBMP, Member States are required to report the date when they expect each surface and groundwater body to meet its environmental objective. This information is summarised for Croatia elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical status of surface waters (Chapter 4); quantitative status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 5); chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6).

Topic 39Exemptions

Where environmental objectives are not yet achieved exemptions can be applied in case the respective conditions are met and the required justifications are explained in the RBMP. Figure 8.1 summarises the percentage of water bodies expected to be at least in good status in 2015 and the use of at least one exemption in Croatia for the four main sets of environmental objectives.

Figure 8.1 Water bodies in Croatia expected to be in at least good status in 2015 and use of exemptions. 1 = Surface water body ecological status/potential; 2 = Surface water body chemical status; 3 = Groundwater body quantitative status; 4 = Groundwater body chemical status

Source: WISE electronic reporting. For some water bodies the date for achievement of good status is unknown.

Article 4 of the WFD allows under certain conditions for different exemptions to the objectives: extension of deadlines beyond 2015, less stringent objectives, a temporary deterioration, or deterioration / non-achievement of good status / potential due to new modifications, provided a set of conditions are fulfilled. The exemptions under WFD Article 4 include the provisions in Article 4(4) - extension of deadline, Article 4(5) - lower objectives, Article 4(6) - temporary deterioration, and Article 4(7) - new modifications / new sustainable human development activities. Article 4(4) exemptions may be justified by: disproportionate cost, technical feasibility or natural conditions, and Article 4(5) by disproportionate cost or technical feasibility.

Figure 8.2 summarises the percentage of water bodies subject to each type of exemption (and reason) in relation to the four types of environmental objective in Croatia.

Figure 8.2 Type of exemptions applied to surface water and groundwater bodies for the second RBMP in Croatia. Note: Ecological status and groundwater quantitative status exemptions are reported at the water body level. Chemical exemptions for groundwater are reported at the level of each pollutant causing failure of good chemical status, and for surface waters for each Priority Substances that is causing failure of good chemical status

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Application of Article 4(4)

In the first cycle no exemptions were reported to WISE. In the second cycle, Article 4(4) was applied to surface water and groundwater. The justifications for surface water and groundwater in relation to Article 4(4) refer to technical feasibility, disproportionate costs and natural conditions. Disproportionate costs are justified in groundwater by affordability and a cost-benefit analysis and in surface water by affordability and distribution of costs.

For several surface water bodies in both RBDs, the pressure and impact analysis has identified that there is a possibility of failing to achieve good ecological status due to hydromorphological elements. For these, an exemption under Article 4(4) has been indicated, but the justification has not been further defined. The required analyses could not be performed since the relevant data was missing; this concerns primarily data related to incomplete biological and hydromorphological monitoring and an undeveloped ecological potential classification system 47 .

The main impacts relating to exemptions for surface water are organic, chemical and nutrient pollution and altered habitats due to hydromorphological changes. In groundwater, the main impacts relating to the exemptions are nutrient pollution and, in the Adriatic RBD, lowered water tables and saline pollution/intrusion. The main pressures to surface water come from a broad range of activities including urbanisation, industry, transport, agriculture, aquaculture and activities causing changes in hydromorphology. For groundwater, the main pressures are abstraction for public water supply and agriculture as well diffuse pollution by agriculture. The main drivers behind these are, in the case of groundwater, in all RBDs agriculture and urban development, and, in the Adriatic RBD, also climate change and tourism. The main drivers for pressures in surface water are urban development, transport, industry, flood protection, fisheries and aquaculture, hydropower and agriculture.

Table 8.1 shows the pressures responsible for Priority Substances in Croatia failing to achieve good chemical status for surface water bodies where exemptions have been applied. Table 8.2 shows the pressures responsible for Priority Substances in Croatia failing to achieve good chemical status for groundwater bodies where exemptions have been applied.

Table 8.1 Pressure responsible for Priority Substances in Croatia failing to achieve good chemical status and for which exemptions have been applied

Significant pressure on surface water bodies	Failing Priority Substances	Article 4(4) - Technical feasibility exemptions	Article 4(4) – Disproportionate cost exemptions
	Number	Number	Number
1.1 - Point - Urban waste water	5	81(83) 48	81(83)
1.5 - Point - Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites	1	1	1
2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off	3	6	6
2.10 - Diffuse - Other	1	1	1
2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural	4	8	8
2.4 - Diffuse - Transport	8	121	121
2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network	6	241	241
2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition	1	1	1
2.9 - Diffuse - Aquaculture	2	2	2

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Table 8.2 Pressure responsible for pollutants in Croatia failing to achieve good chemical status in groundwater and for which exemptions have been applied

Significant pressure on groundwater	Number of failing pollutants	Number of exemptions
		Article 4(4) – Disproportionate cost	Article 4(4) - Natural conditions	Article 4(4) - Technical feasibility
2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural	1	2		2
3.1 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Agriculture	1			1
3.2 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Public water supply	2	2	1	1

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Application of Article 4(5)

Article 4(5) was not applied.

Application of Article 4(6)

No exemptions according to Article 4(6) have been applied.

Application of Article 4(7)

No exemptions according to Article 4(7) have been applied, although the 2015 Commission Staff Working Document 49 indicated that new hydropower projects were under consideration 50 .

Application of Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive

No exemptions according to Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive 51 have been applied.

39.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP

In the first cycle, no exemptions were reported to WISE. In the second cycle, Article 4(4) was applied to surface water and groundwater. Article 4(5), Article 4(6) and Article 4(7) were not applied in the second cycle.

39.2Progress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

·Recommendation: Justify adequately new hydromorphological modifications, such as navigation projects or new hydropower plants. They should be supported by a proper strategic assessment of cumulative effects, an assessment of alternative options, and include all necessary mitigation measures.

Article 4(7) has not been applied in the second cycle in Croatia. Therefore the fulfilment of this recommendation cannot be assessed.

·Recommendation: Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body level.

Assessment: Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water and for qualitative and quantitative status in groundwater have been reported in all RBD and are defined on water body level, but there are remaining unknowns.

·Recommendation: Establish an improved and harmonised approach to exemptions in the second RBMP. The methodology should include calculations of disproportionate costs, assessment methods for adverse effects and better environmental options.

Assessment: Several exemptions under WFD Article 4(4) have been indicated, but the justification has not been further defined. The required analyses could not be performed since the relevant data was missing, primarily data related to incomplete biological and hydromorphological monitoring and an undeveloped ecological potential classification system. This recommendation has not yet been fulfilled

·Recommendation: Croatia should set additional objectives for protected areas, monitor them and assess what additional measures are required to achieve those additional objectives (Species and Habitats, Drinking Water, Bathing Water).

Assessment: Please see Chapter 15 for the assessment of this recommendation.

Topic 40Programme of measures

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the Programme of Measures reported by Member States; more specific information on measures relating to specific pressures (for example arising from agriculture) is provided in subsequent chapters.

The Key Types of Measure (KTM) referred to in this section are groups of measures identified by Member States in the Programme of Measures, which target the same pressure or purpose. The individual measures included in the Programme of Measure (being part of the RBMP) are grouped into Key Types of Measure for the purpose of reporting. The same individual measure can be part of more than one Key Types of Measure because it may be multi-purpose, but also because the Key Types of Measure are not completely independent silos. Key Types of Measure have been introduced to simplify the reporting of measures and to reduce the very large number of Supplementary Measures reported by some Member States (WFD Reporting Guidance 2016).

A Key Types of Measure may be one national measure but it would typically comprise more than one national measure. The 25 predefined Key Types of Measure are listed in the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016.

The Key Types of Measure should be fully implemented and made operational within the RBMP planning period to address specific pressures or chemical substances and achieve the environmental objectives.

40.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP

Topic 41General issues

An indication as to whether or not measures have been fully implemented and made operational is when they have been reported as being planned to tackle significant pressures (at the Key Types of Measure level). Significant pressures are also reported at the water body level. It would therefore be expected that there would be measures planned in the RBMP to tackle all significant pressures. With a few exceptions, most of the significant pressures in both RBDs are covered by KTMs, indicating that these are operational. For the Danube RBD, KTMs have been reported for all significant pressures in groundwater, and for, all significant pressures on surface water except ‘Anthropogenic – unknown’. For the Adriatic RBD, there is no KTM for diffuse pollution from agriculture in groundwater, whilst for surface waters, a few pressures are not covered by KTMs including point and diffuse pressures from contaminated sites, diffuse pressures from urban run-off, atmospheric deposition and others, hydromorphological alterations - physical loss of part or all of water body hydromorphological alterations - others, anthropogenic pressures - unknown and anthropogenic pressures - historical.

