This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52015SC0050
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on the progress in implementation of the Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measures Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on the progress in implementation of the Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measures Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on the progress in implementation of the Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measures Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks
SWD/2015/50 final
52015SC0050
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on the progress in implementation of the Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measures Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks /* SWD/2015/0050 final */
TABLE
OF CONTENTS Glossary. 4 1. Introduction.. 6 2. Member
States interim reports on progress in implementation of the Programmes of
Measures 7 2.1 Contents of reporting. 7 2.2 Status of reporting. 9 3. Some
Key facts from Member States' reports. 10 4. The
basis for an effective Programme of Measures: reliable data and a sound
methodological approach 11 4.1 The need for a reliable data
basis for PoMs. 11 4.2 Gap analysis: what needs to
be done to achieve the objectives?. 16 5. Targeting
of measures to reduce pressures and impacts to achieve WFD objectives. 19 5.1 Introduction. 19 5.2 Apportionment of pressures
and impacts to sources. 20 5.3 Approaches to assigning
measures to sectors/sources to reduce pressures. 21 5.4 Assigning measures across
the polluters and activities/sectors responsible for the impacts. 22 5.5 Cost effectiveness. 23 5.6 Assessment of
disproportionate costs. 25 5.7 Effects of uncertainties. 25 6. Overview
of implementation of Article 11.3.a Basic Measures. 27 7. Overview
of implementation of Article 11.3.b-l other Basic Measures. 29 7.1 State of implementation in
2012. 29 7.2 Delays in implementation. 30 7.3 Financing of basic measures
(Article 11.3 b) to l)) 32 8. Overview
of implementation of Article 11.4 Supplementary Measures. 34 8.1 State of implementation in
2012. 34 8.2 Delays in implementation. 36 8.3 Financing of supplementary
measures. 37 9. Reporting
of Key Types of Measures. 39 10. Progress
with implementation of measures to reduce pressures (nutrients, organic matter)
from agriculture 42 10.1 Context. 42 10.2 Quantification of the
scale of agricultural pressures. 43 10.3 Assessment of measures
for the achievement of WFD objectives. 43 10.4 Key Types of Measure. 44 10.4.1 KTM2. Reduce nutrient
pollution in agriculture beyond the requirements of the Nitrates Directive. 45 10.4.2 KTM12: Advisory
services for agriculture. 48 11. Progress
with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from chemicals. 49 11.1 Context. 49 11.2 Quantification of the scale
of chemical pressures. 50 11.3 Assessment of measures
for the achievement of WFD objectives. 51 11.3.1 Basic and
supplementary measures. 51 11.3.2 Measures required by
the EQS Directive. 51 11.4 Key Types of Measure. 51 11.4.1 KTM3. Reduce
pesticides pollution in agriculture. 53 11.4.2 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. 54 11.4.3 KTM16: Upgrades or
improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms) beyond
the requirements of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)
Directive. 56 12. Progress
with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from hydromorphological
alterations 57 12.1 Context. 57 12.2 Quantification of the
scale of pressures from hydromorphological alterations. 58 12.3 Assessment of measures
for the achievement of WFD objectives. 60 12.4 Key Types of Measure. 62 12.4.1 KTM5. Improving
longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….62 12.4.2 KTM6: Improving hydromorphological
conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………65 13. Progress
with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from urban waste water
treatment 68 13.1 Context. 68 13.2 Quantification of the
scale of the pressures. 69 13.3 Assessment of measures
for the achievement of WFD objectives. 70 13.4 Key Types of Measure. 70 13.4.1 KTM1. Construction or
upgrades of wastewater treatment plants beyond the requirements of the
Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment 71 14. Progress
with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from water abstractions. 73 14.1 Context. 73 14.2 Quantification of the
scale of the pressure. 74 14.3 Assessment of measures
for the achievement of WFD objectives. 74 14.4 Key Types of Measure. 75 14.4.1 KTM7: Improvements in
flow regime and/or establishment of minimum ecological flow.. 76 14.4.2 KTM8: Water efficiency
measures for irrigation (technical measures) 78 15. Obstacles
to the implementation of measures. 79 15.1 Overview of obstacle
reported in 2012. 79 15.2 Inspection and
enforcement of measures. 80 16. Overall
progress with implementation of programmes of measures. 81 17. Main
changes and improvements envisaged for the second planning cycle. 83 18. Annex
- Recommendations to the Member States. 85 Glossary AA || Annual Average APSFR || Areas with Potential Significant Flood Risk AWB || Artificial Water Body BD || Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) BWD || Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC) CAP || Common Agricultural Policy CEA || Cost Effectiveness Analysis CIS || Common Implementation Strategy COD || Chemical Oxygen Demand COM || European Commission DIS || Data Information Sharing DWD || Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC) as amended by Directive (98/83/EC) EARDF || European Agricultural Rural Development Fund EC || European Commission Eflows || Ecological Flows EFTA || European Free Trade Association EIA || Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) EQS || Environmental Quality Standard EU || European Union FD || Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) FHRM || Flood Hazard and Risk Maps FRMP || Flood Risk Management Plan GEP || Good Ecological Potential GES || Good Ecological Status GIS || Geographical Information System GWD || Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC) HD || Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) HMWB || Heavily Modified Water Body HPP || Hydro Power Plant IED || Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) IMP_POM || Progress on the implementation of the Programmes of Measures IPPCD || Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (96/61/EC) KTM || Key Type of Measure MAC || Maximum Allowable Concentration MS || Member State MSFD || Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) N || Nitrogen NAP || Nitrates Action Programme ND || Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) NVZ || Nitrate Vulnerable Zones OP || Operational Programme P || Phosphorus PA || Partnership Agreement pe || Population equivalent PFRA || Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment PoM || Programme of Measures PPPD || Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC) RBD || River Basin District RBMP || River Basin Management Plan RBSP || River Basin Specific Pollutant RDP || Rural Development Programme SCG || Strategic Coordination Group Seveso || Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC) SIIF || Structured Information and Implementation Framework SWD || Staff Working Document UWWT || Urban Waste Water Treatment UWWTD || Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) WB || Water Body WFD || Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) WFS || Web Features Services WISE || Water Information System for Europe
1.
Introduction
The Water Framework Directive (WFD)
establishes a framework for sustainable water management through the
development of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and Programmes of Measures
(PoMs), with the objective of preventing deterioration of the aquatic
environment and of achieving good status of all water bodies by 2015. According to the WFD, the PoMs are
established in order to achieve the environmental objectives of the Directive,
and should therefore include the actions that Member States plan to take for
that purpose. The WFD PoMs are made of basic and
supplementary measures. Basic measures are the minimum requirements
to be included in the PoMs. They consist of:
measures associated with the
implementation of other Community legislation for the protection of waters
(referred to in WFD Article 11(3)a and Annex VI, for example, measures to
achieve compliance with the objectives of the Nitrates and Urban Waste
Water Treatment Directives) and
other WFD-specific basic measures (WFD
Articles 11(3) paragraphs b to l) that are required to achieve the
environmental objectives. These WFD-specific basic measures are largely
administrative and regulatory instruments such as permit regimes, general
binding rules, etc. These instruments should enable the authorities to
exert control over all activities that can have a significant impact on water
bodies and therefore potentially hinder the achievement of the
environmental objectives.
Basic measures are often not enough to
achieve the environmental objectives. In those cases, supplementary measures
are required (Article 11(4)). The WFD is not prescriptive on the type of
supplementary measures. These can be of very diverse nature and Member States
are able to tailor them to the situation in their River Basin Districts (RBDs)
as long as the objectives are met. PoMs were due for the first time in December
2009, as part of the RBMPs, and should have been made operational by December
2012. The RBMPs and PoMs have to be updated every 6 years. Member States were required to report to
the Commission on the progress in implementation of their PoMs by December 2012
(WFD Article 15.3). Details of this reporting are provided in the following
section. In November 2012 the Commission published a
Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources[1]. The Blueprint set out key actions that need to be taken by water managers
and policy makers to address the challenges faced by the aquatic environment.
As part of the Blueprint package, the Commission published the 3rd
Implementation Report of the WFD[2], based on the first
RBMPs, and containing already some preliminary conclusions on the PoMs. The
report included as well specific assessments of implementation and
recommendations for each Member State. As a follow up of the Blueprint the
Commission Services held a series of bilateral meetings with Member States
during 2013 and 2014[3] with the aim of reviewing
implementation and discuss the way the Member States were to take forward the
Commission's recommendations. The aim of this report is to provide an
overview of the progress made by Member States in the development and
implementation of PoMs under the WFD. It draws on the conclusions from the
abovementioned reports and assessments (Commission assessment of the first
River Basin Management Plans; Member States’ interim reports on the progress in
implementation of their programmes of measures; information from bilateral
meetings with Member States), and an in-depth assessment of five key
aspects/pressures (agriculture, chemicals, hydromorphology, urban waste water
treatment and water abstraction) undertaken in 2014. It supports the key
conclusions and recommendations included in the Commission Communication which
it accompanies, as far as WFD PoMs is concerned[4]. In addition, a number of key
recommendations for each Member State are included in Annex.
2. Member States interim reports on progress in implementation of the
Programmes of Measures
2.1
Contents of reporting
Interim reporting
to the Commission on progress in implementing the PoMs was required by 22
December 2012 based on a reporting template[5] agreed in May 2011
by the Commission and Member States through the Common Implementation Strategy[6] (CIS). The
reporting template focused on reporting progress in implementation and, as
such, did not request information on the effectiveness the measures implemented
so far. Estimates of effectiveness should have been part of the PoMs as
reported in 2009 and ultimately the measured impact in terms of improvement in
water status will only be available as part of the 2nd RBMP in 2015. The contents of
the 2012 reporting on progress was structured in two main parts: - for all
individual measures as reported in the PoMs adopted in 2009, Member States
were required to provide a qualitative indication of progress in terms
of whether the implementation of the measure had been completed, it was on-going
or had not been started. For measures involving construction or building works,
the on-going category was differentiated between "planning on-going"
and "construction on-going" (see Box 1 for more details about the
definition of these terms). - for some Key
Types of Measures (KTMs), defined as those expected to deliver the bulk of
the environmental improvement, the Member States were required to provide an
estimate of progress on the basis of quantitative indicators, based as
well in the categorisation of measures completed, on-going and not started.
Member States were asked to identify the relevant KTMs for each RBD out of a
list of the 16 KTMs expected to be the most important across the EU (Annex 1 to
the reporting template). Member States could also add other KTMs that were not
on the list, if they were considered important in their RBDs. For each KTM a
list of possible quantitative indicators was provided, to accommodate
differences in data availability between Member States. The Member States were
asked to report at least one quantitative indicator, but as many as they
wished. It should be
recalled that according to the WFD, the measures need to be made operational at
the latest by 22 December 2012. This concept largely corresponds to the
category 'measure completed' as described in the reporting template. Box 1: Guidance on the interpretation of “not started”, “on-going” and “completed” for different types of measures[7]: Reference date is a best estimate of the situation towards the end of 2012. Therefore, any reference below to "has not started", "planning on-going", "construction on-going", "on-going", "has been completed", etc. is to be understood as referring to the estimated situation towards the end of 2012. · Measures involving construction or building works (e.g. a waste water treatment plant, a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc): o Not started means the technical and/or administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have not started. o Planning on-going means that administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have started but are not finalised. The simple inclusion in the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context. o Construction on-going means the construction or building works have started but are not finalised. o Completed means the works have been finalised and the facilities are operational (maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant). · Measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers): o Not started means the advisory services are not yet operational and have not provided any advisory session yet o On-going means the advisory services are operational and are being used. This is expected to be the situation for all multi-annual long/mid-term advisory services that are expected to be operational during the whole or most of RBMP cycle. o Completed means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been finalised, i.e. is no longer operational. This is expected only for advisory services that are relatively short term or one-off, and which duration is time limited in relation to the whole RBMP cycle. · Measures involving research, investigation or studies: o Not started means the research, investigation or study has not started, i.e. contract has not been signed or there has not been any progress. o On-going means the research, investigation or study has been contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. o Completed means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and has been delivered, i.e. the results ore deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). · Measures involving administrative acts (e.g. licenses, permits, regulations, instructions, etc.): o Not started means the administrative file has not been opened and there has not been any administrative action as regards the measure o On-going means an administrative file has been opened and at least a first administrative action has been taken (e.g. requirement to an operator to provide information to renew the licensing, request of a permit by an operator, internal consultation of draft regulations, etc.). If the measure involves more than one file, the opening of one would mean already “on-going” o Completed means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license or permit has been issued, the regulation has been adopted, etc). If the measure involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of them have been concluded.