Croatia has mapped 589 national basic measures against 22 pre-defined KTMs and two national KTMs. The two national KTMs have only been reported as KTM991 and KTM992 but these titles provide no details of the actual measures they represent - 22 % of the national basic measures have been mapped against KTM992 and 9 % against KTM991. A further 9 % have been mapped against KTM6 – “Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity”. Nineteen national supplementary measures have been mapped against seven predefined KTMs and the nationally defined KTM991. Five of the national supplementary measures have been mapped against KTM14 - “Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty” and four against KTM991. The national basic measures do not include measures for Article 11(3)(f): Controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies. Links to further information on Article 11(3)(c-k) basic measures for all RBDs are provided as is an inventory of basic measures, including supplementary measures, with codes and mapped against types of measure.

The number of KTMs reported as operational and tackling significant pressures is much lower than the number against which national measures have been mapped, i.e. eight KTMs for the Danube RBD and 11 KTMs for the Adriatic RBD, compared with 24, including two nationally derived KTMs, against which national measures have been mapped. This may indicate that more measures, not operational in the first RBMP, are planned for the second and third RBMP.

For groundwater, nitrate is reported as causing one water body in each RBD to fail to achieve good status. It has been reported that measures under KTM 3 – “Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture” are in place to address this, but measures under KTM2 – “Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture” would seem more appropriate 52 . In the Adriatic RBD, electrical conductivity is listed as causing one groundwater body to failing to be of good status, and measures in KTM 13 – “Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.)” are reported to be in place to address this.

No information has been provided on the number of water bodies failing to achieve good status due to River Basin Specific Pollutants in either RBD, but KTMs have been reported as in place to address them. In the Danube RBD, measures under KTM14 – “Research and improvement of knowledge base are reported to be addressing pollution from arsenic and its compounds”. In both RBDs, 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” is reported to be in place to address copper and zinc and their compounds. In the Danube RBD, this KTM is also reported as addressing pollution from fluoride and AOX.

The number of surface water bodies to fail to achieve good chemical status as a result of Priority Substances are reported for both RBDs. 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” are reported as being in place to address 11 of the 16 Priority Substances causing failures in the Danube RBD and seven of the 14 substances causing failure in the Adriatic RBD. Chlorpyrifos, chlorfenvinphos, DDT(p,p.), and total benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene are reported as causing surface waters to fail to be of good status in both RBDs, but no measures are reported as being in place to control them in either RBD. In the Danube RBD, no measures are in place to control simazine which is causing one water body to fail to be of good status, and in the Adriatic RBD no measures are reported to be in place to control tributyltin-cation (causing failure in four water bodies), hexachlorocyclohexane or pentachlorobenzene (both causing failure in five water bodies).

Croatia has reported indicators (most in terms of water bodies failing environmental quality standard, others for length of waterbody requiring measure) of the gap to achieving good status for significant pressures on groundwater and surface water, including individual River Basin Specific Pollutants and Priority Substances, in both RBDs for 2015 and 2021. No indicators for 2027 have been reported. Indicators of the level of implementation needed for each KTMs have been reported as, for example, the number of new or upgraded treatment plants, or the surface area to be covered by measures. The expected improvements between 2015 and 2021 are generally very modest, in some cases zero, and as indicated from some higher indicator values for KTMs in 2021, it seems that some measures have been delayed until the third RBMP. KTM14 – “Research and improvement of knowledge base to reduce uncertainty” has been applied to a large number of pressures, mainly related to hydromorhological alterations, including dams and barriers, but also to diffuse pollution from discharges not connected to sewer. The situation is similar in both RBDs, but, as discussed above, some pressures are not being addressed in the Adriatic RBD.

Cost-effectiveness analysis is an appraisal technique that provides a ranking of alternative measures on the basis of their costs and effectiveness, where the most cost-effective has the highest ranking. This methodology should be applied to the prioritisation of the measures within the Programme of Measures; however, Croatia has reported that cost-effectiveness analysis has not been carried out in either RBD. The prioritisation of measures within the Programme of Measures was further investigated in the RBMP and background documents and it was found that the RBMP did not make any prioritisation of measures. The RBMP states that some prioritisation will be done within the expected national "Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan". Other prioritisation will be done after 2021 using Cost Benefit Analysis and after all basic measures are implemented. Basic measures will be implemented according to available finances and according to prioritisation given by the other national plans and programs from which some of the measures are taken (i.e. various sectoral plans).

A critical factor in the success of the implementation of the Programme of Measures is the availability of funding to support the investments required. Croatia reported that €880 m had been invested in Article 11(3)(a) requirements (measures required to implement Community legislation for the protection of water) for the first Programme of Measures and €250 m in measures under Articles 11(3)(b-l), Article 11(4) and Article 11(5) (all other measures). For the second Programme of Measures (2015-2021) a capital investment of €5 350 m will be required for Article 11(3)(a) measures with annual operational and maintenance costs of €30 m. A capital investment of €708 m will be required for measures under Articles 11(3)(b-l), Article 11(4) and Article 11(5) (all other measures) with annual operation and maintenance costs of €50 m. Depreciation has been included in the costs for Articles 11(3)(b-l), Article 11(4) and Article 11(5) (all other measures) but not for Article 11(3)(a) measures. For the first Programme of Measures €35 m of European Union funding was received and it is anticipated that €1300-1800 m will be received for the second Programme of Measures. Croatia has reported that a clear overall financial commitment has been secured for the implementation of the Programme of Measures in both RBDs. On a sectoral basis, commitments have been secured in RBDs for Urban, but not for Agriculture, Industry and Aquaculture, whereas Transport, Hydropower, Energy, Recreation and Flood Protection, were not considered to be relevant.

Joint consultation on the RBMP and the Marine Strategy was reported for the Adriatic RBD, and co-ordination of the preparation of all RBMP and Programme of Measures with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 53 for both RBDs. However, there was no consideration of the need for additional or more stringent measures beyond those required by the WFD 54 in order to contribute to the achievement of the relevant Marine Strategy Framework Directive objectives in coastal and marine environments, hence no additional or more stringent measures are indicated. KTMs that are relevant to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive are listed for all RBDs, with an indication of the type of measure and numbers, but not indicating the pressures they are addressing. These include a number of KTMs/national measures not reported as being applied to tackle significant pressures but which have had national basic measures mapped against them, e.g. KTM5 – “Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams)” and KTM6 – “Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity”, KTM 9- "Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households", KTM 10 - "Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry", KTM 11 - "Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture", KTM 17 – “Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off”, KTM 18 – “Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species and introduced diseases”, KTM 19 – “Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation including angling”, and KTM 20 – “Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and plants”.

Croatia has reported that the RBMP and Floods Directive 55 Flood Risk Management Plans have been integrated in both RBDs. Joint consultation of RBMP and Flood risk Management Plans were carried out and the objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive have been considered in the second RBMP and Programme of Measures. Win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) have been included in the Programme of Measures, and the design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, has been adapted to take account of WFD Environmental Objectives in all RBDs.

However, whilst KTM23 – “Natural water retention measures” has been mapped to national measures, there is no evidence that this measure has been made operational nor has any information been provided in respect of the pressures it is aimed to address in either RBD. Financial commitments for the implementation of Programme of Measures in the flood protection sector was marked “not applicable”, and WFD Article 9(4) has not been applied to impoundment for flood protection and as such it would be an activity/use which should be subject to cost recovery under Article 9 where relevant.

Topic 42Measures related to other significant pressures

There is no information in relation to significant other pressures (none seem to have been identified).

Topic 43Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measure

It was expected that Member States would be able to report their Programme of Measures by associating their national measures with predefined Key Types of Measure. Key Types of Measure are expected to deliver the bulk of the improvements through reduction in pressures required to achieve WFD Environmental Objectives. A Key Type of Measure may be one national measure but it would typically comprise more than one national measure. Member States are required to report on the national measures associated with the Key Types of Measure, and whether the national measures are basic (Article 11(3)(a) or Article 11(3)(b-l)) or supplementary (Article 11(4)).

Table 9.1 summarises the number of national measures that have been mapped to the relevant Key Types of Measure in Croatia. Also shown is the number of RBDs for which the Key Type of Measure has been reported. Table 9.2 then summarises the type of basic measures associated with the national measures mapped against the Key Type of Measure.

Table 9.1 Mapping of the types of national measures to Key Types of Measure in Croatia

Key Type of Measure	National basic measures	National supplementary measures	Number of RBDs where reported
KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants	14		2
KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry	24		2
KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture	28		2
KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture	14	2	2
KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.)	38		2
KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty	78	10	2
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	34	6	2
KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms).	4	4	2
KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off	12		2
KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species and introduced diseases	20		2
KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation including angling	4		2
KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture	20	2	2
KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and plants	2		2
KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure	78	4	2
KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change	54		2
KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture.	14	2	2
KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil)	2		2
KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams)	70		2
KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity	110		2
KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows	94		2
KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households	58		2
KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households	40		2
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of Measures - KTM991	106	8	2
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of Measures - KTM992	260		2
Total number of Mapped Measures	589	19	2

Source: Member States’ reporting to WISE

Table 9.2 Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measures in Croatia

Key Type of Measure	Basic Measure Type
	Accidental pollution	Controls water abstraction	Cost recovery water services	Efficient water use	Hydromorphology	IPPC IED	Nitrates	Other	Point source discharges	Pollutants diffuse	Pollutants direct groundwater	Protection water abstraction	Recharge augmentation groundwaters	Surface Priority Substances	Urban Waste Water
KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants									6	1					6
KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry		5	7	7
KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture		5	6	6			3			3
KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture							4			4		2		1
KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.)		1	3	3							2	13
KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty		5			8	4	5	11	6	5	2	2			6
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						8		1	9		2			5	8
KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms).						2			2
KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off							1	5		1
KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species and introduced diseases								10
KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation including angling								2
KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture							5	4		4		1
KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and plants								1
KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure	5					9		5	17	4	6	1			17
KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change		16				1			2	2	7				2
KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture.							1	3		1		1		2
KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil)								1
KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams)					16			19
KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity					15			40
KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows		15			16			16
KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households		15	7	7					1			6			1
KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households		5	15	15
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM	5	1			4	12	11	112	24	15	7	3	3	5	24

Source: Member States’ reporting to WISE

Key

‘Accidental pollution’ = Article 11(3)(l): Any measures required to prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical installations and to prevent and/or reduce the impact of accidental pollution incidents.

‘Controls water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(e): Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior authorisation of abstraction and impoundment.

‘Cost recovery water services’ = Article 11(3)(b): Measures for the recovery of cost of water services (Article 9).

‘Efficient water use’ = Article 11(3)(c): Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use.

‘Hydromorphology’ = Article 11(3)(i): Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and in particular hydromorphological impacts.

‘IPPC IED’ = Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) and the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU).

‘Nitrates’ = Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC).

‘Other’ = Other Directives mentioned in Part A of Annex VI of the WFD.

‘Point source discharges’ = Article 11(3)(g): Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause pollution.

‘Pollutants diffuse’ = Article 11(3)(h): Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to cause pollution.

‘Pollutants direct groundwater’ = Article 11(3)(j): Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater.

‘Protection water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(d): Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 7) including those to reduce the level of purification required for the production of drinking water.

‘Recharge augmentation groundwaters’ = Article 11(3)(f): Controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies.

‘Surface Priority Substances’ = Article 11(3)(k): Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by Priority Substances and to reduce pollution from other substances that would otherwise prevent the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 4.

‘Urban Waste Water’ = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC).

Topic 44Pressures for which gaps to be filled to achieve WFD objectives have been reported and the Key Types of Measure planned to achieve objectives

Member States are required to report the gaps that need to be filled to achieve WFD Environmental Objectives in terms of all significant pressures on surface waters and groundwaters, in terms of Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status and in terms of River Basin Specific Pollutants causing failure of good ecological status/potential. Member States were asked to report predefined indicators of the gaps to be filled or other indicators where relevant. Values for the gap indicators were required for 2015 and 2021, and were optional for 2027.

The information reported in WISE on the gaps to fulfil to achieve good ecological status include detailed data on the significant pressures on surface and groundwaters that may cause failure on the environmental objectives. For chemical status, the Member States reported the specific chemical substances causing failure.

This information is reported at the sub-unit level. Sub-units are smaller geographic areas within particular RBDs identified by Member States. Not all Member States have defined and reported sub-units.

Member States were required to report which KTMs are to be made operational to reduce the gaps to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD environmental objectives. A number of indicators were predefined for each KTM. Values of the indicators for the second and subsequent planning cycles were also to be reported to give an indication of the expected progress and achievements: the values for 2027 could be optionally reported. This means that the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as measures are implemented. A value of zero is comparable with 100 % good ecological status or potential or good chemical status.

This information was reported at sub-unit level, or at RBDs level if sub-units have not been reported by the Member State.

44.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP

The level of implementation of the first RBMP of Programme of Measures was reported in WISE by Croatia as “some measures completed” for both RBDs. Obstacles were reported as “Governance”, “Lack of finance”, and “Lack of mechanisms” for both RBDs. Improvements seem to have been achieved in the co-operation with Member State and non-Member State (both RBDs are international). Progress also seems to have been made in identifying significant pressures and mapping national measures/KTMs, and in performing gap analyses. A summary of changes or updates for this Topic could not be found for either of the second RBMP.

44.2Progress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

·Recommendation: Review the pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment in the second RBMP and ensure that the measures are based on the updated pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment of water bodies.

Assessment: A large number of significant pressures have been listed as causing failure of objectives for both RBDs, and KTMs have been listed and implemented or planned to address most of these pressures. With respect to measures, it appears that this recommendation has been addressed.

·Recommendation: Ensure that the RBMP clearly identify the gap to good status, and that the Programme of Measures are designed and implemented to close that gap.

Assessment: Gap analyses have been reported for both RBDs for 2015 and 2021, none for 2027. Gap indicators are reported in many cases as number of water bodies failing environmental quality standards, and also in terms of KTMs, e.g. number of new or upgraded treatment plants, or area to be covered by measure. The predicted achievements for 2021 are generally very modest (or none) and in some cases the gaps (in terms of measures) are higher in 2021, indicating that measures were delayed until the third RBMP. This recommendation has been partially addressed.

·Recommendation: Besides basic measures, supplementary measures that are necessary to achieve the objectives set should also be included in the second RBMP.

Assessment: Nineteen national supplementary measures have been mapped against KTMs. This is a small number of measures in comparison to the number of national basic measures that have been adopted. This recommendation has been partially addressed.

Topic 45Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity

45.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP

Topic 46Water exploitation and trends

No information is reported to WISE by Croatia regarding water quantity, including water abstractions or the Water Exploitation Index +, nor has it been reported to support the European State of the Environment Report in relation to Water Quantity. However, the RBMP 2016-2021 includes that information. In relation to the first River Basin Management Plan, data on the abstraction of water for all known uses of water resources were collected and analysed. Data are provided in tables of abstracted water quantity through a controlled abstraction by usage and springs (sources) (data from 2012) as well as quantities of uncontrolled water abstraction by usage. Water scarcity issues are not considered relevant at the international level. Detailed information is provided on the number of water bodies failing good status due to abstraction pressures, and the exact area to be considered for implementing water pricing policies for agriculture. Water resources planning in relation to abstractions is partially included in the RBMP, even if no separate water resource allocation and management plans are developed.

Topic 47Main uses for water consumption

Some information has been reported for water consumption: approximately 50 % is for the public water supply. Public water supply has estimated losses of 42 % (48 % on HRJ and 36 % on HRC river basin districts). More significant water abstraction pressures have been identified for urban, industrial and agricultural uses.

In the RBMP, there are data for water consumption that can be considered as given by sectors. However, water consumption related data are actually given in terms of the number of licences issued and by types of purpose for which water consumption has been used (those include: public water supply, irrigation, sale of water, technological water, cooling, aquaculture, recreational and health, hydropower).

Topic 48Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity

Regarding basic measures (Article 11(3)(e)), in Croatia there is a permitting regime and a register of abstractions for surface water and groundwater and a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water impoundment but no register of impoundments; and small abstractions are exempted, even if 6 % of surface water bodies in the Danube RBD and 10 % in the Adriatic RBD face significant water abstraction pressures 56 .

The RBMP explains that water abstraction control (from surface and groundwater) is regulated by the national "Water Act", which stipulates that for each use of water exceeding the scope of the general or free use, a permit is necessary in the form of: (a) concession agreement for the economic use of water, or (b) water-permit for water use (Water Act, Article 157).

Users which are licensed to abstract water are obliged to keep a record and regularly report to Croatian Waters (Water Act, Article 80, Ordinance on the Register of Abstracted and Used Amount of Water (Official Gazette 81/10)).

The RBMP does not provide any information about the fixed or required time period for water abstraction permit reviews. Additionally, the Water Law does not have any information about “review of all existing permits and assessment of their compatibility with the WFD 57 ”. However, a table is included in the RBMP (Programme of Measures) on 'Implementing measures for water abstraction control' that does foresee measures for stopping the issuing of new water abstraction permits on water bodies with insufficient water flow quantities, reduction of existing permits for surface water abstraction until at least moderate conditions of water flow quantities are achieved, and restriction of issuing new permits for surface water abstraction until at least moderate conditions of water flow quantities are achieved.