2.2
Status of reporting
Reporting was done
electronically through WISE[8]. Most Member States and RBDs reported by the deadline of 22
December 2012 or later but in time for the Commission to include the assessment
in this report. A number of RBDs reported only in the last few months and
therefore it was not possible to include them in the assessment presented in
this report. Table 1 presents
the status of reporting as at the end of 2014. The EU-wide statistics included
in this assessment report cover only the submissions in the first two columns. Table 1. Status of WISE reporting
(unless noted in brackets the reporting dates refer to all RBDs in each Member
State). Member State || WISE electronic reports received by the deadline and included in the assessment || WISE electronic reports received after the deadline but included in the assessment || Not included in the assessment AT || 20/12/2012 || || BE || 21/12/2012 (Flanders) || 15/01/2014 (Wallonia) || 24/11/2014 (Brussels) No report (Federal) BG || || 21/02/2013 – 1/03/2013 || CY || 22/12/2012 || || CZ || || 07/01/2013 (Danube) 04/02/2013 (Oder) || Not reported (Elbe) DE || 12/12/2012 || || DK || || || Not reported to date EE || || 28/06/2013 || EL || || || A paper report was received on 12/12/2014 ES || 19/12/2012 (Ebro, Jucar, Tinto, Odiel and Piedras, Guadalete and Barbate, Guadalquivir, Guadiana, Tajo, Cantabrico Occidental,Cantabrico Oriental, Galicia Costa, Miño-Sil) 20/12/2012 (Andalucia) || 22/02/2013 (Segura, Duero) || 22/10/2014 (Catalonia) 13/11/2014 (Ceuta and Melilla) Not reported to date (7 RBDs in Canary Islands) FI || 21/12/2012 || || FR || 20/12/2012 || || HR || || || Not reported to date HU || || 16/06/2013 || IE || || 08/02/2013 || IT || 21/12/2012 (except Sicily) || || Not reported to date (Sicily) LT || || 31/12/2012 || LU || || 27/12/2012 || LV || || 28/12/2012 || MT || || 28/02/2013 || NL || 14/12/2012 || || PL || 21/12/2012 || || PT || || 11-25/07/2013 (except Madeira and Azores) || Not reported to date (Madeira and Azores) RO || || 15/02/2013 || SE || 19/12/2012 || || SI || || 20/12/2013[9] || SK || 21/12/2012 || || UK || 17-20/12/2012 (except Gibraltar) || || Not reported to date (Gibraltar) The Commission has
opened EU pilots to inquire a number of Member States about the missing
reports.
3. Some Key facts from Member States' reports
The following is a
summary of some main facts extracted from the Member States' reports. More
details are provided in the remainder of the report. ·
At EU level, 23% of WFD-specific basic
measures (Article 11(3) b to l) were reported as completed, 66% on-going
and 11% not started. The figures reported for supplementary measures
(Article 11(4)) were 29% completed, 54% on-going and 17% not started. ·
The type of WFD measures more commonly
reported by Member States (MS) (beyond existing pre-WFD directives) are o
Construction or upgrade of urban waste water
treatment (19 MS). o
Reduce nutrient pollution in agriculture (16
MS). o
Improving river continuity and other
hydromorphological measures (16 MS). o
Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing
uncertainty (15 MS). o
Drinking water protection measures (15 MS). ·
Two thirds of the RBDs reported that the basic
measures (Nitrates Directive plus the WFD basic measures in Article 11(3) b to
l) are not sufficient to tackle diffuse pollution from agriculture,
indicating a need to take supplementary measures. ·
Around three quarters of the RBDs indicated that
basic measures are not sufficient to address water flow regulation and
morphological alterations, indicating a need to take supplementary
measures. ·
However, on average around 20% of the WFD basic
measures (Articles 11(3) b to l) are reported as completed and only 10% of the
hydromorphological and diffuse sources supplementary measures have been completed
(75% are on-going, 15% have not yet started) ·
The type of basic measures more often reported
as significantly delayed are those related to water abstraction (31 RBDs
or 23%). ·
The majority (75% or more) of supplementary
measures have been completed only in 2 Member States. 11 Member States have
significant percentages (more than 20%) of supplementary measures not started. ·
Funding/financial obstacles is the most common reason indicated for delays in implementing
supplementary measures, affecting 7% of the supplementary measures at EU level
·
EU funds have
been reported as used sparsely in funding supplementary measures. 13 Member
States report having financed more than 10% of supplementary measures using the
main EU funds (Cohesion, Structural and/or Rural Development) of which only 3
finance more than 20% of measures. ·
8 Member States have quantitatively assessed the
pollution loads from agriculture, but only 1 has estimated the reduction
needed to achieve WFD good status. Most Member States recognise the
contribution of the Nitrates Directive implementation but only in qualitative
terms, not assessing how much they will close the gap to good status, and how
much additional effort is needed. ·
The situation is similar for chemical
pollution, with most Member States only programming measures that will
reduce pressure but there is no assessment of how much these measures will
close the gap. Only 11 Member States consider atmospheric deposition as
significant. ·
As regards hydromorphological measures,
hydropower is the most commonly cited driver responsible for interruption of
river continuity, followed by water supply and flood protection. Progress in
implementation is slow, with 80% of the measures either not started or still
on-going in 8 Member States. ·
Measures related to waste water treatment
beyond UWWTD have progressed significantly, with 7 Member States showing more
than 75% of the measures either completed or under construction, although
situation is very diverse. 5 Member States indicated more than 75% of the
measures have not started or are on-going. ·
As regards water abstraction and
establishment of ecological flows, implementation delays are significant,
with 8 Member States reporting at least 50% of the measures as not started. ·
Reporting of drinking water protection
measures shows good progress with 9 Member States above 60% completion.
4. The basis for an effective Programme of Measures: reliable data and
a sound methodological approach
4.1
The need for a reliable data basis for PoMs
In designing the PoMs, the WFD article
11(1) requires Member States to take into account the previous planning steps.
Indeed, the design of appropriate measures to achieve the objectives can only
be done on the basis of adequate knowledge of the pressures, impacts and status
affecting the water bodies[10]. The WFD planning
process is designed to deliver this knowledge base required to take well
informed decisions. The 3rd implementation report
and the bilateral meetings showed that the first PoMs were affected by
significant gaps in many Member States as regards the pressures and impacts
analysis, development of assessment methods and monitoring of water status (see
Table 2). Unless these gaps are filled, it is difficult to design robust PoMs,
targeted to the existing significant pressures and based on sound status data. A number of significant gaps are common to
many Member States. The assessment of hydromorphological
pressures needs to be improved substantially. The pressure analysis should be
based on an inventory of pressures at the necessary level of detail as to serve
the purpose. In some cases the Member States only took into account large
modifications, in the context of the identification of heavily modified water
bodies. However, this approach does not guarantee that all relevant
hydromorphological pressures which may cause water bodies to fail their
environmental objectives are recorded and taken into account in the subsequent
planning steps. The availability of information on hydromorphological pressures
for the first RBMP was scarce in many Member States, as this issue was largely
not regulated before the WFD. However, it is expected that Member States will
have much better information basis for the update of the pressures and impacts
analysis for the 2nd RBMPs. The bilateral meetings show that this is
the case in many Member States. Another significant gap affecting many
Member States is the availability of biological assessment methods sufficiently
sensitive to hydromorphological pressures. This has been recently highlighted
again[11] as a significant gap. If
assessment methods are not sufficiently sensitive to hydromorphological
pressures, they are not able to detect ecological degradation and therefore
will overlook significant impacts which will not be picked up in the design of
the PoMs. Chemical monitoring has also been
identified in the 3rd implementation report as needing significant
improvement. Due to the gaps in monitoring and assessment, it was not possible
at that time to establish the 2009 baseline for chemical status. At EU level,
as many as 40% of surface water bodies were reported as unknown chemical status
in the first RBMPs. On this weak information basis it is not possible to design
adequate PoMs. As regards the assessment of chemical and
quantitative status of groundwater, the first RBMPs in most Member States did
not adequately cover the dependent surface water and terrestrial ecosystems.
This was mostly due to the lack of knowledge on the interlinkages between
groundwater and surface water. Again, this is an area where significant
improvements in the knowledge base is expected for the second RBMPs. Table 2: Identification of
main gaps in the pressures and impacts analysis, development of methods for the
assessment of status and monitoring networks in the first RBMPs[12]. Note: situation has improved
significantly in the meantime as Member States improved their methods in view
of the second RBMPs. Member State || Pressures and impacts analysis || Methods for assessment of status || Monitoring networks || Comments AT || J || J || J || Largely in place for the first RBMP. BE || K || K || J || Improvements in the assessment of hydromorphological pressures are needed. Missing assessment methods in coastal waters and in consideration of surface water and terrestrial dependent ecosystems in groundwater status assessment. Improvements to GEP[13] needed in Wallonia. BG || K || K || K || Significant improvements are needed in the analysis of pressures and impacts (including re-delineation of river water bodies), development of assessment methods and monitoring. GEP needs improvement. CY || K || K || K || Improvements in the assessment of quantitative pressures are needed, as well as the development of assessment methods for hydromorphology and chemical monitoring. GEP needs improvement. CZ || K || J || J || Assessment of hydromorphological pressures needs completion. Assessment methods and monitoring was largely in place for the first RBMP. GEP needs improvement. DE || J || K || K || Some gaps in biological and hydromorphological assessment methods and chemical monitoring. DK || || || || Not assessed[14] EE || K || K || K || Harmonisation and improvement in the consistency of the pressures and impacts analysis is needed, in particular for hydromorphology. Some gaps in assessment methods and monitoring for rivers and lakes need to be filled. GEP needs improvement. EL || K || L || L || Robust criteria for assessing significant pressures need to be developed, in particular for hydromorphology. Significant gaps in assessment methods. First RBMP relied on existing monitoring data, WFD monitoring started only in 2012. GEP needs to be established. ES || K || K || K || Improvements in pressures and impacts analysis are needed, in particular to overcome inconsistencies as regards hydromorphology. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring (chemical and ecological status). Inconsistencies in the ecological status results. GEP needs improvement. FI || J || J || J || Largely in place for the first RBMP. FR || J || K || K || Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring of ecological status. GEP needs improvement. HR || K || L || L || Improvements are needed in the pressures and impacts analysis, in particular for transitional and coastal waters. First RBMP was based on pre-WFD methods. GEP needs improvement. HU || K || K || K || Improvements are needed on the pressures and impacts analysis, in particular for chemicals and hydromorphology. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring for ecological and chemical status. GEP needs to be established. IE || K || K || K || The assessment of hydromorphological pressures and impacts needs to be improved. Assessment methods were largely in place for the 1st RBMP but needed consolidation and completion. Some monitoring gaps. IT || K || L || L || Groundwater assessment methods and monitoring missing in 4 regions for the first RBMP. Significant gaps in methods and monitoring of surface waters. Decree regulating methods and monitoring was adopted in 2010 only. GEP needs to be established. LT || K || K || K || Improvements are needed in the pressures and impacts analysis to reduce the number of unknown pressures and link thresholds of significance with risks of failure of good status. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring for surface waters. GEP needs improvement. LU || K || K || K || Improvements are needed in the pressures and impacts analysis and in particular in the definition of reliable thresholds of significance. Gaps in assessment methods, in particular for hydromorphology, and in monitoring networks. LV || K || K || K || Improvements are needed in the pressures and impacts analysis and in particular for hydromorphology. Gaps in monitoring and assessment methods for surface water. GEP needs to be established. MT || K || L || L || Pressures and impacts analysis needs improvement, in particular as regards diffuse pollution and hydromorphology. No assessment methods and monitoring for inland surface waters and significant gaps in coastal waters. NL || J || J || J || Largely in place for the first RBMP. PL || K || L || L || Improvements needed in the pressures and impacts analysis, in particular in thresholds of significance and their link to the risk of failing good status. Very significant gaps in monitoring and assessment methods. GEP needs to be established. PT || K || K || K || Improvements needed in the pressures and impacts analysis, in particular in hydromorphology and water abstraction. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring in the first RBMP. RO || K || K || K || Thresholds of significance need to be linked to risk of failing to achieve good status to improve the pressures and impacts analysis. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring in the first RBMP. GEP needs improvement. SE || K || K || K || Improvement needed in pressures and impacts analysis, in particular for hydromorphology. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring networks. GEP needs improvement. SI || L || K || K || Very significant pressures overlooked in the first RBMP, in particular (but not only) hydromorphological pressure assessment incomplete. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring of surface waters. SK || J || K || K || Significant gaps in assessment methods for ecological status and monitoring of surface waters. UK || J || K || K || Some gaps in assessment methods and monitoring of surface waters in the first RBMP. Legend: J || Largely in place in the first RBMPs. K || Significant gaps in the first RBMPs. L || Very significant gaps in the first RBMPs. Recommendations (as included in the Communication) Member States need to step up their efforts to base their PoMs on a
sound assessment of pressures and impacts on the aquatic ecosystem and on a
reliable assessment of water status. Otherwise, if the basis assessment of
pressures is flawed, the entire RBMPs will be ill-founded and there is a risk
that Member States will not carry out their work where it is most needed and in
a cost-effective way. Monitoring should be maintained and/or improved. In particular, the
monitoring of water status should be improved for surface water, especially as
concerns priority substances. The remaining shortcomings in the methods to
assess the ecological status of water should be urgently addressed in several
Member States. The development of methods sensitive to hydrological and
physical alterations of water bodies is particularly important, and some Member
States have done this already. The resulting increased knowledge base should
ensure that measures are better targeted to achieve WFD
objectives.
4.2
Gap analysis: what needs to be done to achieve
the objectives?
The WFD PoMs
should be designed to achieve the WFD environmental objectives (WFD Article
11(1)). The default objective in WFD is to achieve good status[15] for all water
bodies by 2015. This objective is quantified[16] and linked to a clear timetable. Therefore, in designing the PoMs,
Member States are expected to identify which measures are needed to achieve
good status[17]. The starting point
is the current situation, as reflected in the pressures and impacts analysis
and the status assessment on the basis of monitoring. In the process of
designing the PoMs, it is important first to establish the business as usual
(or baseline) scenario, i.e. to understand how far will the existing and
already planned measures lead us towards the objective of good status. On the
basis of this assessment, the WFD specific basic measures (Article 11(3)
paragraphs b to l) and supplementary measures (Article 11(4)) can be designed
to fill the remaining gap by reducing the pressures to levels compatible with
good status. Figure 1 depicts schematically this process. Figure 1.
Simplified illustration of a process to identify and fill in the gap between
the current status and the 2015 objective of good water status. If more than one
combination of measures can achieve good status, a cost-effective analysis can
help identifying the optimum solution able to deliver the desired result at the
lowest cost. Once Member States
have established how much would it cost to achieve good status to whom and by
when, then it is possible to assess whether exemptions need to be applied due
to disproportionate costs, technical unfeasibility or natural conditions. The Commission’s
assessment shows that many Member States have not followed this logic in
designing their PoMs. Instead, they have included in the PoMs measures that are
largely already in place or in the pipeline and, in some cases, additional
measures identified ex-ante as feasible. Then an assessment is done of how far
these measures will contribute to the achievement of the WFD’s environmental
objectives and, for those water bodies not achieving good status, an exemption
is applied without proper justification as required by WFD. Other Member
States designed their PoMs on the basis of a number of scenarios reflecting
different combination of measures. The plausible scenarios are often built on
the basis of measures identified ex-ante as feasible. Again, this ex-ante
assessment is often based on expert judgement and/or inputs from the affected
sectors. This approach pre-empts the result and is not adequate to justify the
exemptions according to WFD. Judgements on feasibility should be based on a
transparent assessment of what is needed to achieve good status. The WFD’s
environmental objectives are quantified and linked to a clear timetable. The
approach taken by many Member States – of ‘moving in the right direction’ based
(largely) on business-as-usual scenarios – is clearly not sufficient to achieve
the environmental objectives for most water bodies. Another important
aspect linked to the approach taken in designing the PoMs is the consequences
of the application of exemptions. In most cases, when exemptions are applied
and the achievement of ‘good status’ is postponed, it is not clear whether
measures are taken to progress towards the objective, as required by the
directive (Article 4(4)d). Further
information on the approaches taken by Member States can be found in the
following sections of this report, but the overall conclusions is that very few
Member States have performed a quantitative gap analysis to underpin the design
of the PoMs. Recommendations (as included in the Communication) In order to correctly design the PoMs, Member States need to
identify the most cost-effective combination of measures that are needed to
fill in the gap between water’s current status and ‘good status’. This gap
analysis is necessary to understand what needs to be done to achieve the
objectives, how much time it will take and how much it will cost to whom. In
addition, properly justifying exemptions due to technical unfeasibility or
disproportionate costs are possible only based on this analysis. Moreover, even
if exemptions are justified, Member States need to ensure that measures
progress as far as possible towards the objectives.
5. Targeting of measures to reduce pressures and impacts to achieve WFD
objectives
5.1
Introduction
Measures should be targeted in terms of
their type and extent to ensure that pressures are addressed and that this will
deliver improvements towards achieving good status or potential in the
individual water bodies. The measures should be designed based on the
assessment of the actual status of the water body, supplemented with the
information from the analysis of pressures and impacts affecting the water
body. Each step of the planning process of the
WFD is, therefore, necessary to ensure the correct measures are implemented in
the appropriate location. The planning process started with the transposition
of the Directive into national law and the administrative arrangements, and it
was followed by the characterisation of the RBD (including the pressures and
impacts analysis, the economic analysis, the delineation of water bodies and
the establishment of the typology and reference conditions for surface water
bodies: the basis for the ecological status assessment). The status assessment
based on sufficient (parameters, frequency, etc.) and updated monitoring
results is a fundamental element of the planning process, but is also often the
weak part of the chain. Finally, the environmental objectives are set and the
PoMs to achieve those objectives are established. The PoMs should have become operational by
December 2012 at the latest. There is a need to monitor the effects and
effectiveness of the measures in the improvement of the water status and (as
stated in Article 11.5) where monitoring or other data indicate that the
objectives set are unlikely to be achieved. The cause of the possible failure
should be investigated, relevant permits and authorisations should be reviewed,
monitoring programmes reviewed and adjusted and amended or additional measures
devised to ensure achievement of objectives. In terms of the objective of achieving good
status by 2015, the aim would be to identify the gap in water body status/potential
expected by 2015 and the status required by the Water Framework Directive. How
large the gap that must be filled to achieve WFD objectives in any particular
RBD and Member State will depend, for example, on how Member States have
implemented the requirements under other Directives (e.g. the relative
stringency of measures in national Nitrates Action Plans) and policies, as well
as differences in the type, extent and magnitude of pressures on water bodies.
The gap should be filled with measures that would be implemented under the
Water Framework Directive for those water bodies expected to be failing
objectives in 2015 without exemptions. The gap to the achievement of objectives
will be caused by significant pressures on water bodies: the sources and
sectors responsible will have to be identified to determine where actions on
the ground are needed to reduce pressures to levels in/on water bodies
compatible with the achievement of objectives. The required reduction of the
pressures to fill the gap to the achievement of objectives should then be
quantified: this can be expressed in different ways depending on the nature of
the pressure. For example: for nutrient pollution it could be in terms of the
required reduction in the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in the receiving
water bodies; for pressures arising from the hydromorphological alteration of
water bodies it could be expressed as number of barriers that have conditions
not compatible with the achievement of Water Framework Directive objectives;
and, for water abstractions the volume of water abstracted or diverted that has
to be reduced to achieve objectives. The assessment of the first RBMPs has shown
that the measures are often not concrete and the expected achievements not
always clear. In general, it should be better reflected that the PoMs should be
based on the result of the analysis of pressures and impacts and the status
information from the monitoring programmes. Often the definition of the
measures is too vague and there is little clarity on the scope of the measures.
Furthermore, the financial commitment, the
bodies or organisations responsible for the implementation, the planned
timetable and the expected effects on the improvement of the status are not
described in the majority of the RBMPs. This lack of detail in defining the
measures concretely may lead to insufficient action to tackle the specific
problems of the water bodies and hinder the achievement of the WFD at local
level. The aim of using source apportionment is
primarily to give a clear picture of the most important sources for a given
pressure or impact. In this context a source might be considered as a
combination of a pressure type (e.g. diffuse or point source pollution combined
with the responsible sector or driver like diffuse – agriculture or diffuse –
forestry).
5.2
Apportionment of pressures and impacts to
sources
Table 1 summarises
the information found on how the identified impacts and pressures on water
bodies have been apportioned to the responsible sources and sectors. Source
apportionment information is required so that measures can be targeted
affectively at sources to reduce the pressures to levels compatible with the
achievement of WFD objectives. The information was primarily obtained from
an in-depth assessment of the information presented by Member States in their
bilateral meetings with the Commission on the implementation of their first
RBMPs and PoMs. This was supplemented as necessary by the information reported
in 2012 on progress with implementation of the PoMs and the first RBMPs and
supporting documents. Table 1: Apportionment of
identified impacts between the sources and sectors responsible for the
pressures Approach adopted || Member States No information || PL Impacts and pressures not apportioned between sources and sectors || BE (Brussels region); MT; PT Qualitative apportionment: sources identified but their relative contribution to impacts and pressures on water bodies not assessed or quantified || CY; DE; ES; FI; IE; HU; IT; LU; LV; RO; UK Quantitative apportionment for all impacts (e.g. nutrient pollution) and sources (e.g. agriculture and waste water discharges) || - Quantitative apportionment for some impacts and all their pressures || CZ; SE; LT Quantitative apportionment for some impacts and just their main pressures || AT; EE; FR; SK; BE (Flanders and Wallonia); FI; NL, RO; UK; There are differences in approaches between RBDs in the MS, for example because some regions within a MS may have different Competent Authorities. || IT; SE; FR; BE; UK None of the 23 Member States assessed seems
to have undertaken source apportionment for all impacts and pressures though 12
Member States have undertaken source apportionment for some impacts in relation
to some if not all sources/sectors. 11 Member States or regions of a Member
State have only undertaken a qualitative apportionment where the main sources
of pressures have been identified but their relative contributions to the
pressures have not been quantified. Examples of the methodologies used:
A mathematical model presumably validated
by monitoring data was used to assess the impacts of point and diffuse
pollution sources on the rivers in Lithuania, as well as to calculate the
pollutant concentrations in the main rivers and to identify the input
loads of individual pollution sources. The source of hydromorphological
alteration pressures were identified as being from hydropower plants and
straightened rivers. So other than for some chemicals, the sources of
which were unknown, the sources of practically all pressures were
identified during the preparation of the first RBMPs.
A source apportionment has been made for
some pressures for example, in the Scheldt RBD in Belgium (Walloon region)
it has been determined that the chemical industry and food industry are
responsible for 81% of the COD and for 84% of the total phosphorus discharged by the whole industrial
sector. However for the other pressures such as from hydromorphological
alterations though the main sources are identified their relative impacts
have not been apportioned.
In the Czech Republic and Romania
quantitative apportionments have been made mainly for nutrients and
organic pollutants from point (discharges) and diffuse sources. The
quantitative apportionment was detailed (at facility level (discharges)
and quantification of diffuse sources on water body level) both in kg/year
of pollutants.
For most of the RBDs in France an
apportionment between domestic / agricultural / industrial sectors for
phosphorus, organic matter and nitrogen was done without any
differentiation between point sources and diffuse sources.
In Sweden source apportionment has only
been made for nutrients - not for other impacts such as those from hazardous
substances.
5.3
Approaches to assigning measures to
sectors/sources to reduce pressures
Table 2 summarises
the results of the assessment of the approaches used by 23 Member States in
assigning measures to sectors/sources to reduce pressures. Table 2: Summary of other approaches to applying
measures to reduce pressures Approach || Member States Applied to those sectors affected by Article 11.3.a basic measures || CY; IE; LU; LV; RO Applied to sectors where legal mechanisms and enforcement were available || IE; LV Applied to sectors where measures were considered as being most cost effective || BE; NL; LV Focus on sectors where measures are known from past experience to reduce pressures/improve status || SK; LV Sectors that have traditionally been regulated and subject to improvement measures || IT; IE; SK Sectors identified as being a source of significant pressures on water bodies || AT; CY; EE, FI, FR; MT; LU; BE; NL; LV; IT; IE; SK ; RO On sectors where other (than Article 11.3.a) measures were already in place || IT Other approach || EE; ES; FI; LT; PT; SE; BE; NL No information found || CZ; IT; ES Note that more than one approach may apply in a Member
State 14 Member States targeted measures at the
sectors identified as being a source of significant pressures on water bodies
and three MS applied measures to sectors where measures
were considered as being most cost effective. No relevant information was found
for 3 Member States. For example the measures in the Irish PoMs
focus primarily on basic measures (Article 11.3.a). They have been applied to
sectors based on a combination of a source-based apportionment (i.e. point
versus diffuse sources of P with some differentiation into agriculture sources
and wastewater discharges for example) and expert judgement derived from past
experience of water management.
5.4
Assigning measures across the polluters and
activities/sectors responsible for the impacts
Table 3 summarises
the results of the assessment of 23 Member States in terms of how measures were
selected across the polluters and sectors responsible for the impacts on water
bodies Table 3: Summary of approaches to assigning
measures across the sectors responsible for pressures and impacts on water
bodies Approach || Member State Focus predominantly on one sector || None Focus on the sectors contributing most to the pressures and impacts || AT; BE; CY; DE; EE; FR; HU; IE; LT; LU; LV; MT; NL; RO; SE; SK Focus on the sectors where the measures were considered to be most effective in reducing pressures || FI; PT; UK; EE; LT; NL; SE Focus on the sectors where measures were considered to be most cost effective || BE; FR; LV; RO; UK Focus on those sectors where measures were more enforceable || LT No information found or the approach was not clear || CZ; ES; IT; PL; FR Note: More than one approach may apply in each Member
State 16 Member States indicated that measures
were focused on the sectors contributing most to the pressures and impacts on
water bodies and 7 to the sectors where the measures were considered to be most
effective in reducing pressures. There was no or unclear information for 6
Member States. Examples of the approaches:
Harmonised approaches for development of
Programmes of Measures were developed at the national level in Germany.
Measures have been developed for each respective theme (i.e. agriculture,
groundwater, hydromorphology, water pricing etc.). On the one hand, this
ensures a common approach in the Länder, especially in RBDs with multiple
administrative districts. On the other hand, the information provided in
the plans remains very general as only overarching categories of measures
are provided.
The PoMs for the more southerly RBDs in
Sweden clearly address the main polluting sectors - waste water from
households, industry and agriculture. However, when it comes to the most
important pressure in the 2 northern RBDs – from hydromorphological
alterations - the approach is more complicated. A substantial part of the
costs for physically reducing the impact from hydromorphological pressures
is for building fish passes where roads or rail tracks cross over rivers.
This source seem relative minor compared to the many hydropower facilities
in these areas impacting large lengths of the rivers which seem not be
prioritised for measures: the money spent on the minor obstacles in the
rivers may be lost if the problems at the large hydropower facilities are
not solved.
Another example for reducing the impacts
of hydromorphological pressures and restoration of river continuity are
the PoMs in Austria. They are following a prioritisation approach based on
ecological effectiveness of the measures. According to this prioritisation
river stretches were identified where the restoration of river continuity
would be of highest importance and effect for the improvement of the
conditions for endangered medium distance migratory fish species. All
obstacles in these river stretches have to be made passable for migratory
fish regardless whether the obstacle is due to hydropower plants, flood
protection works or other sources.