Measures under Article 11(3)(c) for sustainable and efficient water use have been implemented in the previous cycle but new measures and/or significant changes are planned. These include: (1) Measures for improvement of water abstraction control; (2) Implementing measures for water abstraction control. All measures are similar and relevant for both RBDs. 'Measures for improvement of water abstraction control' are mostly management measures for better knowledge and transparency on issued water permits, as well as water metering related measures (use of metering devices for all types of water use/abstraction, use of metering devices on all buildings already connected to municipal water structures). 'Implementing measures for water abstraction control' are a set of measures with very wide scope of intervention including: water metering at source of abstraction, water permitting measures (new rights, existing rights regulation according to water body status), abstraction monitoring, abstraction pressures monitoring, irrigation issues, better technological water use efficiency.

Measures for the prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies (Article 11(3)(f)) are not envisaged in Croatia as no activities are carried out which would result in pressures on groundwater augmentation.

Both RBDs (Danube and Adriatic) implement complementary measures associated to KTM7 – “Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows”. Measures associated to other KTMs are only foreseen for the Adriatic RBD, for abstraction pressures from agriculture, including KTM 11 - "Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture" and KTM12 – “Advisory services for agriculture” in an area of 59 km2.

Water reuse is not a measure foreseen, although it is considered to have a lower environmental impact than other alternative water supplies in both RBDs.

48.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP

The assessment of the first RBMP indicated that it made few references to water scarcity or drought. The implementation described in the previous section therefore represents the main changes since then.

48.2Progress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

·Recommendation: Review all existing permits and where necessary, amend them to ensure that they are compatible with the WFD objectives.

Assessment: Regarding basic measures (Article 11(3)(e)), in Croatia there is a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water impoundment but no register of impoundments; and small abstractions are exempted, even when in the Danube and Adriatic RBDs, 6 % and 10 % of surface water bodies respectively, face significant water abstractions. Measures of this type are planned to be implemented and might respond to the recommendation. This recommendation is partially fulfilled.

·Recommendation: Ensure that abstraction controls are in place by the time of the second RBMPs.

Assessment: Statistics on abstractions per sector are partially available in the RBMP, but no historic trends on their evolution. The Programme of Measures foresees specific actions such as improving the Water information system, updating the register of water rights, establishing verification controls, imposing obligatory installation of water meters for all abstractions, monitoring abstractions and assessment of data.

This recommendation is therefore considered as partially fulfilled as the planned measures are yet to be implemented.

Topic 49Measures related to pollution from agriculture

49.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP

The types of pressures from agriculture have not changed since the first RBMP. The main pressures are organic, chemical and diffuse pollution as well as altered habitats. While in the first RBMP only basic measures have been applied, in the second cycle supplementary measures have also been applied. A gap assessment was missing in the first RBMP but has been performed now for diffuse nutrient pollution.

For the Danube RBD, for KTM2 – “Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture” (groundwater) and KTM12 – “Advisory services for agriculture” (surface water and groundwater) the areas covered by a measure are given. For the Adriatic RBD, the information is given only for surface water for KTM12 – “Advisory services for agriculture”. General binding rules have been identified by Member States as being in place for nutrients, pesticides and phosphorus.

Pesticides and nutrients are addressed by the basic measures in both RBDs but the implementation of basic measures under Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution (i.e., nutrients, especially nitrates) from agriculture at source (11 measures) only covers Nitrate Vulnerable Zones.

There is mixed information regarding establishment of mandatory safeguard zones around drinking water protection areas in both RBDs in Croatia. The second RBMP provides a summary of implementation of the first cycle (2013-2015) stating that all drinking water springs have been identified but not yet protected since there are still no guidelines for establishment of safeguard zones. Furthermore, it is stated that those guidelines are expected to be issued by the end of 2016. However, later in the second RBMP it is written and shown in a map of Croatia that there are zones of sanitary protection of water springs intended for human consumption (Sl.A.22.). This suggests that safeguard zones have been established. Then, further in section 5.2.2. "Water protection measures intended for human consumption", an explanation that zones of sanitary protection of water sources intended for human consumption are regulated by the "Water Act" and the "Law on Water for Human Consumption" (Official Gazette 56/13 and 64/15). It is also stated that the manner of establishing the sanitary protection zone, the mandatory measures and the restrictions imposed therein, the time limits for the adoption of the decisions on protection and the procedure for the adoption of those decisions, are regulated by the "Ordinance on Conditions for Determination of the Sanitary Protection Zone" (Official Gazette, Nos 66/11 and 47 / 13). The conclusion seems to be that not all the work regarding establishment of the mandatory safeguard zones around drinking water protection areas has been finished.

Furthermore, the RBMP states that "When developing the Strategic Water Conservation Program for Human Consumption with the Implementation Plan, it is necessary to include: (among others) measures that will limit the use of mineral and organic fertilizers and plant protection products in agriculture in the immediate vicinity of the source, but also restrict the capacity of livestock production".

As regards drinking water protection, two basic measures have been taken in the agriculture sector, aiming at “water bodies intended for human consumption”. The first one (S4) aims at educating agricultural producers, who use agricultural land within the secondary sanitary protection zone 58 , about compulsory restrictions for this zone (considering soil and agriculture related activities). The second measure (S5) aims at strengthening the control over the implementation of regulations related to agricultural production in the second sanitary protection zone around the spring (considering soil and agriculture related activities).

Additional control measures on land (not just in safeguard zones but in the wider catchment) have been introduced in the second RBMP (2016-2021) to prevent nitrogen, phosphorus or pesticides from entering drinking water sources. This RBMP dedicates a specific section to "Control measures for diffuse sources of contamination” where agriculture (especially nitrates) is recognised as one of the most important sources of diffuse water contamination. It further explains that Article 50 of the "Water Act" prescribes the determination of "vulnerable areas" for which reinforced measures to protect water from nitrate contamination coming from agricultural origin and the adoption of an Action program (or several programs) to reduce nitrate pollution of agricultural origin would be further enforced. The "Decision on the Determination of Vulnerable Areas in the Republic of Croatia" identified vulnerable areas covering 9 % of the territory of the Republic of Croatia.

Based on the above Decision, pursuant to Article 5 of the Nitrates Directive 59 , Croatia adopted an “Action program for the protection of water from pollution by nitrates of agricultural origin" This Action Program will be implemented for a period of four years after accession to the European Union. The measures set out in the Action Program are mandatory in vulnerable areas, while in other areas they are considered as a recommendation.

Since accession to the European Union, the "Ordinance on Good Agricultural Practice in the Use of Fertilizers" (OG 56/08) has been in force. This Ordinance sets out the general principles of good agricultural practice in the use of fertilizers and soil improvers and the conditions of use and treatment of fertilizers, especially the use of nitrogen fertilizers. The implementation of this Ordinance is mandatory in vulnerable areas and considered as a recommendation in other areas.

The RBMP itself has few measures related to better management and control of diffuse sources of pollution coming from agriculture, mostly related to manure and nitrates.

Farmers/Farmers' Unions have been consulted under the Public Consultation process in all basins.

Financing of agricultural measures is not secured in both RBDs. From the second RBMP, it can be concluded that sources of funding will be national and international. Considering national sources, the main source of funding are Croatian Waters’ revenues coming from various national "water charges" (water subsidies and compensation for water management) with the possibility of co-financing from the state budget and "other" domestic and foreign sources. Other sources of financing include: loans from the Development Bank of the Council of Europe (CEB) (mostly for projects somehow related to flood protection), cross-border co-operation programs, European Union funds (Structural, Cohesion, Rural Development, Fisheries, LIFE or RTD), and other available domestic and international sources of funding.

49.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP

The types of pressures from agriculture have not changed. While in the first RBMP only basic measures have been applied, now also supplementary measures have been applied. A gap assessment was missing in the first RBMP but has been performed for the Adriatic RBD for the second RBMP.

49.3Progress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

·Recommendation: Determine effectiveness of basic measures and what needs to be done in addition. Based on this gap analysis Croatia should take measures in addition to the action programme for nitrates and on the use of plant protection products, if necessary. Those measures should be part of the next RBMPs.

Assessment: Several parts of the recommendation have been considered. A gap assessment has been performed, but it is not clear from the data reported to WISE what the contribution from the implementation of the Nitrates Directive would be. Implementation of basic measures under Article 11(3)(h) is part of the second RBMP, but the rules only apply in a mandatory way in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones 60 . Article 11(3)(g) for measures to reduce point sources is applied in all basins through basic and supplementary measures. It is not possible to assess whether measures are voluntary or mandatory.

·Recommendation Review existing controls to ensure that agriculture practices do not cause hydromorphological pressure and update controls where necessary for inclusion in the PoM of the second RBMPs.