5.5
Cost effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) 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. Uncertainty on costs, effectiveness and
time-lagged effects of measures needs to be dealt with throughout the economic
analysis process associated with the WFD, and more generally throughout the
process of identifying measures and developing the RBMP. Sources of uncertainty
are highly diverse according to situations and river basins, but will exist
with regards to the assessment of pressures, impacts, baseline, costs or
measures effectiveness. It is important that key areas of uncertainty and key
assumptions made for the analysis are clearly spelt out and reported alongside
the results of the analysis. Table 4.1 summarises
the results of the assessment on the use of cost effectiveness analysis in 23
Member States. Table 4.1:
Summary on Member States use of a cost effectiveness analysis for the
development of the programme of measures The use of cost effectiveness analysis || Member State For measures for all significant pressures || DE, FR; LT; LU; LV; PT; RO; UK For measures for some but not all significant pressures || AT; BE; CY; CZ; ES; HU; NL; SE, FI A cost-effectiveness analysis was not undertaken || EE; IE; MT; PL No information or not clear || IT; SK Eight of the 23 Member States assessed have
used a cost-effectiveness analysis in the development of their programmes of
measures for all significant pressures and a further 8 for some but not all
significant pressures. A cost effectiveness analysis appears to have not been
undertaken in 4 Member States and no information or unclear information on
this was found for 2 Member States. Efforts have been done in the first
implementation cycle to assess the cost-effectiveness of different measures as
an instrument to support decision making towards a cost effective
implementation/achievement of the WFD objectives. At the same time, various
difficulties were faced; therefore additional information on the effectiveness
of measures and the expected progress in achieving the WFD objectives as linked
to their related costs are desirable for the third implementation cycle/in the
second RBMPs. In most of the RBMPs it is stated that a
cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted during the development of the
PoMs that is either for all measures, or for a selection of measures, or for a
specific sector. In the majority of cases, it was reported that the CEA
influenced the final selection of measures. However there is a great variety
regarding the level at which the cost-effectiveness analysis has been
performed. In addition, in approximately half of the cases the
cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed for measures related to all
significant pressures, while in the remaining ones either the CEA was not
performed or only dealing with measures linked to some of the significant
pressures. The CEA often targeted only the
supplementary measures, while in general the methodologies used are often
unclear or poorly reported. A variety of approaches was taken, e.g. using
expert estimations, case study approaches, reference to general procedures
implicitly dealing with CEA, using modelling and decision support tools,
stakeholder participation etc. Besides some methodological considerations,
various gaps in information availability did limit the use of a CEA (Table 4.2); the main factors here are the
lack of information on the environmental effectiveness of some measures in
terms of reducing pressures and improving water body status for some pressures,
as well as the lack of information on the time-lag between making measures
operational, the pressures being reduced and improvements being apparent. Issues related to the regulatory
effectiveness of some measures in terms of reducing pressures and improving
water body status for some pressures as well as to the costs information of
measures for some pressures also hindered the use of cost-effectiveness
analysis on some cases. Table 4.2: Factors limiting
the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in the first programmes of measures Factor || Member State Lack of information on the environmental effectiveness of some measures in terms of reducing pressures and improving water body status for some pressures || AT; BE; DE; FI; FR; LT; LU; MT; PT; SE; UK Lack of information on the regulatory effectiveness of some measures in terms of reducing pressures and improving water body status for some pressures || AT; DE; FI; MT; UK Lack of information on the time-lag between making measures operational, the pressures being reduced and improvements being apparent || AT; DE; FI; LT; LU; MT; PT; RO Lack of information on the costs of measures for some pressures || DE; IE; LU; PT; RO; SE; UK Other || ES; HU; LT; LU; PL; SE No information || CY; CZ; EE; FR; IT; LV; NL; SK
5.6
Assessment of disproportionate costs
The WFD allows for an extended time to the
achievement of objectives or the application of less stringent objectives if
properly justified on the grounds of disproportionately expensive measures
(Articles 4.4 and 4.5). The argument of the measures being disproportionately
expensive was used by 17 of the 27 Member States when applying exemptions in their first RBMPs with the proportion
of surface waters exempted for this reason up to 55% of exempted surface water
bodies depending on the Member State. However, there was little information found
on the details and the process of determining disproportionately expensive
measures in the first RBMPs. In addition a review of cost and benefit
information used in the first RBMPs published in 2012 showed that limited
information on cost and benefit was currently available[18]. This was true in particular with respect to the benefits of WFD
implementation: such information was rarely included in the RBMPs and in total,
benefit information could only be found for 22 RBDs. Therefore, in most cases alternatives
approaches that vary considerably across the EU (e.g. linked to affordability affordability/financial impact, in some
cases linked to distributional effects etc.) have been used to conduct the
disproportionality of costs assessment. Also a check of alternative financing
mechanisms that could influence the disproportional cost evaluation is lacking
in most of the RBMPs.
5.7
Effects of uncertainties
Measures should be targeted in terms of
their type and extent to ensure that pressures are tackled and reduced, and
that this will deliver improvements towards achieving good status or potential
in the individual water bodies. The measures should be designed based on the
assessment of the actual status of the water body, supplemented with the
information from the analysis of pressures and impacts affecting the water
body. Therefore, uncertainty in the robustness
and suitability of methods used in the Article 5 analysis of pressures and
impacts, and/or in the confidence of the results of monitoring and the
subsequent assessment of ecological and chemical status can fundamentally
affect how measures are targeted at water bodies at risk of failing objectives
or those that are assessed as being at less than good status from all
significant pressures in a RBD. Table 5 summarises
the effects of uncertainty had on the programmes of measures developed for the
first cycle in the 23 Member States assessed. Table 5: Effects of uncertainty of the targeting
of measures to tackle pressures in the first RBMPs Effect || Member State The effects of uncertainty were not considered when targeting measures || BE; CY; ES; FI; HU; IE; IT; LU; LV; MT; PL; PT; RO*; SK Measures were targeted only on water bodies with well quantified pressures || CZ; HU; IE; LT; NL; SE; SK; UK Measures were targeted only on water bodies clearly at risk of failing objectives || IE; LT; LU; NL; PL; PT; RO; SE; UK Only expert judgment has been used in the assessment of pressures and impacts || EE; FI; IE Measures were targeted at those water bodies failing objectives with a defined level of confidence in their status || AT; FR; LT; UK Measures were targeted at those water bodies failing objectives whose status was assessed with compliant methods for at least one but not all biological quality elements || HU Measures were targeted at those water bodies failing objectives with types that had been intercalibrated || LT Measures were targeted at those water bodies failing objectives that are only monitored for physicochemical quality elements || CZ Measures were targeted at water bodies that are failing objectives and are not directly monitored but have been assessed using the monitoring results from monitored water bodies in the same group || LT; PT No information || DE Note more than one “effect” may apply to a Member
State. * For basic measures only in RO. The effects of uncertainty appear to have
not been considered when targeting measures in 14 of the 23 Member States assessed: in addition in
Romania uncertainty was not considered in applying basic measures but was in
terms of supplementary measures. In 12 Member States measures were targeted only on water bodies with well quantified
pressures and/or were clearly at risk of failing objectives. As an example of the effect of
uncertainties on the design of programmes of measures, in the United Kingdom
(England and Wales) for many of the diffuse sources the knowledge of the detail
of sources and pathways was too uncertain to know what measures would be
feasible and effective, particularly at a detailed site specific level. For
this reason, the measures included in the first RBMPs in England and Wales
focused on actions planned for other drivers, national measures, and locally
targeted actions to control pollution. A common theme among Member States was the use of measures during
the first cycle designed to reduce uncertainties (e.g. LT, PT, SE and UK). Such
measures could be related to research, monitoring and assessment. In Lithuania
the uncertainties identified in the RBMPs were in relation to a) the status of
river water bodies; b) the impacts of certain risk factors on river water
bodies; c) the ecological status in lakes and good ecological potential in
artificial lakes; and, d) about the reasons for poor status.
6. Overview of implementation of Article 11.3.a Basic Measures
22 Member States reported in their first
RBMPs that all basic measures under Article 11.3.a had been implemented in all
their national RBDs and their national parts of international RBDs. For the
remaining 6 Member States some of the basic measures had not been implemented
in all RBDs. In 2010 Member States were asked to report
whether or not basic measures planned for their first programmes of measures
were enough to reduce significant pressures to levels compatible with the
achievement of WFD objectives such as the achievement of good status by 2015. Table 1 shows the percentage of RBDs that
reported that basic measures (Article 11.3.a to 11.3.l) were enough to achieve
WFD objectives. The Table shows that basic measures were enough in the largest
proportion of RBDs for pressures arising from transitional and coastal water
management and in the smallest proportion of RBDs for diffuse source pressures. Table 1: Percentage of RBDs where the
implementation of Article 11.3.a to 11.3.l basic measures were considered as
being enough to achieve WFD objectives Significant pressure on surface water bodies || Percentage of RBDs Transitional and coastal water management such as estuarine/coastal dredging and tidal barrages (136) || 66% Other morphological alterations such as barriers and land sealing(138) || 60% Water Abstraction for example for agriculture or public water supply (149) || 47% Other Pressures such as introduced species and recreation (152) || 40% River management such as the physical alteration of river channels and river dredging (142) || 33% Water flow regulation and morphological alterations such as flood defence dams and weirs (154) || 14% Point Sources such as those from urban waste water treatment works and industrial installations (156) || 12% Diffuse Sources such as those from agriculture and urban areas (156) || 8% Source WISE 2010 electronic reports. The numbers in parenthesis after
the pressure type are the numbers of RBDs that reported on whether or not basic
measures were enough. All 28 MS reported. If Article 11.3 basic measures were
considered not to be enough, Member States were asked to provide information on which specific Article 11.3.a
basic measures and Article 11.3.b to l basic measures were considered not to be
enough to tackle significant pressures. Table 2: Overview of Article 11.3.a basic measures
that were reported as not being enough to tackle significant pressures
on surface water bodies in the first RBMPs Pressure || Article 11.3.a measure BWD || BD || DWD || Seveso || EIA || SSD || UWWTD || PPPD || ND || HD || IPPCD Point Source (156) || 22% || 8% || 12% || 19% || 10% || 6% || 60% || 8% || 8% || 14% || 38% Diffuse Source (156) || 18% || 9% || 15% || 8% || 18% || 20% || 10% || 21% || 63% || 19% || 4% Water Abstraction (149) || 1% || 9% || 11% || 0% || 10% || 0% || 1% || 1% || 0% || 13% || 1% Water flow regulations and morphological alterations (154) || 1% || 11% || 2% || 0% || 19% || 0% || 1% || 0% || 5% || 18% || 2% River management (142) || 1% || 14% || 1% || 0% || 18% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 7% || 18% || 1% Transitional and coastal water management (136) || 1% || 2% || 0% || 0% || 6% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 2% || 3% || 1% Other morphological alterations (138) || 0% || 9% || 1% || 0% || 12% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 4% || 10% || 1% Source: WISE 2010
electronic reports. Percentages in table cells are the percentage of RBDs where
Article 11.3.a basic measures were not enough to achieve WFD objectives. In
brackets next to the pressures is the number of RBDs reporting whether these
measures were enough or not to tackle the listed significant pressures on
surface water bodies. Note that the percentages in the rows do not add up to
100% as more than one measure may be needed (but insufficient) to address
significant pressures on surface waters. Key to table BWD || Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC) BD || Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) DWD || Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC) as amended by Directive (98/83/EC) Seveso || Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC) EIA || Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) SSD || Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) UWWTD || Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) PPPD || Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC) ND || Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) HD || Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) IPPCD || Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) The cells highlighted in red indicate for
which significant pressure on surface waters the basic measure that was most
considered not to be enough to achieve WFD objectives. For example, for point
sources, measures implemented by Member States under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive were not enough in
60% of RBDs (within 20 Member States) for which there is reported information and those measures
incorporated in Member States
Nitrates Action Programmes were not enough to tackle diffuse source pressures
in 63% of RBDs (within 22 Member States).
7. Overview of implementation of Article 11.3.b-l other Basic Measures
7.1
State of implementation in 2012
As described in section 3.1, Member States reported on which Article 11.3
basic measures were considered as being enough to reduce significant pressures
to levels compatible with achievement of WFD objectives. If they were
considered not to be enough, Member States were asked to provide information on which specific Article 11.3.a
basic measures and Article 11.3.b to l basic measures were considered as not
being enough to tackle significant pressures. Table 1 presents
the Article 11.3.b to l basic measures that were reported in 2010 as not being
enough to achieve WFD objectives. Table 1: Overview of Article 11.3.b to l basic
measures that were reported as not being enough to tackle significant
pressures on surface water bodies in the first RBMPs Pressure || Article 11.3 b || c || d || e || f || g || h || i || j || k || l Point Source (156) || 9% || 13% || 5% || 5% || 1% || 72% || 13% || 17% || 6% || 33% || 28% Diffuse Source (156) || 5% || 12% || 4% || 3% || 1% || 17% || 71% || 17% || 3% || 21% || 15% Water Abstraction (149) || 7% || 31% || 15% || 48% || 1% || 8% || 9% || 13% || 1% || 1% || 8% Water flow regulations and morphological alterations (154) || 3% || 16% || 1% || 8% || 1% || 9% || 13% || 76% || 1% || 2% || 9% River management (142) || 1% || 13% || 1% || 4% || 1% || 1% || 8% || 54% || 1% || 1% || 8% Transitional and coastal water management (136) || 1% || 2% || 1% || 1% || 1% || 4% || 7% || 18% || 1% || 7% || 1% Other morphological alterations (138) || 1% || 2% || 1% || 1% || 1% || 4% || 3% || 32% || 1% || 1% || 1% Source: WISE 2010
electronic reports. Percentages in table cells are the percentage of RBDs where
Article 11.3. b to l basic measures were not enough. In brackets next to the
pressures is the number of RBDs reporting whether these measures were enough or
not to tackle the listed significant pressures on surface water bodies Key Article || Short name 11.3.b || Measures for the recovery of cost of water services (Article 9) 11.3.c || Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use 11.3.d || Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 7) 11.3.e || Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface waters 11.3.f || Controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies 11.3.g || Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause pollution 11.3.h || Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to cause pollution 11.3.i || Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and in particular hydromorphological impacts 11.3.j || Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater 11.3.k || Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by priority substances 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 The cells highlighted in red indicate for
which significant pressure on surface waters the basic measure that was most
considered not to be enough to achieve WFD objectives. For example, for
pressures arising from hydromorphological alterations, measures implemented by Member States under Article 11.3.i (measures
to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and in
particular hydromorphological impacts) were not enough in 76% of RBDs (within
23 MS) for which there is reported information, and those measures incorporated
in Article 11.3.g measures (requirement for prior regulation of point source
discharges liable to cause pollution) were not enough to tackle point source
pressures in 72% of RBDs (within 22 MS). Figure 1:
Progress at the EU level on the implementation of basic measures (Article
11.3.b to l) reported in 2012 Key as for Table 4.1. Based on 24 MS, number of RBDs in
brackets. DK and EL did not report; HR has only recently published its first
RBMPs and is yet to report on their progress. LV did not report on this
aspects. BE data covers the RBDs in Flanders and in Wallonia but not the ones
in Brussels and in the coastal region.
7.2
Delays in implementation
Member States were asked to report if there
were substantial delays in the implementation of basic measures required under
Article 11.3. b to l. Table 2 summarises at the EU level
(24 MS) the proportion of RBDs where basic measures were reported to be
delayed in 2012. Substantial delays were reported in all categories in the
range of 9-23% of the measures planned. Table 2: Number of RBDs reporting substantial
delays in implementation of Article 11.3.b to l Article 11.3 || Basic Measure || Number of RBDs reporting substantial delay || % of RBDs reporting d || Protection Water Abstraction || 31 || 23% i || Adverse Impact || 25 || 19% g || Point Source Discharges || 23 || 17% e || Controls Water Abstraction || 21 || 16% b || Cost Recovery Water Services || 20 || 15% c || Efficient Water Use || 18 || 13% h || Pollutants Diffuse || 16 || 12% j || Pollutants Direct Groundwater || 14 || 10% k || Surface Priority Substances || 13 || 10% l || Accidental Pollution || 12 || 9% f || Recharge Augmentation Groundwater || 12 || 9% In terms of Article 11.3.d measures for the
protection of water abstraction, substantial delays in implementations were
reported in France (12 RBDs), Sweden (10 RBDs), Ireland (7 RBDs) and Spain (2
RBDs). Fifty one (35%) of the 144 RBDs reporting information on the state of
implementation of Article 11.3.b to l measures had at least one measure that
was substantially delayed. In 29 (20% of RBDs) at least 10% of the measures and
in 12 (8% of RBDs) at least 50% of the measures were substantially delayed. Table 3 summarises at the Member State level the reasons reported for basic
measures being delayed or not completed. To do this, the reasons have been
categorised into broad “types” of reason or obstacles. At the EU level (23 MS), 12% of basic
measures were delayed or uncompleted because of legislative/regulatory/administrative
barriers and, as described above, Ireland and the Czech Republic reported that
30% of their basic measures had been delayed for this reason. Funding or
finance issues were also reported to be causing delay or non-completion of 3%
of basic measures at the EU level, with the highest proportion in Italy (15%),
Portugal (10%) and Spain (7%). Table 3: Summary of reasons for substantial delays
and/or explanation of the state of implementation of basic measures (Article
11.3 (b to l)) in 2012 MS || fund || research || adm || tech || later || general || update || not appl AT (33) || || || || || || 3% (0%) || || BE (77) || || || || || || || || BG (44) || 5% (5%) || || || || || || || CY (11) || || || || || || || || CZ (33) || || || 30% (27%) || || || || || DE (110) || || || || || || || || DK (NR) || || || || || || || || EE (33) || || || || || || || || EL (NR) || || || || || || || || ES (165) || 7% (7%) || 2% (2%) || 4% (4%) || || 5% (0%) || 1% (1%) || 1% (1%) || 1% (0%) FI (88) || || || || || || || || FR (143) || 1% (0%) || || 8% (8%) || || || || || HU (11) || || || 9% (9%) || || || || || IE (77) || || || 36% (36%) || || || || || 9% (0%) IT (62) || 15% (15%) || || || || || || || LT (44) || || || || || || || || LU (22) || || || || || || || || LV (NR) || || || || || || || || MT (11) || || || || || || || || NL (44) || || || || || || || || PL (110) || 5% (5%) || || || || || || || PT (88) || 10% (0%) || || 6% (0%) || || || 5% (1%) || || 2% (0%) RO (11) || || || || || || || || SE (110) || N/A || || N/A || || || || || SI (NR) || || || || || || || || SK (16) || || || 13% (13%) || || 13% (13%) || || || UK (165) || || || || || || || || EU (1508) || 3% (2%) || 0.2% (0.2%) || 4% (4%) || 0% (0%) || 1% (0.1%) || 0.5% (0.2%) || 0.1% (0.1%) || 1% (0%) Note: Bold numbers in cells are the
percentages of basic measures with the reason for the substantial delay in
implementation. Numbers in brackets in cells are the percentages of measures
reported to have a substantial delay. Numbers in brackets next to MS codes are
the number of basic measures reported at the RBD level. All measures included
in this table were either reported as not started or on-going, some with a
substantial delay. All had a textual description of the state of
implementation. NR = not reported. Key to Table fund || Funding/finance obstacles research || Research/investigation/developments/further work needed adm || Legislation/regulation/administration barriers tech || Technical barriers/difficulties later || Not yet included/Planned to start later in the cycle/next cycle general || General description only update || Waiting for updates of information not appl || Not needed/applicable
7.3
Financing of basic measures (Article 11.3 b) to l))
Member States were asked to report on the
source of EU funds for the financing of Article 11.3.b to l basic measures. Figure 2 shows that 81% of these other basic
measures were financed from non-EU funds, indicating that potentially there
could be better utilisation of EU funds by Member States. The EU funds most
commonly reported were structural (9%), rural development (5%) and cohesion
fund (3% of measures, however it should be noted that not all Member States and
regions are eligible for support from the cohesion fund). A more detailed breakdown
per Member States is given in Table 1. Figure 2: The use of different sources of EU funds
for the financing of other basic measures (Article 11.3.b to l) at the EU level
in 2012 Note: Based on 22 Member States. DK, EL and
HR have not reported to WISE. DE, FI and LV did not report on this aspect. Table 4:
Percentages of Article 11.3 (b to l) other basic measures financed from EU
funds in 2012 MS || Cohesion || Fisheries || Life+ || Rural Development || RTD || Struc-tural || Other EU funds || Non-EU funds AT (33) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 100% BE (66) || 0% || 0% || 3% || 3% || 0% || 0% || 3% || 92% BG (44) || 7% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 11% || 2% || 79% CY (11) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 100% CZ (33) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 27% || 0% || 73% DE (NR) || || || || || || || || DK (NR) || || || || || || || || EE (33) || 36% || 0% || 0% || 9% || 0% || 27% || 0% || 55% EL (NR) || || || || || || || || ES (165) || 4% || 1% || 1% || 4% || 1% || 17% || 2% || 79% FI (NR) || || || || || || || || FR (143) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 10% || 0% || 2% || 1% || 87% HR (NR) || || || || || || || || HU (11) || 27% || 0% || 0% || 18% || 0% || 18% || 82% || NR IE (77) || 0% || 0% || 4% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 96% IT (62) || 2% || 2% || 2% || 8% || 0% || 13% || 2% || 48% LT (44) || 9% || 9% || 0% || 9% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 73% LU (22) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 9% || 0% || 91% LV (NR) || || || || || || || || MT (11) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 18% || 0% || 82% NL (44) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 100% PL (110) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 2% || 0% || 98% PT (88) || 1% || 0% || 0% || 5% || 0% || 58% || 0% || 39% RO (11) || 9% || 0% || 0% || 9% || 0% || 0% || 9% || 100% SE (110) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 9% || 0% || 0% || 36% || 64% SI (50) || 8% || 0% || 0% || 4% || 0% || 0% || 2% || 86% SK (16) || 25% || 0% || 0% || 13% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 63% UK (165) || 0% || 0% || 1% || 4% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 96% The number in
brackets is the number of basic measures (summed from the RBD level) reported
by Member State. In BE in
the RBDs in Wallonia region, due to the lack of consolidated data, the
information on EU Funds is lacking, even though some of the measures were
financed by EU Funding. Note: a measure may
be funded from more than one source and so the percentages for a MS do not
necessarily add up to 100%. NR = not reported
8. Overview of implementation of Article 11.4 Supplementary Measures
8.1
State of implementation in 2012
Figure 1 presents
the state of implementation of supplementary measures in 2012 at the Member States level. As well as there being
a large difference between Member States in the number of supplementary measures reported (given in brackets
next to the MS abbreviation), there is also a large difference in the state of
implementation:
In around one-third of Member States over
20% of their supplementary measures had not been not been started in 2012;
In around 80 % of Member States less than
20% of their supplementary measures had only been completed in 2012.
In their 2010 reports, Member States provided details on which
supplementary measures were used to tackle each of the significant pressures on
their water bodies. In their 2012 reports on progress with the implementation
of programmes of measures, details were provided on the progress being made
with implementation of the supplementary measures. Therefore, an indication of
the progress being made in tackling significant pressures through the application
of supplementary measures could be obtained by linking the two datasets. Figure 2 shows
(aggregated at EU level) the state of implementation of supplementary measures
in 2012 being used to tackle point source, diffuse source, water abstraction
and hydromorphological pressures on surface water bodies. For all the four
pressure categories over 80% of measures were either not-started or on-going
indicating that at the mid-way point of the first cycle that there was still a
large “gap” to be filled if all measures were to be completed by 2015. There
were only small differences between the four pressure types with the
supplementary measures for water abstraction pressures having the largest
proportion of completed measures (19%) and hydromorphological alteration
pressures the smallest (10%). Figure 1: Percentage of supplementary measures in
each Member State that was not-started, on-going and completed in 2012 Note: numbers in brackets are the number of
measures summed at the RBD level for each MS. NR = not reported. BE data covers the RBDs in Flanders and in
Wallonia but not the ones in Brussels and in the coastal region. Figure 2: State of implementation of supplementary
measures being used to tackle significant pressures on surface water bodies Note: the number of
Member States on which the figure is based is shown in brackets next to the
pressure type. Hydromorphological alteration pressures are an aggregation of
pressures arising from water flow regulations and morphological alterations,
river, transitional and coastal water management and other morphological
alterations. The following MS are not included in the figure above: DK, EL and
HR have not yet reported on progress; the 2010 and 2012 data from CZ, MT, SE
and SI could not be linked. BE data only covers the RBDs in Flanders but not
the ones in Wallonia, in Brussels and in the coastal region. The data are based
on the average state of implementation of measures for each MS so that MS
reporting many more measures than others do not unduly bias the overall
picture.
8.2
Delays in implementation
As with Article 11.3 b to l basic measures,
Member States were asked to
report whether there was a substantial delay in implementing supplementary
measures included in the first RBMPs in 2009, and to explain any such delays.