Assessment: Article 11(3)(i) measures to reduce hydromorphological pressures from agriculture are part of the Programme of Measures in both RBDs. Instruments to control hydromorphological pressures are outlined in the Water Act (Article 143.-148.) and the Environmental Protection Act. However, the second RBMP states that a lack of adequate hydromorphological and biological monitoring significantly hinders the preparation of a higher quality Programme of Measures to control and reduce hydromorphological pressures on water bodies.

Topic 50Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture

50.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP

In the context of this topic, pollution is considered in terms of nutrients, organic matter, sediment, saline discharges and chemicals (Priority Substances, River Basin Specific Pollutants, groundwater pollutants and other physico-chemical parameters) arising from all sectors and sources apart from agriculture. Key types of measures (KTM) are groups of measures identified by Member States in their Programmes of Measures which target the same pressure or purpose. A KTM could be one national measure but would typically comprise more than one national measure. The same individual measure can also be part of more than one KTM because it may be multipurpose, but also because the KTMs are not completely independent of one another.

KTMs relevant to non-agricultural sources of pressures causing failure of WFD objectives have been reported in both Croatian RBDs. These KTMs include:

KTM1 "Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants"

KTM14 "Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty"

KTM16 – “Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms)”, and

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

The WFD specifies that the Programme of Measures shall include, as a minimum, “basic measures” and, where necessary to achieve objectives, “supplementary measures” when basic measures are not enough to address specific significant pressures (see Chapter 9 in this report). Quantitative information on basic and supplementary measures used to tackle pollution from non-agricultural sources (number of measures per KTM) has been provided for both Croatian RBDs. Quantitative information on types of basic measures to tackle pollution from non-agricultural sources (number of measures per KTM) is provided for seven measure types for both Croatian RBDs.

Croatia provided more targeted information on basic measures required under Article 11(3)(c to k). Use of an authorisation and/or permitting regime to control waste water point source discharges (Basic measures Article 11(3)(g)) was reported for both Croatian RBDs for surface and groundwater. A register of waste water discharges (Basic measures Article 11(3)(g)) is available in both RBDs in Croatia for surface and groundwater. Small waste water discharges are exempted from controls in both Croatian RBDs. Some direct discharges to groundwater are authorised in accordance with Article 11(3)(j) in both Croatian RBDs.

Croatia reported that there are measures in place to eliminate/reduce pollution from Priority Substances and other substances in both RBDs.

50.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP

The first RBMP cited the following measures to address chemical pollution:

·water permits for discharge of waste waters;

·production, placing on the market and use of chemicals requiring prior registration and in certain cases approval; many specific substances, including certain pesticides, have been prohibited or limited;

·a water fee for the production and import of plant protection products; and,

·limiting the use of certain pollutants on agricultural land in accordance with the Ordinance on Protection of Agricultural Land from Pollution.

As regards measures planned for all Priority Substances causing failure in the second cycle, there is no consistent information in the WISE reporting or second RBMP, i.e., no detailed information on substance-specific measures.

All River Basin Specific Pollutants causing failure to achieve good status in the two RBDs (Danube and Adriatic) are covered by KTMs. In the Danube RBD, five River Basin Specific Pollutants are causing failure (Arsenic and its compounds, copper and its compounds, zinc and its compounds, fluoride and AOX); in the Adriatic RBD, two River Basin Specific Pollutants (copper and its compounds, zinc and its compounds) are relevant.

Similarly, in both Croatian RBDs, pollutants which are causing failure in groundwater are covered by KTMs. In the Danube RBD, there is one pollutant (nitrate) causing failure in groundwater. In the Adriatic RBD there are two pollutants (Nitrate, electrical conductivity).

50.3Progress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

·Recommendation: “Provide in the second RBMP all the information on the level compliance and timing to reach compliance of agglomerations, including information on funding, in accordance with Directive 91/271/EEC (article 15 and following). Prioritize the agglomerations with more than 2 000 PE in terms of the WFD principles and of financing in the second RBMP but should also assess the pressures due to waste water from small agglomerations (less than 2 000 PE) in the second RBMP cycle.”

Assessment: Measures to mitigate pollution loads are planned until 2027. For the period 2016 to 2021, measures are to be implemented in all water bodies where pollution loads have been reported (irrespective of the status of water); this includes the implementation of: (a) Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (basic measures), (b) Nitrate Directives (basic measures), (c) IED Directives (basic measures). The period 2022-2027 includes measures to be implemented in water bodies for which it is estimated that after 2021 (and after the implementation of basic measures) the minimum water status will still not be achieved, and includes implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (with supplemental measures for settlements <2 000 p.e. where the situation needs improvement).

According to the Water-Utilities Directive Implementation Plan (Plan provedbe vodnokomunalnih direktiva), basic pollution prevention measures (from urban areas) include the construction or upgrading of waste water collection and treatment systems at 281 agglomerations greater than 2 000 p.e. at estimated current potential loads. Outside of the basic measures program are 473 agglomerations of less than 2 000 p.e. according to the estimated current potential burden (data from 2014), which accounts for about 13 % of the population of the Republic of Croatia. The "Multi-annual Program of Construction of Municipal Water Facilities" includes investments in public drainage for 281 agglomerations with more than 2 000 p.e., where improvement of the public drainage and waste water treatment system is planned by 2023. The Multi-annual Program of Construction of Municipal Water Facilities foresees investments related to: construction or renovation of wastewater collection and sewerage systems; construction of new or upgrade of existing wastewater treatment plants to ensure the required degree of purification for the required projected capacity, with deadlines that generally follow those defined by the Water-Utilities Directive Implementation Plan. The total estimated cost of construction of the public sewerage system in 281 agglomeration amounts to HRK 21 893 m, of which the cost of construction of treatment plants is HRK 6 716 m. The recommendation was partly fulfilled.

·Recommendation: “Ensure the compliance of Article 5 UWWTD for more stringent treatment, especially in big cities.”

Assessment: Concerning very large urban agglomerations (i.e. more stringent treatment, especially in big cities), the RBMP does not provide much information. The highest urban agglomerations mentioned in the Plan are those of 15 000 p.e. within Chapter 5 "Summary of PoM", where it is stated: The starting point for planning supplementary measures is the status of water that can be expected after all basic measures have been implemented, regardless of their implementation time.

The described approach has been made operational by analysing the two main scenarios for controlling/reducing pollutant emissions and quantifying the effects of these scenarios on water status. Scenario 1 contains the basic measures for controlling/reducing emissions that will be implemented by 2021. Including:

(a) construction and upgrading of municipal wastewater collection and purification systems for all agglomerations of more than 15 000 p.e. and all agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e., which discharge waste water into a sensitive area, according to the water-utility Directive implementation plan and other current plans and programs (i.e. project 'Inland water', 'Adriatic project', 'ISPA' and 'IPA' projects and other national projects);

(b) complete alignment of industrial/technological waste water discharge with the prescribed standards (Ordinance on the limit values for waste water) for all IPPC/IED plants and other industrial and other plants for which a waste water discharge is issued;

(c) consistent application of the applicable regulations governing the production, circulation and use of chemicals, including biocidal products and plant protection products, which prescribe a prohibition or restriction for most of the priority and other pollutants to assess the chemical status of water;

(d) consistent application of the measures for the implementation of the Nitrates Directive.

Scenario 2: starts with the same set of regulations as Scenario 1 and implies their complete implementation, regardless of allowed adjustment periods. It includes:

(a) building and upgrading systems for collecting and appropriate treatment of municipal wastewater for all agglomerations covered by the Water-Utilities Directive Implementation Plan (294 agglomerations greater than 2 000 p.e. according to the estimated current potential load) - alignment with the 'Ordinance on the limit values for waste water' for all existing waste water treatment plants (IPPC/IED and other installations);

(b) implementation of the Action Program for the reduction of pollution of nutrients from agricultural production in vulnerable areas;

(c) consistent alignment with European regulations regulating the production, circulation and use of chemicals, including biocides and plant protection products, provided that no forbidden active substances for the assessment of chemical status of water will be renewed in the future.

The measures relate to the control of both point and diffuse sources of pollution and their effects on the improvement of physico-chemical and chemical elements of water quality. In conclusion, the RBMP does not consider stringent treatment for very big urban agglomerations, probably because all types of agglomerations (regardless of size) will get the same degree of implementation of measures until at least good water status is achieved. This recommendation is not considered fulfilled.

·Recommendation: “Assess the need to take additional measures on point source pollution beyond the requirements of the UWWTD and IED to fulfil the WFD objectives.”

Assessment: The RBMP indicates in general terms that for water bodies that are assessed as not achieving good status after the implementation of the basic measures, supplementary measures will be applied. The selection of supplementary measures and their implementation obligation will follow after investigative monitoring. In addition, a detailed water status analysis will check the effects of basic measures for all sources of pollution affecting the status of these water bodies. Supplementary measures include: (a) A supplementary measure of the monitoring of water status; and, (b) Supplementary Control Measures for Point and Diffuse Sources of Pollution. This recommendation cannot be considered fulfilled because the assessment (additional monitoring) has not yet been carried out.