85% of the 39 measures in the Czech Republic, 53% of the 152 in Sweden and 37%
of the 459 in Germany were reported to be delayed. In comparison only 0.4% of
the 2240 measures in the United Kingdom were delayed and none in Austria,
Estonia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Slovakia. In 74 (54%) of the 136 RBDs with reported
information on the state of implementation of supplementary measures, there was
at least one measure reported to be substantially delayed. Fifty RBDs (37%) had
substantial delays in implementation of at least 10% and in 15 (11%) RBDs with
at least 50% of their supplementary measures. In addition, Member
States could also explain the state of implementation
of any measure be they delayed or not. Table 1 summarises the reasons given for
delays in implementation and the state of measures. The information reported in
national languages has been categorised in a number of broad reasons and/or
obstacles. Though this is not a precise categorisation it is sufficient to
indicate the main reasons and obstacle for delays in implementation of
supplementary measures. At the EU level (25 MS), around 7% of
supplementary measures were delayed or not completed because of financial/lack
of funding reasons with over 10% being delayed in 8 Member States. Around 4% of
supplementary measures at the EU level were delayed or not completed because
further research and/or investigations were needed, and around 3% because there
were legislative/regulation/administration barriers. Table 1: Summary of reasons for substantial delays
and/or explanation of the state of implementation of supplementary measures in
2012 MS || fund || research || adm || tech || later || land || general || staff || update || no need || no prior || new || plan || cost AT (22) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || BE (524) || 1.2% || 2.4% || 5.3% || 4.7% || 5.3% || || 2.4% || 0.6% || 1.8% || 0.6% || 7.6% || || || BG (370) || 7.0% || || 0.8% || 0.5% || || || || || || 0.5% || || || || CY (54) || 13% || 13% || 2% || 2% || 11% || || || || || || || 2% || || CZ (39) || 15% || 23% || 23% || 8% || 8% || || 8% || || || || || || || DE (459) || 22% || || 29% || 11% || || 22% || || 22% || || 4% || || 4% || || DK (NR) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || EE (74) || || || || || || || 35% || || || || || || || EL (NR) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ES (1237) || 11.2% || 0.1% || 0.5% || 0.2% || 0.1% || || 2.2% || || 2.7% || || || || 0.2% || FI (620) || 9.5% || 0.5% || 1.1% || 1.9% || 6.1% || 0.2% || 1.8% || 0.2% || || 0.3% || || || || FR (644) || 1.1% || 0.2% || 3.6% || 3.1% || 0.3% || || 0.5% || || || 0.2% || || || || HR (NR) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || HU (37) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || IE (470) || 3.8% || 1.3% || 5.3% || 0.2% || || || || || || 1.5% || 1.3% || || 0.2% || 1.3% IT (412) || 23% || || 0.2% || || 0.2% || || || 0.7% || || || || || || LT (125) || 0.8% || || 5.6% || 6.4% || 0.8% || 1.6% || 0.8% || || || || || || 0.8% || LU (74) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || LV (117) || 33% || 3% || 3% || 3% || 24% || || || || || || || || || MT (28) || || || 18% || 4% || || || || || || || || || || NL (112) || 18% || || 5% || || || 4% || || || || || || || || PL (41) || 7.3% || || 9.8% || 4.9% || || 4.9% || || || || || || || || PT (391) || 12.3% || || 0.8% || 0.5% || 3.1% || || 1.0% || || 0.5% || || || || || RO (190) || 4.7% || || 5.8% || 0.5% || || 0.5% || 0.5% || || || 0.5% || || || || SE (152) || || 6.6% || 6.6% || || 19.7% || || 13.2% || || || || || || 7.2% || SI (115) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || SK (59) || 3.4% || 10.2% || || 3.4% || || || 5.1% || || || || || || || UK (2240) || || 12.5% || 0.3% || 0.5% || || || 0.0% || || || 0.1% || || || || EU (8277) || 7.1% || 4.1% || 3.4% || 1.7% || 1.7% || 1.4% || 1.3% || 1.3% || 0.5% || 0.5% || 0.4% || 0.2% || 0.2% || 0.1% Note: numbers in
brackets are the number of supplementary measures reported at the RBD level.
All measures included in the Table were either reported as not started or
on-going, some with a substantial delay. All had a textual description of the
state of implementation. NR = not reported. In BE only Flanders reported on
substantial delays. AT and LU did not provide textual descriptions. Key to table fund || Funding/finance obstacles research || Research/investigation/developments/further Work needed adm || Legislation/regulation/administration barriers tech || Technical barriers/difficulties later || Planned to start later in the cycle/next cycle land || Lack of land/acquisition general || General description only staff || Lack of staff update || Waiting for updates of information no need || Not needed no prior || Low priority new || New/information/findings plan || Planning/approval barriers cost || Not cost effective
8.3
Financing of supplementary measures
Member States were also asked to report on
the source of EU funds for the financing of supplementary measures. Figure 3 shows that 81% of supplementary
measures were financed from non-EU funds. The EU funds most commonly reported
were structural (8%) and rural development (4%) funds. A more detailed
breakdown per Member States is
given in Table 2. Figure 3: The use of different sources of EU funds
for the financing of supplementary measures at the EU level in 2012 Note: Based on 24 Member States. DK, EL and
HR have not reported to WISE. DE did not report on this aspect. Table 2: Percentages of supplementary measures
financed from EU funds in 2012 MS || Cohesion || Fisheries || Life+ || Rural development || RTD || Structural || Other EU || Non-EU AT(22) || 0% || 0% || 18% || 14% || 0% || 14% || 0% || 68% BE(524) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 3% || 0% || 1% || 2% || 94% BG(370) || 7% || 0% || 1% || 6% || 0% || 7% || 0% || 79% CY(54) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 100% CZ(39) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 28% || 0% || 72% DE(NR) || || || || || || || || DK(NR) || || || || || || || || EE(74) || 18% || 0% || 0% || 7% || 0% || 12% || 0% || 82% EL(NR) || || || || || || || || ES(1237) || 2% || 0% || 2% || 1% || 0% || 17% || 2% || 78% FI(620) || 0% || 0% || 1% || 10% || 0% || 6% || 1% || 83% FR(644) || 0% || 0% || 3% || 11% || 0% || 19% || 1% || 70% HR (NR) || || || || || || || || HU(37) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 100% IE(470) || 0% || 0% || 5% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 95% IT(247) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 4% || 0% || 11% || 2% || 84% LT(125) || 9% || 2% || 1% || 3% || 0% || 1% || 0% || 85% LU(74) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 100% LV(117) || 5% || 1% || 1% || 4% || 0% || 14% || 1% || 74% MT(28) || 11% || 0% || 11% || 7% || 0% || 7% || 4% || 71% NL(112) || 3% || 0% || 2% || 1% || 0% || 2% || 4% || 89% PL(41) || 12% || 12% || 7% || 22% || 0% || 15% || 5% || 68% PT(391) || 7% || 0% || 0% || 7% || 0% || 42% || 1% || 45% RO(190) || 3% || 0% || 0% || 14% || 0% || 1% || 4% || 97% SE(152) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 13% || 0% || 0% || 13% || 87% SI(115) || || || || || || || || 100% SK(59) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 17% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 83% UK(8277) || 0% || 0% || 0.2% || 1% || 0% || 2% || 0% || 97% Note: The number in
brackets is the number of supplementary measures (summed from the RBD level)
reported by Member State. Note: a measure may be funded from more than one
source and so the percentages for a MS do not necessarily add up to 100%. NR =
not reported. In BE in
the RBDs in Wallonia region, due to the lack of consolidated data, the
information on EU Funds is lacking, even though some of the measures were
financed by EU Funding.
9.
Reporting of Key Types of Measures
In 2012, Member States were asked to report
on 16 defined Key Types of Measures (KTM). KTMs were expected to incorporate
Article 11.3 (b to l) basic measures and supplementary measures. Their
implementation and completion were expected to deliver the bulk of the actions
required to achieve WFD objectives, i.e. to reduce significant pressures to the
extent required to achieve good status or to prevent deterioration of status in
high and good status water bodies. A key type of measure was expected to be
reported by Member States only
if it was related to a significant pressure in that Member
State. Member States could identify
a limited number of key types of measures for each RBD and provide for those
quantitative indicators of progress in implementation. Member
States were also given the possibility to report
different or additional KTMs according to their specific situations and
requirements. There were large differences in the numbers
of KTMs reported by Member States, and also between the RBDs within the Member
States (Figure 1). Spain and Italy reported on all 16 KTMs, but not for all of their
RBDs, and Lithuania did not report any. KTM 1 (Construction or upgrades of
wastewater treatment plants beyond the requirements of the Directive on Urban
Waste Water Treatment) was the most frequently reported (19 MS) and KTM 8
(water efficiency measures for irrigation), the least frequently (6 MS) (Figure 2). Figure 1: Number of Key Types of Measure reported by
Member States Note: DK, EL and HR
have not reported to WISE Figure 2: Number of Member States reporting on the
different Key Types of Measure Note: DK, EL and HR
have not reported to WISE Key to KTMs KTM || Title 1 || Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants beyond the requirements of the Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment 2 || Reduce nutrient pollution in agriculture beyond the requirements of the Nitrates Directive 3 || Reduce pesticides pollution in agriculture 4 || Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil 5 || Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) 6 || Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity 7 || Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of minimum ecological flow 8 || Water efficiency measures for irrigation (technical measures) 9 || Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households 10 || Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry 11 || Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture 12 || Advisory services for agriculture 13 || Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.) 14 || Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty 15 || 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 16 || Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms) beyond the requirements of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive Table 1 gives an
overview of the KTMs reported by Member States – three Member States (DK, EL and SI) have not reported. It should be noted that it would
not necessarily be expected that all KTMs would be reported by Member States as significant pressures types
vary across Member States and
some may not be required. These differences may reflect differences in the
extent and type of pressures between and within Member
States but they may in some cases also reflect a lack
of a common understanding of what is meant by a “Key Type of Measure” and what
should be reported. This is particularly the case where a Member States has reported a pressure as
being significant but then not reported the KTM associated with that pressure.
For example a further 6 Member States might have been expected to report KTM 5
(improving longitudinal continuity) which is associated with pressures arising
from hydromorphological alterations of water bodies. Member States were not asked to report on
any substantial delays in the implementation of KTMs. However, as KTMs are
composites of Article 11.3.b to l basic measures and supplementary measures,
and substantial delays have been reported on both types of measure (section 4.2
and 5.2, respectively), it is reasonable to assume that there will also be
substantial delays in the implementation of some KTMs in some Member States. The state of implementation of the KTMs
associated with the 5 Topic/pressures selected for in-depth assessment is
presented in the following sections. Table 1: Breakdown of the Key Types of Measure
reported by Member States in 2012 MS(RBDs) || Key Types of Measure 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 5 || 6 || 7 || 8 || 9 || 10 || 11 || 12 || 13 || 14 || 15 || 16 AT(3) || 3 || 3 || || || 3 || || 2 || || || || || 3 || || || || BE(6) || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 5 || 6 || 6 || || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6 BG(4) || 3 || 1 || 1 || 3 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || || || || 3 || 3 || 2 || 1 || 1 CY(1) || || || || 1 || || 1 || || || || || || || 1 || 1 || 1 || CZ(3) || 3 || || || 3 || 3 || 3 || || || || || || || || 3 || || DE(10) || 9 || 10 || || || 10 || 10 || || || || || || 9 || || 9 || || DK || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || EE(3) || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 2 || || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 2 || 2 EL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ES(15) || 10 || 8 || 2 || 8 || 4 || 13 || 10 || 9 || 7 || 5 || 3 || 3 || 7 || 14 || 6 || 3 FI(8) || 3 || 4 || || || 4 || 2 || 1 || || || || || 1 || 4 || || || FR(13) || 12 || 11 || 12 || || 13 || 13 || 5 || 7 || 13 || 13 || 13 || 7 || 12 || 11 || 13 || 11 HR || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || HU(1) || 1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || IE(7) || 7 || 7 || 7 || 3 || || || || || 7 || 7 || 7 || || 7 || 7 || 7 || IT(7) || 6 || 5 || 3 || 4 || 3 || 5 || 6 || 6 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 5 || 7 || 4 || 4 LT(4) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || LU(2) || 1 || 2 || 2 || || 1 || 2 || 2 || || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 1 || || 2 || LV(4) || 4 || 4 || || 4 || 1 || 3 || || || || || || || || 4 || || 1 MT(1) || || || || || || || || 1 || || || || 2 || || 1 || || NL(4) || || || || || 4 || 4 || || || || || || || || || || PL(10) || 2 || 2 || || || || || 9 || || 10 || 9 || 10 || 2 || 1 || 10 || || PT(8) || 2 || || || || || || || || || || || || 2 || 4 || || RO(1) || 1 || 1 || || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 SE(10) || 3 || || || 5 || 5 || 5 || || || || || || || 5 || || || SI (2) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || SK(2) || || 2 || || 2 || || || || || 2 || || || || || || || UK(15) || 5 || 5 || 5 || 1 || 15 || 15 || 4 || || 4 || 4 || 4 || 15 || 5 || 3 || || SUM || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || Note: the numbers in the brackets are the number of
RBDs for which the measure was reported. DK, EL and HR have not reported. LT
and SI did not report any KTMs. Also note that Member States were able to
report new Key Types of Measure if they were different from the predefined
KTMs. BE reported 7 different new KTMs; BG 2, ES 17, FI 5, FR 1, IE 22, IT 1,
LV 5, PL 10, RO 6 and SK 3. Key to KTMs KTM || Title 1 || Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants beyond the requirements of the Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment 2 || Reduce nutrient pollution in agriculture beyond the requirements of the Nitrates Directive 3 || Reduce pesticides pollution in agriculture 4 || Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil 5 || Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) 6 || Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity 7 || Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of minimum ecological flow 8 || Water efficiency measures for irrigation (technical measures) 9 || Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households 10 || Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry 11 || Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture 12 || Advisory services for agriculture 13 || Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.) 14 || Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty 15 || 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 16 || Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms) beyond the requirements of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive
10. Progress
with implementation of measures to reduce pressures (nutrients, organic matter)
from agriculture
10.1
Context
Agricultural
activities are significant sources of pressures on water bodies in the EU. The assessment of the first RBMPs showed
that agriculture was a significant source in terms of:
Diffuse nitrate pollution in all 28 Member States, and in 90% (126) of
RBDs;
Diffuse phosphorus pollution in 26 Member States (excluding CZ and LT),
and 79% (111) of RBDs;
Point source nitrate pollution in 12 Member States, and 22% (31) of RBDs;
Point source phosphorus pollution in 11 Member States, and 21% (29) of RBDs;
Soil erosion in 10 Member States, and 31% (44) of RBDs.
In addition 18 Member
States reported surface water bodies that were subject
to diffuse source pressures from agriculture. 5 other Member
States reported significant diffuse source pressures
but not separated according to sector of origin (5 Member
States did not report on pressures at the water body
level). All 21 Member
States that reported impacts on surface water bodies
indicated that nutrient enrichment was a significant impact and 18 Member States organic enrichment. These two
impacts would not solely be a result of agricultural activities and pressures. 11 Member States indicated that Article 11.3.i basic measures were not enough to
tackle pressures from diffuse agricultural pressures though 10 other Member States did not report diffuse sources
by sector and hence information on pressures relating to agriculture was not
available from this source. In terms of diffuse source pollution to
groundwater (not necessarily from agriculture) 3 Member
States (DK, LT and LV) out of 26 Member States indicated that basic measures
were enough and the other 22 that they were not enough to achieve WFD
objectives. The basic measures most frequently reported not to be enough were
those relating to the Nitrates Directive and to Article 11.3.i. On this basis
supplementary measures would be expected to be required to reduce diffuse
source pressures to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD objectives.