Topic 51Measures related to hydromorphology

51.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP

Significant hydromorphological pressures are reported for both RBDs. The significant hydromorphological pressures are assigned to specific sectors, especially flood protection, agriculture, navigation and hydropower. However, there is also a significant number of water bodies where the sector/driver is indicated as "other", i.e. not specified as one of the key sectors in the WISE reporting.

Operational KTM to address the significant hydromorphological pressures are reported for both RBDs, but the only KTM reported in this respect is KTM 14 - "Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty". KTM 5 - "Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams 61 )" is not reported, quantitative management objectives in terms of river continuity are reported as established in both RBDs.

According to information in the RBMP, hydromorphological pressures are not addressed yet by specific technical measures. The only measures planned are related to monitoring and research. Almost half of the hydromorphologically degraded surface water bodies have been identified as artificial water bodies or heavily modified water bodies. Measures to partially mitigate hydromorphological impacts related to artificial water bodies and heavily modified water bodies will be planned after defining the standards for assessing their ecological potential (a process which is still ongoing). For the remaining hydromorphologically degraded water bodies, restoration measures will be planned after performing specific biological studies to check the impact of the modified hydromorphological elements on status.

In terms of basic measures, there is an authorisation and/or permitting regime in place to control physical modifications in all RBDs, which covers changes to the riparian area of water bodies according to WFD 62 article 11(3)(i) in both RBDs. There is also a register of physical modifications of water bodies.

Win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive 63 , drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) are reported to be included in the Programme of Measures of both RBDs. The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, is also reported to have been adapted to take into account WFD objectives in both RBDs.

Ecological flows have not been derived for the relevant water bodies in any of the RBDs but there are plans to do it during the period of the second RBMP. The RBMP mention ecological flows in the context of future measures (under the second RBMP) but they do not explicitly clarify the timeframe of these measures. The activities on ecological flows are ongoing and awaiting the completion of relevant research.

Indicators on the gap to be filled for significant hydromorphological pressures are reported for 2015 and 2021 but not for 2027. From the information available, it can be concluded that there will be some minor reduction in the length or number of water bodies where hydromorphological alterations are preventing the achievement of objectives until 2021. However, it is unclear how this will be achieved, considering that the only measures reported to tackle hydromorphology are related to research studies.

51.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP

In the first RBMP, measures for existing hydromorphological pressures were not included. In the second RBMP, hydromorphological pressures are still not addressed by specific technical measures, as the only activities planned are related to research and monitoring.

51.3Progress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

·Recommendation (report 2012): Review existing controls to ensure that agricultural practices do not cause hydromorphological pressure and update controls where necessary for inclusion in the Programme of Measures of the second RBMP.

Assessment: No specific information was found in the second RBMP, specifically clarifying whether controls for impacts of agriculture on morphology (controls on drainage, protecting the bank structure, etc.) exist. The category of "measures for control and decrease of hydromorphological impacts on waters" does not refer to agriculture but it is noted in the description of measures of a generic nature. Most of the measures are of research/monitoring/advisory type. Therefore, based on the information found, the recommendation is not fulfilled.

·Recommendation: Include hydromorphological measures in the Programme of Measures of the second RBMP.

Assessment: In the second RBMP, hydromorphological pressures are still not addressed by specific technical measures, as the only activities planned are related to research and monitoring. Croatia subsequently informed that for determining measures for the reduction of hydromorphological pressures, it is required to establish quality connections between biological and hydromorphological water status indicators. Research projects in this respect are ongoing. Therefore, this recommendation is not fully fulfilled.

·Recommendation: Ensure that an ecological flow consistent with good status is established and review the existing permits where relevant.

Assessment: Ecological flows have not been derived yet for relevant water bodies but there are plans to do so in the period of the second RBMP. A systematic review of all existing permits and checking their compatibility with the WFD was announced by Croatia for the first half of 2017. The RBMP states that a measure of control and issue of water right permits for abstraction and use of water is under implementation as well as a measure related to the improvement of the register of issued water right permits and concessions. As related activities are still ongoing, this recommendation is not fully fulfilled.

·Recommendation: Consider and prioritise the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure.

Assessment: KTM23 – “Natural Water Retention Measures” has not been applied in the second RBMP and none of the RBMP and background documents includes information on Natural Water Retention Measures. Some information on measures regarding natural retention and flood areas can be found in the Flood Risk Management Plan which, in Croatia, is integrated with the RBMP. Overall, however, as there is no direct reference to the consideration of Natural Water Retention Measures in the RBMP, this recommendation is not fully fulfilled.

·Recommendation (report 2015): Review all existing permits and where necessary, amend them to ensure that they are compatible with the WFD objectives.

Assessment: As mentioned above, a systematic review of all existing permits and checking their compatibility with the WFD was announced by Croatia for the first half of 2017. The RBMP states that a measure of control and issue of water right permits for abstraction and use of water is under implementation as well as a measure related to the improvement of the register of issued water right permits and concessions. As related activities are still ongoing, this recommendation is not yet fulfilled.

Topic 52Economic analysis and water pricing policies

52.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP and main changes in implementation and compliance

There are some changes since the first RBMP in Croatia. Water services are defined as "public water supply" and "water collection services". At the moment, Croatia has no plans to apply a broader definition. The application of Article 9(4) is reported in WISE for a long list of "other" water services (urban development, industry, agriculture, aquaculture, recreation, flood protection, hydropower, transport, other).

In both the Danube and the Adriatic RBDs, the cost recovery rate stands at 75 %. For each RBD, information is provided on the percentage of cost recovery by sector, which in this case includes population/households, industry and agriculture.

The rate is based on volumetric charging and environmental and resource costs are stated to be calculated and internalised.

The RBMP claims that the established mechanisms ensure adequate contribution of water users to cost recovery for water services, including environmental and resource costs, and also taking into account the Polluter Pays Principle.

For eight water uses, the environmental and resource costs are described in a mostly quantitative way; where cost recovery of environmental and resource costs does not reach 100 % (agriculture, irrigation, fisheries and aquaculture, recreation/transport/others), it is planned to do so for the 3rd RBMP.

Additional incentive pricing measures are foreseen in the updated Water Services Act, including generalisation of metering for all uses (amendment planned for adoption by the end of 2016).

The economic analysis is reported as updated.

52.2Progress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

·Recommendation: Develop fully the economic analysis of water use, including the calculation of Environmental and Resource Costs and ensure that the water tariff and the water fees lead to adequate recovery of the costs of water services. Measures that foster introduction of individual metering where shared metering is in place should be proposed.

Assessment: The Water Act defines water services as "public water supply" and "water collection services". Article 3(29) of the Water Act defines water supply as abstraction (from surface and/or groundwater), treatment and distribution. Article 3(28) defines water collection as wastewater collection and treatment.

The application of WFD Article 9(4) is reported in WISE for a long list of "other" water services (urban development, industry, agriculture, aquaculture, recreation, flood protection, hydroenergy, transport, other).

At the moment, Croatia has no plans to apply a broader definition of water services and refers to the outcome of Case C-525/12 64 before the European Court of Justice between the European Commission and Germany on the question of inadequate cost recovery from water services.

In both RBDs the cost recovery rate stands at 75 %. For each RBD, information is provided on cost recovery by sector, which in this case includes population/households, industry and agriculture.

The rate is based on volumetric charging and environmental and resource costs are stated to be calculated and internalised.

The RBMP claims that the established mechanisms are ensuring adequate contribution of water users to cost recovery for water services, including environmental and resource costs, and also taking into account the Polluter Pays Principle.

The description of the methodologies used is presented in a background document called "Economic Analysis - The basis for RBMP 2016-2021". The document contains an economic analysis of water uses and covers the calculation/estimate of cost recovery from water services (including environmental and resource costs) as well as the calculation/estimate of the contributions of significant water users to environmental and resource costs.

-Urban development,

-Industry,

-Flood protection,

-Hydropower,

-Agriculture,

-Irrigation,

-Fisheries and aquaculture,

-Recreation, transport and various others.

The methodologies and conclusions are not entirely clear, but it seems that environmental and resource costs are calculated using a cost-based approach for the defined water services, i.e. considering the costs of measures to reduce impacts on the water environment. Environmental and resource costs are considered to have been fully internalised via existing policy instruments (e.g. wastewater charges, water abstraction charges, licensing regimes, planning processes).

Additional incentive pricing measures are foreseen in the updated Water Services Act, including generalisation of metering for all uses (amendment planned for adoption by the end of 2016).

The recommendation is therefore partially fulfilled.