10.2
Quantification of the scale of agricultural
pressures
In only one
(Lithuania) of 23 Member States[19] included in the in-depth assessment has quantified the scale of the
pressures arising from agriculture in terms of the reductions required to
achieve WFD objectives. This was undertaken using a mathematical model to
produce a source apportionment of organic matter, ammonium, nitrates and
phosphorus. In 10 Member States (AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, FR, LU, NL, RO and SK) the RBMPs have
quantified the load contribution of N and P coming from the agriculture sector
but not in terms of necessary load reductions to achieve WFD objectives.
However, according to the information provided during the bilateral meetings
with EE, the reduction of agricultural pressures to allow the achievement of
good status in coastal water and marine waters has been quantified since the
publication of the first plans. In other Member
States (such as IT and MT) information on the scale of
agricultural pressures is only expressed in terms of the percentage of water
bodies failing good status.
10.3
Assessment of measures for the achievement of
WFD objectives
A combination of basic
measures and supplementary measures would be expected to reduce agricultural
pressures in water bodies to level compatible with the achievement of WFD
objectives. The Article 11.3.a basic measures most pertinent to nutrient
pollution from agriculture would be the ones specified in national Nitrates
Actions Programmes. From the information assessed only two
Member States (Lithuania and Latvia) has made a quantitative assessment of the
gap that will be filled by the measures taken under the national Nitrates
Action Programmes (NAP), though for Latvia it is not clear whether this is
solely an assessment of the effectiveness of measures in general or just those
with the NAP. In 6 Member States (AT, EE, PL, PT, RO and UK) the measures within the Nitrates Action
Programme are expected to help achieve improvements but there is no clear view
on how much of the gap will be filled and/or by when. In most Member States (BE, CY, CZ, DE, FI, FR, HU,
IE, LU, MT, NL and SK) the measures are planned but there is no assessment or
judgement as to how much the measures will contribute to the achievement of WFD
objectives. For the remaining 3 Member States (ES, IT, SE) no information was found or the information was not
clear. A similar picture was obtained in terms of
the quantification of the effectiveness of other basic (Article 11.3. b to l)
and supplementary measures in terms of achieving WFD objectives with most
Member States not carrying out a quantitative judgment on how effective the
selected measures would be in achieving WFD objectives.
10.4
Key Types of Measure
The two most-relevant Key Types of Measures
associated with reducing nutrient and organic matter pollution from agriculture
are:
KTM2. Reduce nutrient pollution in
agriculture beyond the requirements of the Nitrates Directive;
KTM12: Advisory services for agriculture (Note: no differentiation is made between to
which agriculture pressure the advisory services are applied, for example
they may be relevant to pesticide pollution as well as nutrient pollution).
Quantitative indicators for the scale and
progress with the implementation of measures were proposed for each of the
defined Key Types of Measure. Member States could also report their own
indicators if the proposed ones were not appropriate for their specific
national situations. The following figures present progress in terms of the
pre-defined indicators.
10.4.1 KTM2. Reduce nutrient pollution in agriculture beyond the
requirements of the Nitrates Directive
Figure 1: Percentages of measures/indicators associated with KTM2 that were reported as being not started, on-going and completed at the Member State level in 2012 || Key to indicators: The annotations next to each bar in the Figure shows
“RBDCode: Indicator number: (value of the indicator when 100% completed)":
2.1 Area of agricultural land covered by
measures (km2) beyond the requirements of the Nitrates Directive
2.2 Estimated Total Costs (€) of the measures
2.3 Number of projects/measures BESchelde_VL; BEMaas_VL || Other || Km of streams with buffer strips ES080 || Other || Percentage of projects IE || Other (5) || Implementation of GAP regulations - national value IE || Other (4) || The number of inspections carried out on authorised derogation farms annually - National values IE || Other (3) || The approximate number of farm inspections carried out every year - national value IE || Other (2) || Number of Teagasc Projects - national value IE || Other (1) || Funding provided per annum for the Agricultural Catchments Programme - national values UK01; UK02 || Other (1) || Area of agricultural land covered by priority catchments In Germany the indicators of
the KTMs for each RBD are presented as percentages at different states of
implementation and are considered as comparable between RBDs. The indicators
for some of the KTMs in some French RBDs are also presented as percentages of
the measures at different states of implementation. Figure 1
illustrates the indicators reported by Member States for KTM2. The quantitative value for the indicator, equivalent to
when the measures are 100% completed is given in brackets after the RBD abbreviation.
There is a wide variation in the degree of implementation of the measures
between Member States with for
example, with the measures associated with indicator 2.1 being 100% completed
in the Irish RBDs and in the United Kingdom (Scotland), 100% on-going in
Austria and a large proportion not started in some RBDs in Spain and Italy.
10.4.2 KTM12: Advisory services for agriculture
Figure 2:
Percentages of indicator/baseline associated with KTM12 that were reported as
being not started, on-going and completed at the Member State level in 2012 || Key to indicators: The
annotations next to each bar in the Figure shows “RBDCode: Indicator number:
(value of the indicator when 100% completed).” 12.1 Number of farms
12.2 Number of advisory services
12.3 Area (km2) of agricultural land BEMaas_VL, BESchelde_VL || Other (1) || number of attendees at educational and training concerning plant protection and spraying BEMaas_VL, BESchelde_VL || Other (2) || annual number of individual businesses assisted and advised BEMaas_VL, BESchelde_VL || Other (3) || number of publications regarding good practice and pest spraying BEMaas_VL, BESchelde_VL || Other(4) || Annual budget for Coordination of Information and Guidance on sustainable Fertilization FRA, FRB1 || Other (5) || estimated total cost of measures for management training actions for agricultural users of pollutants, awareness, animation. FRF || Other (6) || Water Agency funded training actions and awareness raising FRG || Other (7) || estimated cost over 2010-2015 FRH || Other (8) || Cost of advice services FRK, FRL || Other (9) || cost of actions MT_MALTA || Other (10) || Farm Advisory Service Consortium established UK03 to 12 || Other (11) || Total area in each RBD covered by the Catchment Sensitive Farming programme In Germany the indicators
of the KTMs for each RBD are presented as percentages at different states of
implementation and are considered as comparable between RBDs. Note that
indicators 12.1 and 12.3 were reported in terms of a value in 2012 in relation
to the baseline value representing 100% completion of the measure. The bars for
these indicators therefore show percentage progress to complete implementation
of the measures. Figure 2
illustrates the indicators reported by Member States for KTM12: 12.1 and 12.3 are presented in terms of % of the
quantitative value at the end of 2012 compared to the baseline value indicating
completion of the measure. The quantitative value for the indicator equivalent
to when the measures are 100% completed is given in brackets after the RBD
abbreviation. There is a wide variation in the degree of implementation of the
measures between Member States
with for example, 12.2 being 95% completed in Poland, 100% on-going in two
Spanish RBDs and in Luxembourg, and 50% not started in one Italian RBD.
11. Progress
with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from chemicals
11.1
Context
Chemicals arise
from a number of activities leading to significant pressures and impacts on
water bodies in the EU: The assessment of the first RBMPs showed
that:
Agriculture was a significant source in
terms of:
Diffuse source pesticide pollution in
all 25 Member States
(excluding Lithuania, Luxembourg and Poland), and in 65% (91) of RBDs;
Point source pesticide pollution in 9 Member States, and 16% (22) of RBDs;
The industrial/urban sectors contributing
significantly to chemical pollution were:
Industrial emissions in 28 Member
States, and in 87% (129) of RBDs;
Households in 25 Member States, and in
80% (119 RBDs);
Waste deposits in 16 Member States, and
in 41% (61 RBDs);
Atmospheric deposition in 11 Member
States, and 29% (43 RBDs).
In addition 15 Member
States reported surface water bodies that were subject
to point source pressures from facilities under the IPPC Directive[20] and also point
source pressures from non-IPPC plants. 7 other Member
States reported significant point source pressures but
not separated according to sector of origin. 3 Member
States did not report on pressures at the water body
level. Diffuse source pressures from abandoned industrial sites were reported
by 8 Member States. 20 of the
21 Member States that reported
impacts on surface water bodies indicated that contamination by priority
substances. Other sources that may be of relevance in terms of the chemical
pollution of groundwater could include point source pressures from UWWT works
(see chapter for more detail on measures relating to UWWT), point source
pollution from contaminated sites (13 MS), waste disposal sites (8 MS) and mine
waters (7 MS). Good chemical status was not achieved in
surface water bodies in 22 Member States and in 21 Member States non-compliance with EQSs associated with river basin specific
pollutants resulted in less than good ecological status in surface water
bodies. In 13 of the 22 Member States, 10 or more priority substances were causing failure of chemical
status. 8 and 2 Member
States indicated that Article 11.3.a basic measures
were enough to tackle significant point source pressures from IPPC and non-IPPC
plants, respectively, and 4 and 6 Member States said that Article 11.3.b to l basic measures were not enough for
point source pressures from IPPC and non-IPPC plants, respectively. 4 Member States reported that Article 11.3.b
to l basic measures were not enough to tackle diffuse source pressures from
abandoned industrial sites.
11.2
Quantification of the scale of chemical
pressures
In most of the
Member States the scale of the pressure arising from chemicals has been
expressed in terms of number of water bodies failing EU Environmental Quality
Standards (EQS) for priority substances or national EQSs for River Basin
Specific Pollutants. None of the Member States seem to have
quantified the scale of the pressure in terms of the loads of the substances in
the affected water bodies that must be reduced by measures to achieve WFD
objectives. This is considered as a serious gap as the appropriately targeted
and cost-effective measures should be designed based on a precise knowledge of
the extent of pollution of waters. Insufficient information on the emissions,
discharges and losses is accompanied with incomplete information on chemical
status and on the occurrence of the RBSPs. This gap in status assessment
disables proper linking of measures to the status which may lead to an
ineffective design of measures. The loads from sources of Priority
Substances or River Basin Specific Pollutants have only been collected in the
Netherlands and Slovakia. The number of point source discharges containing
chemicals that are affecting the achievement of objectives was considered only
in Finland, Hungary and Slovakia and the number of contaminated sites was
referred to by Estonia.
11.3
Assessment of measures for the achievement of
WFD objectives
11.3.1 Basic and supplementary measures
No Member State seems to have undertaken a quantitative
assessment of the gap that will be filled by the basic measures required by
Article 11.3.a (measures required by the IPPC Directive). In eight Member
States Article 11.3.a basic measures are expected to help achieving
improvements but there is no clear view on how much of the gap will be filled,
and there is no assessment or judgement as to how much the measures will
contribute to the achievement of WFD objectives in 13 other Member States. Similarly for no Member State was any
information found indicating that there had been a quantitative assessment of
the gap that will be filled by the basic measures required by Article 11.3.g,
or Article 11.3.k or by supplementary measures relevant to chemical pollution.
11.3.2 Measures required by the EQS Directive
Directive
2008/105/EC (the EQS Directive) established EU Environmental Quality Standards
(EQS) for Priority Substance and eight other pollutants that were regulated by
the Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC). Article 5 of the EQSD requires
Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of
all priority substances and the eight other pollutants. The EQSD also allows
the designation of mixing zones (Article 4) where regulated effluent discharges
containing these substances can exceed EQSs without being in non-compliance
with WFD objectives providing certain conditions are met. 16 out of the 28 Member States assessed had
inventories of priority substances and/or river basin specific pollutants for
at least one of their RBDs. Inventories were being developed in a further two
Member States. Seven Member States use, or have the option of using mixing
zones, in their regulation and control of chemicals and one other Member State
is considering their future use. Few Member States reported specific measures
for the progressive reduction of pollution from priority substances and for
only one (United Kingdom) were specific measures reported for ceasing or
phasing out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances. In the United Kingdom (England and Wales),
pollution reduction plans have been or are being developed for all priority and
priority hazardous substances. These may include for industrial discharges use
of alternative chemicals, restriction of chemicals at source, better pollution
prevention measures or improved end-of-pipe treatment. The focus of the first
plan seems to have been on EU initiatives to restrict chemicals at source: this
is expected to be sufficient to achieve WFD objectives where there are few EQS
failures.
11.4
Key Types of Measure
The most-relevant Key Types of Measures
(KTM) associated with reducing the pressures and impacts arising from chemicals
are:
KTM 3. Reduce pesticides pollution in
agriculture;
KTM12: Advisory services for agriculture
(Note: no differentiation is made between to which agriculture
pressure the advisory services apply);
KTM 15: 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;
KTM 16: Upgrades or improvements of
industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms) beyond the
requirements of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)
Directive.
Note that chemicals are released from urban
waste water treatment works, diffuse run-off from urban areas (e.g. storm
overflows) and diffuse sources of urban waste water not connected to sewers.
These potential sources are not included in this assessment of chemical
measures. Quantitative indicators for the scale and
progress with the implementation of measures were proposed for each of the
defined Key Types of Measure. Member States could also report their own
indicators if the proposed ones were not appropriate for their specific national
situations. The following figures present progress in terms of the pre-defined
indicators.