·Recommendation: Ensure that abstraction controls are in place by the time of the second RBMPs.

Assessment: In Croatia water pricing in agriculture, including self-abstraction, applies volumetric charges on the basis of metering. Agriculture users that hold a water use permit or a concession are required to measure their water consumption. For agriculture users that do not measure their water use, the quantities are estimated according to the agricultural land area managed by the user.

The Water Act sets out that a person may freely use small water springs and groundwater on their land provided that these do not breach the rules on general use of water issued by local authorities. Only those persons required to obtain a permit (or a concession agreement) by the Water Act are required to carry out metering.

The RBMP concludes that in practice significant quantities of water are used for agriculture without any control and that this may have consequences on the local water conditions (availability and status).

Additional incentive pricing measures are foreseen in the updated Water Act, including generalisation of metering for all uses (amendment was planned for adoption by the end of 2016 and was updated in 2018).

The recommendation was partially fulfilled at the time of publication of the second RBMP.

Topic 53Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures)

53.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP

Surface water Protected Area types have been identified for all relevant Directives in Croatia for the second cycle ( Table 15.1 ) (WFD Article 7, Bathing Water, Birds, Habitats, Nitrates, Urban Waste Water and for economically significant aquatic species (fish and shellfish). Protected Areas associated with groundwater bodies have also been identified for all relevant Directives (WFD Article 7, Habitats, Birds and Nitrates). The status of waterbodies associated with Protected Areas is also reported ( Figure 15.1 ).

Table 15.1 Number of Protected Areas of all types in each RBD of Croatia associated with for surface and groundwater

Protected Area type	Number of Protected Areas Associated with 66
	Rivers	Lakes	Transitional	Coastal	Groundwater
Abstraction of water intended for human consumption under Article 7	22	1			227 (240)
Recreational waters, including areas designated as bathing waters under Directive 76/160/EEC 67	4	1	24 (30)	876 (882)
Protection of species where the maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection, including relevant Natura 2000 sites designated under Directive 79/409/EEC (Birds) 68	26	13	5	3	27

Protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection, including relevant Natura 2000 sites designated under Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats) 69	243	20	12 (13)	224	540

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas designated as vulnerable zones under Directive 91/676/EEC (Nitrates Directive 70 )	11	2	1		11
Nutrient-sensitive areas designated as sensitive areas under Directive 91/271/EEC (Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 71 )	20	2	8	57
Areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species	43	1	7	15
Other	77	10	7 (8)	15	131

Source: Member States reporting to WISE

A good overview of the status of water bodies associated with Protected Areas is reported (Figure 15.1) with the status classification reported with mostly low or medium confidence.

Figure 15.1 Status of water bodies associated with Protected Areas for Croatia. Note: based on status/potential aggregated for all water bodies associated with all Protected Areas

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Regarding the setting of specific objectives, only the Protected Areas designated for economically significant species (shellfish) have had specific objectives set. For all other Protected Area types, either no objectives were set (WFD Article 7 Protected Areas – both surface and groundwater abstraction) or it is stated that the achievement of good ecological status is also sufficient to meet the objectives of the specified directive (Birds and Habitats).

Monitoring sites of surface water associated with Protected Areas are only reported for those under Article 7 of the WFD, the Nitrates and Habitats Directives and for areas designated for shellfish ( Table 15.2 ). Similarly, no data are reported on monitoring sites of groundwater associated with Protected Areas, except for those under Article 7 of the WFD, the Nitrates and Habitats Directives. Further information on the purpose of monitoring sites for surface water and groundwater status assessment can be found in Chapters 3 to 6 of this report.

There are gaps in the reported monitoring programmes for designated Protected Areas on the basis of the monitoring sites associated with them and the number of monitoring sites is low in relation to the number of Protected Areas reported.

Table 15.2 Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in Croatia.

Protected Area type	Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in
	Rivers	Lakes	Transitional	Coastal	Groundwater
Abstraction of water intended for human consumption under Article 7	1				286
Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas designated as vulnerable zones under Directive 91/676/EEC (Nitrates Directive)	52	1			126
Protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection, including relevant Natura 2000 sites designated under Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats)	189	8	42	13	278
Areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species			6	9

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Exemptions under Article 4(4), justified on the grounds of disproportionate costs, have been applied to water bodies associated with nearly 20 % of Protected Areas and for all types of Protected Areas except Drinking Water areas and Bathing Waters, for which no exemptions are applied.

53.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP

Croatia reports fewer Protected Areas in the second RBMP (2464) compared to the first RBMP (over 2700): there are fewer Drinking Water Protected Areas but more areas designated under the Habitats Directive. All types of Protected Areas were reported in both cycles. Croatia did not report information to WISE, nor in the first RBMP, on monitoring programmes for types of Protected Areas. Such information is reported in the second RBMP, although not for all Protected Area types. Croatia reported no information on additional objectives and measures in the first cycle and there has been little progress in this regard for the second RBMPs.

53.3Progress with Commission recommendations

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

Assessment: The reported data from the second cycle RBMP shows that additional objectives have only been set for Protected Areas designated for shellfish. Moreover, for Drinking Water Protected Areas (both surface and groundwater) no additional objectives have been set 72 and for Birds and Habitat Directives it is stated that the achievement of Good Ecological status is assumed to be sufficient to also fulfil the objectives of the other directives. Monitoring programmes for all reported Protected Area types have not been reported and the number of monitoring sites reported is low in relation to the number of Protected Areas. The information reported in relation to additional measures is unclear 73 .

The recommendation has been partially fulfilled.

Topic 54Adaptation to drought and climate change

54.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP

Climate change was considered in both RBDs but it is stated that the guidance on how to adapt to climate change (Common Implementation Policy Guidance Document No. 24 74 ) was not used. Climate change is also mentioned as a driver for exemptions under Article 4(4) for groundwater in the Adriatic RBD. Climate change was considered only when detecting climate change signals and for flood risk management. KTM 24 - "Adaptation to climate change" is not made operational to address significant pressures in the RBDs, although some national measures are mapped against KTM 24 - "Adaptation to climate change" in both RBDs. No specific sub-plans addressing climate change are reported.

No information is reported regarding the relevance of droughts in Croatia. No exemptions have been applied following Article 4(6) due to prolonged droughts.

No Drought Management Plans have been reported for Croatia.

54.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP

Croatia has only considered climate change in a very limited way in the first RBMP and the situation has not changed. For example, climate proofing of measures was not done in either the first or second RBMPs. No assessment can be made for droughts, as there is no information from the first RBMP.

54.3Progress with Commission recommendations

There was no Commission recommendation based on the first RBMP and first Programme of Measures relating to this topic.

(1) http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/croatia/index_en.htm

(2)

Croatia subsequently noted that the correct area of the Cetina RBD is 4145 km2.

(3)

Višegodišnji program gradnje komunalnih vodnih građevina planski, November 2015.

(4)

VIŠEGODIŠNJI PROGRAM GRADNJE REGULACIJSKIH I ZAŠTITNIH VODNIH GRAĐEVINA I GRAĐEVINA ZA MELIORACIJE, November 2015.

(5)

Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056

(6) Croatia subsequently explained that all the smaller water bodies which not delineated under the RBMP and are not a part of a larger water body are subject to the same conditions as those for a water body belonging to the same category (river, lake, transitional waters or coastal waters) of the most sensitive ecotype in the associated ecoregion.

(7) Croatia subsequently clarified that there are 6 lake water body types, but this does not match the data reported to WISE

(8) The Faculty of Natural Sciences of Zagreb has produced a background document "Testing Biological Methods for Evaluation of Ecological Status (Water Framework Directive, 2000/60/EC) in representative basins of Panonic and Dinaric Ecoregion".

(9) Croatia subsequently highlighted that the number of national river types for which appropriate intercalibration types are determined will be revised within an on-going projects, in which biological classification systems for the assessment of ecological status of rivers are intercalibrated. The deadlines for implementation of these projects are end of 2018 and March 2019.

(10) Croatia subsequently clarified that the typology of the natural lakes in the Dinaric ecoregion (six lakes) has been carried out, but they do not have appropriate intercalibration types. Neither typology nor standardisation of the natural lakes in the Pannonian ecoregion (three lakes in the Danube floodplain area) have been carried out, while other stagnant rivers are not of natural origin and their typology has been carried out within the projects for development of the classification system for ecological potential.

(11) Croatia subsequently highlighted that the current analysis shows that appropriate intercalibration types for most national types do exist, with the exception of mountainous streams (altitude larger than 500 m) and intermittent running rivers in the eastern-continental intercalibration group.

(12) Croatia subsequently clarified that the methodology for monitoring and assessment of status according to hydromorphological quality elements in rivers is in testing and updating stages, whereas the methodology for other water categories is under development. These methodologies will determine the type-specific reference conditions for hydromorphological quality elements.

(13) Croatia subsequently stated that this is likely to be a reporting error.

(14) Croatia subsequently highlighted that it is very hard to define significance thresholds for different pressure types and especially for small water bodies.

(15) Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008L0105-20130913

(16) https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/6a3fb5a0-4dec-4fde-a69d-5ac93dfbbadd/Guidance%20document%20n28.pdf

(17) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/4th_report/MS%20annex%20-%20Croatia.pdf

(18)

Croatia subsequently made the following corrections to the table, as there might be reporting errors in WISE. For lakes, transparency conditions, oxygenation conditions, nitrogen and phosphorus conditions are monitored. For rivers and for coastal waters silicates are not monitored. For transitional waters thermal conditions, acidification status and silicates are not monitored.

(19) Croatia clarified that 28 river types, not 27, are found in Croatia.

(20) https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/5aee6446-276c-4440-a7de-0d4dec41ed4b/IC_manual_2015_to%20be%20published.pdf

(21) https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS%20CIS-WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf

(22) However, Croatia subsequently clarified that the environmental quality standards for arsenic, copper, zinc, chromium and their compounds have now been revised according to the Technical Guidance Document. They are also planning to revise the standards for fluorides, adsorbable organic halogens (AOX) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in accordance with the Guidance Document.

(23) Directive 2009/90/EC of 31 July 2009 laying down, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1524565750309&uri=CELEX:32009L0090

(24) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060

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

(26) Croatia subsequently informed that the territorial water bodies with regard to the RBMP and planning documents prepared according to the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) will be analysed in the RBMP 2021 – 2027.

(27) Croatia informed that all 25 transitional water were monitored for chemical status.

(28) Croatia also expressed doubts as regards the value of 14 % for lakes.

(29) Croatia clarified that the project “Development of the methodology for monitoring elements of chemical status in biota in terrestrial surface waters and implementation of preliminary monitoring” is close to finalization.

(30) Croatia indicated that supplementary measures had been identified in the RBMP to address this shortcoming.

(31) Measure called “ Supplementary measures of the harmonization of water status monitoring”

(32) Anthracene, brominated diphenylether, cadmium, C10-13 chloroalkanes, DEHP, fluoranthene, hexachlorobenzene, hexabutadiene, hexachlorocyclohexane, lead, mercury, pentachlorobenzene, PAH, Tributyltin.

(33) Please note that following Directive 2013/39/EU, which amended the Environmental Quality Standards Directive, introduced a less stringent annual average EQS for naphthalene in transitional waters. This less stringent environmental quality standard should be taken into account for the determination of surface water chemical status by the 2015 deadline laid down in Article 4 of the WFD.

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

(35) Anthracene, Brominated diphenylether, Fluoranthene, Lead and its compounds, Naphthalene, Nickel and its compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

(36) Amended by Directive 2013/39/EU.

(37) Brominated diphenylether, Mercury and its compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), Tributyltin, PFOS, dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor.

(38)

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water (p40-41 of the report). Also available in a more interactive format at :

https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_SWB_Chemical_Status_Maps/SWB_Failing_Good_Chemical_Status_RBD?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no

(39) Croatia subsequently informed that the implementation of a project “Development of the methodology for monitoring elements of chemical status in biota in terrestrial surface waters and implementation of preliminary monitoring” is close to finalisation.

(40) Croatia subsequently clarified that water balance has actually been considered for all groundwater bodies.

(41) Croatia subsequently stated that all 33 groundwater bodies are covered by surveillance monitoring.

(42) Croatia subsequently clarified that the establishment of 65 operational monitoring stations started in 2015. As the available data from this monitoring is very limited and was not used for the preparation of the current RBMP, these stations were not reported yet.

(43) Croatia subsequently indicated that this is also true for Southern Istria.

(44) Croatia subsequently clarified that groundwater associated surface waters as well as groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been considered in status assessment in both RBDs.

(45) Croatian authorities have reported that activities on the establishment of a higher quality connection between biological and hydromorphological elements of ecological status of waters are ongoing.

(46) For priority substances newly introduced by Directive 2013/39/EU, good status should be reached by 2027, and for the 2008 priority substances, for which the Environmental Quality Standards were revised by Directive 2013/39/EU, good status should be reached in 2021.

(47) Croatia subsequently clarified that the relevant procedure will be conducted and status of water bodies will be clarified in the third RBMP.

(48) Croatia subsequently clarified that there are 83 exemptions associated with pressures from point discharges of urban waste water. The corrected data are in brackets in this table.

(49) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/4th_report/MS%20annex%20-%20Croatia.pdf

(50) Croatia subsequently clarified that since the requirement for the implementation of Article 4.7 is prescribed under the Water Act, there was no need to specifically emphasize the obligation to implement Article 4.7 for each individual facility whose construction is planned under each individual sectoral or physical strategy in the RBMP. The practice requires that, under the SEA procedure for the Plan’s environmental impact the procedure of the assessment of a project’s impact on the status of the environment (water) must be performed. If the objectives for aquatic environment cannot be achieved, the procedure of determining the overriding public interest must be carried out. It is further stated that no preparation of any Feasibility Study or Environmental Impact Assessment Study has been initiated to date for any hydropower facility, and that, considering the proscribed length of such procedure, it is estimated that there is no realistic possibility that a start of the construction of such facility can be expected in the period until 2021.

(51) Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711

(52) Croatia clarified that the incorrect KTM had been reported.

(53) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056

(54) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060

(55) Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks entered into force on 26 November 2007 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060

(56) Croatia subsequently explained that “register of impoundment” and “small abstractions” are defined in the National Water Act (“abstractions not subject to authorisation”). A new authorisation regime is expected in the coming new Water Act.

(57) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060

(58) Croatia has clarified that sanitary protection zones are established for the purpose of protection of the spring and other drinking water reservoir areas against pollution. In Croatia bodies of local (cities, municipalities) and regional (counties) self-administrating units are responsible for protection of drinking water springs according to sanitary protection zones rules and with prior consent issued by Hrvatske vode (according to Water Act, Article 91). Sanitary protection zones are established according to conditions prescribed in the Ordinance on the conditions for establishment of sanitary protection zones for springs (Official Gazette 66/11 and 47/13).

(59) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676

(60) Croatia clarified that a new project is implemented with the aim of determining priority areas for groundwater monitoring within intensive agricultural areas. Based on the outcomes of this project vulnerable areas will be revised.

(61) Croatia subsequently clarified that the demolishing of old dams is included in the RBMP, although it was not reported in WISE.

(62) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060

(63) Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks entered into force on 26 November 2007 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060

(64) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62012CJ0525

(65) Croatia subsequently clarified that the fact that cost recovery of environmental and resource costs does not reach 100 % (agriculture, irrigation, fisheries and aquaculture, recreation/transport/others) was detected during the preparation of River Basin Management Plan, and therefore measures 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, as given in the PoM, were foreseen to address the issue.

(66) Croatia subsequently informed the Commission that the reported information in WISE was not accurate. The data in brackets is the corrected data supplied by Croatia.

(67) Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0007

(68) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147

(69) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043

(70) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676

(71) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271

(72) Croatia subsequently highlighted that the implementation of supplementary measures in Croatia is obligatory, i.e. they are implemented just like basic measures. Croatia stated that for the protected areas, it is foreseen to implement measures in addition to the basic measures.

(73) https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/a88369ef-df4d-43b1-8c8c-306ac7c2d6e1/Guidance%20document%20n%2024%20-%20River%20Basin%20Management%20in%20a%20Changing%20Climate_FINAL.pdf

			International RBDs (within European Union)
			International RBDs (outside European Union)
			National RBDs (within European Union)
			Countries (outside European Union)
			Coastal Waters

RBD	Name	Size (km2)				Countries sharing borders
		Mainland	Islands	Coastal waters	Total
HRC	Danube	35 101 (35 117)			35 101 (35 117)	BA, HU, RS and SI
HRJ	Adriatic	18 185 (18183)	3 262	13 842 (13 858 )	35 289 (35 303)	BA, ME and SI

Name international river basin	National RBD	Countries sharing borders	Co-ordination category
			1		2
			km²	%	km²	%
Danube	HRC	BA, HU, RS and SI	35 117	4.4 %
Adriatic	HRJ	BA, ME and SI			25 370 (21 445)	26.0 %

EQS Directive	Environmental Quality Standards Directive
FD	Floods Directive
Km	Kilometre
km2	Kilometre squared
KTM	Key Type of Measure
PoM	Programme of Measures
QA/QC Directive	Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive
RBD	River Basin District
RBMP	River Basin Management Plan
WFD	Water Framework Directive
WISE	Water Information System for Europe
Annex 0	Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.

Choose the experimental features you want to try