11.4.1 KTM3. Reduce pesticides pollution in agriculture
Figure 1: Percentages of indicator/measures
associated with KTM3 that were reported as being not started, planning
on-going, construction on-going and completed at the Member State level in 2012 || Key to
indicators: The annotations next to each bar in the Figure shows
“RBDCode; Indicator number; (value of the indicator when 100% completed)": 3.1 Area of agricultural land covered by measures
(km2) to reduce pollution in agriculture
3.2 Number of projects/measures BESchelde_VL, BEMaas_VL || Other (9) || number of sprayed hectares with new machinery ES080 || Other || percentage of projects FRA, FRB1, FRF, FRG || Other (1) || aid paid or contracted out under the rural development program for actions to reduce pollution from pesticides FRB1, FRC, FRH, FRK || Other (2) || % of cost of measure FRD || Other (3) || project cost for reduction of pollution caused by nitrates under CAP FRJ, FRL || Other (4) || estimated cost of measure All IE RBDs || Other (5) || % of pesticides usage surveys All IE RBDs || Other (6) || Completion of national action plan All IE RBDs || Other (7) || Transposition of Pesticide Use Directive UK01, UK02 || Other (8) || Area of agricultural land in priority catchments Figure 1
illustrates the indicators reported by Member States for KTM3. Relative few Member States (7) reported this KTM with the
predefined indicators. For 5 of these Member States all the measures were either not started or on-going, indicating
that a lot of progress would probably be required between 2012 and 2015 if the
measures were to be completed within the duration of the first RBMP cycle.
11.4.2 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
Figure 2: Percentages of indicator/measures associated with
KTM15 that were reported as being not started, planning on-going, construction
on-going and completed at the Member State level in 2012 || Key to
indicators The annotations next to each bar in the Figure shows
“RBDCode: Indicator number: (value of the indicator when 100% completed)":
15.1 Number of permits issued or updated;
15.2 Number of projects/measures;
15.3 Estimated Total Costs (€) ES070 || Other (1) || number of authorized discharges ES070 || Other (2) || number of discharges inventoried Figure 2
illustrates the indicators of progress of measures associated with for KTM15
reported by 10 Member States.
In one Member State all
measures were reported to be completed whereas in 8 Member
States, over 50% of measures and in 4 Member States over 80% of measures were either
not-started or on-going.
11.4.3
KTM16: Upgrades or improvements of industrial
wastewater treatment plants (including farms) beyond the requirements of the
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive
Figure 3: Percentages of indicator/measures associated with
KTM16 that were reported as being not started, planning on-going, construction
on-going and completed at the Member State level in 2012 Key to
indicators The annotations next to each bar in the Figure shows
“RBDCode: Indicator number: (value of the indicator when 100% completed)":
16.1 Number of projects/measures
16.2 Estimated Total Costs (€) BEMaas_VL, BESchelde_VL || Other(1) || Number of Flemish BAT studies for non-IPPC companies LVDUBA || Other (2) || Measure performance per cent Only 8 Member
States reported this KTM, and only 6 of these used the
pre-defined indicators (Figure 3). In only one Member State were all the measures reported
as completed, and in the remainder around half of the measures were only
not-started or on-going.
12. Progress
with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from hydromorphological
alterations
12.1
Context
The WFD is the first piece of European environmental legislation
which addresses hydromorphological modifications and their impacts on water
bodies. The Directive explicitly requires Member States to manage the effects on
the ecological quality of water which result from changes to physical
characteristics of water bodies. It requires action in those cases where the
hydromorphological pressures are having an impact on the ecological status,
interfering with the ability to achieve the WFD objectives. The assessment of the first RBMPs (in terms
of the sectors/activities responsible for the pressures) showed that the types
of hydromorphological alterations that were most frequently reported to be
causing significant pressures on surface water bodies were:
Cross profile construction and
interruption of continuity (e.g. dams, weirs, locks, impoundments,
reservoirs) in 17 Member States in 57 of the 60 RBDs within those Member
States where an apportionment of pressures between sectors/activities had
been described;
Bank reinforcement, bank fixation,
embankments (training wall, breakwater, groynes etc.) in 13 Member States
(in 40 of the 60 RBDs within those Member States);
Channelisation/ straightening in 11
Member States (in 34 of the 60RBDs within those Member States); and
Longitudinal profile construction and
interruption of lateral continuity (e.g. dykes) in 11 Member States
(in 32 of the 60 RBDs within those Member States).
In the remaining 11 Member States and 88
RBDs no relevant information on the sources of hydromorphological pressures had been found/presented in the RBMPs. The sectors most frequently identified in
the RBMPs as being responsible for the pressures arising from cross profile construction and interruption of continuity were:
Hydropower in 49 RBDs in 16 Member
States;
Water Supply (including irrigation) in 34
RBDs in 12 Member States Member States; and,
Flood protection in 29 RBDs and 11 Member
States.
The sector most frequently identified (19
RBDs in 10 Member States) as
being responsible for pressures arising from bank reinforcement was flood
protection. Member States
electronic reports to WISE distinguish between four types of significant
pressures that may lead to the hydromorphological alterations of surface water
bodies. These are:
Water flow regulations and morphological
alterations of surface water (reported to be significant in 22 of the 23 Member States who reported this
information to WISE). 23 Member States also reported that Article 11.3.i basic measures were not
enough to reduce these pressures to level compatible with the achievement
of WFD objectives;
River management pressures reported to be
significant in 19 Member States. 19 Member States also indicated that basic measures were not enough to achieve
WFD objectives; for 17 Member States this was Article 11.3.ij basic measures;
Transitional and coastal water management
pressures reported to be significant in 12 Member
States. 11 Member States also indicated that basic measures were not enough to achieve
WFD objectives; for 9 Member States this was Article 11.3.i basic measures; and
Other morphological alterations pressures
reported to be significant in 15 Member States. 13 Member States also indicated that basic measures were not enough to achieve
WFD objectives in terms of this pressure. All 13 Member
States indicated that Article 11.3.i basic
measures were not enough;
19 of the 21 Member
States reporting to WISE on the impacts of
pressures on surface water bodies indicated that habitat alteration were
significant.
In addition pressures arising from water
abstraction can also lead to impacts on the hydrological regime of affected
water bodies. Water abstraction pressures are presented in section 14 of this
report. In implementing the WFD, the establishment
of Good Ecological Status and Good Ecological Potential (for Heavily Modified
Water Bodies/Artificial Water Bodies) is followed by the planning of measures
to achieve the relevant environmental objective. The focus of this section is
on measures relevant to addressing the adverse effects of hydromorphological
alterations typically associated with uses such as: flood protection,
hydropower, agriculture, navigation, drinking water; and others. In most RBDs (96% of RBDs),
hydromorphological measures were proposed in the PoMs of the 1st
planning cycle, although it is generally not clear how the proposed measures
were expected to contribute to the improvement of ecological status or
potential.[21]
12.2
Quantification of the scale of pressures from hydromorphological alterations
The scale of hydromorphological pressures has been quantified to a
certain extent in the majority of Member States assessed (17 out of 22). In a few cases, quantification is reported
with regard to all significant pressures but in most cases, the approach is
partial, i.e. quantification was undertaken only for some but not all
significant pressures or quantified pressure information is provided only in
relation to the designation of HMWB. Examples of the way the scale of
hydromorphological pressures was quantified include the following:
Number of cross-sectional obstacles
(dams, weirs, barriers, locks) (e.g. HU, SK, AT). In some cases, it is
indicated how many barriers are not compatible with the achievement of
good status/potential.
Length of water bodies affected by dams
(e.g. EE).
Number of river regulation engineering
structures (narrow flood plain, deepened bed, regulated bed shape,
embankment protection) (e.g. HU).
Number of km of straightened rivers (e.g.
LT).
Number of hydropower plants which exert a
significant impact on the downstream river stretches, making thus the
planning of measures necessary (e.g. LT).
In certain Member States, quantified
figures only referred to the number of water bodies affected by significant
hydromorphological pressures (e.g. changes in water level, disrupted
continuity, other morphological changes, or simply the standard pressure
categories) preventing the achievement of good status/potential. Despite the (partial) availability of
quantified information on the scale of hydromorphological pressures, the
reductions required to achieve WFD objectives per se were estimated explicitly
only in a few cases. In addition, the linkage between types of
hydromorphological pressures, specific water uses, and specific hydromorphological
measures has been made explicit in 39% of RBD, but in 41% of RBDs, no such
clear links were reported. For example, an RBMP may indicate the number of fish
passes proposed to restore river continuity at specific barriers, but the uses
or sectors which these barriers serve are not stated (e.g. navigation,
hydropower etc.).[22] In the majority of RBDs (66%), there is no
description or no information found on the effects of planned
hydromorphological measures and on whether they will improve the ecological
status/potential. The expected improvements due to hydromorphological measures
are described only for 34% of RBDs. The information provided in this respect is
quite heterogeneous and overall, it remains general. In the majority of RBMPs,
the measures are not reported for specific water bodies, thus there is no
information on the expected effects of measures at water body level.[23] The in-depth
assessment of the PoM verified that, in most cases, there is no quantification
of the effects of the hydromorphological measures required to achieve WFD
objectives. Occasionally, qualitative statements are given, e.g. for the
Netherlands, the RBMPs/PoMs mention that the proposed measures on
hydromorphology will contribute largely in achieving the ecological targets.
Similarly, for Poland, qualitative statements indicate expectations that
measures will improve hydromorphology e.g. biological continuity and increase
in the diversity of fish and other aquatic organisms by creating fish passages
or partial or complete removal of barriers. In the 1st cycle, it has often
been argued that the biological assessment methods were not (or not
sufficiently) sensitive to hydromorphological pressures. This had an effect on
the adequateness of the assessment of hydromorphological impacts, the selection
of appropriate measures and predictions of specific expected effects on good
ecological status or potential.[24] Indeed, there is pressing need for
systematic monitoring of the effects of hydromorphological measures, e.g. of
fish passes, ecological flows etc., on biological elements to check their
effectiveness.[25] Austria assessed/proved in pilot projects
that migration barriers significantly reduce or even prohibit the positive
effects of other hydromorphological restoration measures. Ensuring river
continuity in rivers with migratory fish was perceived to be a prerequisite for
good ecological status or potential and thus declared to be state of the art
and technology in the National Water Act for any construction in the river. As
a consequence obstacles already in place as well as new constructions will have
to be equipped with fish migration aids unless disproportionate costs or
technically infeasibility can be demonstrated to competent authorities.
Applying ecological sensitive biological methods Austria has defined also
specific flow values, which ensure the achievement of good ecological status. According to estimations made in the
context of the comparative study on pressures and measures in major RBMPs, on
average in the EU there will only be an 8%-12% reduction in the number of
surface water bodies affected by the key types of significant
hydromorphological pressures between 2009 and 2015 assuming that the reported
PoMs are successfully implemented. To deal with uncertainty related to gaps in
the classification processes related to morphology in the 1st cycle,
some Member States have used a
prioritisation approach. In the case of Scotland, it was reported that in the 1st
cycle there was limited experience and expertise on which to base the design
and delivery of habitat restoration projects of the scale necessary to achieve
good status / potential in all surface water bodies. Therefore the number of
projects initially tackled was limited focusing on the experience and expertise
available at the time. The priority for measures was on catchments where the
measures would contribute to the achievement of other objectives (e.g.
biodiversity conservation; diffuse pollution reduction; flood management). In
terms of some barriers affecting the continuity of rivers for fish migration it
was not certain the extent to which the structures are real barriers to fish
migration. There were too few suitable experts available to oversee the
necessary studies and come up with effective design solutions to address all
the barriers to fish migration by 2015. Consequently, work was prioritised so
that the most downstream dams were tackled first and, where relevant, work to
improve river continuity for fish migration was timetabled in line with the
scheduling of improvements to the quality of the fish habitat upstream. It was
planned that fish passages would be provided for 82 smaller dams and other
barriers by 2015 as this was thought to be the most that could be achieved
without incurring disproportionate expense through installing unnecessary,
ineffective or premature solutions.
12.3
Assessment of measures for the achievement of
WFD objectives
In most Member
States, the RBMPs and PoMs did not include any information on the way that
Article 11.3.a basic measures would contribute to the achievement of good
status / potential through the reduction of hydromorphological pressures. The
pertinent Article 11.3.a measures were those associated with the Environmental
Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC), the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)
and the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). A quantitative assessment of the gap to
be filled to achieve WFD objectives by basic measures under Article 11.3.a
targeted to hydromorphological pressures could not be found in any Member States. The other most relevant basic measure to
the reduction of hydromorphological pressures are measures formulated under
Article 11.3.i. on “other significant adverse impacts”, in particular measures
to ensure that the hydromorphological conditions of the bodies of water should
be consistent with the achievement of the required ecological status or good
ecological potential. For example, controls should be defined to ensure that
actions in or near rivers do not negatively impact on morphological conditions.
These may include controls to protect the river bed and bank structure to
ensure good status can be achieved and/or controls
(authorisations/permits/general binding rules) in place for land drainage. In the majority of RBDs (ca. 65%), basic
measures under Article 11.3.i to control significant hydromorphological adverse
impacts on the status of water were still on-going, concerning their status of
implementation in 2012. At the same time, in 19% of RBDs substantial delays in
the implementation of these measures were reported. In the majority of Member States, the PoM
make explicit use of hydromorphological measures under Article 11.3.i, but they
have not included any concrete information on the way that these measures would
contribute to the achievement of good status / potential through the reduction
of hydromorphological pressures. A quantitative assessment of the gap to be
filled to the achievement of WFD objectives by other basic measures under
Article 11.3.i targeted to hydromorphological impacts could not be found in any
Member State. Considering the fact that in a relatively
large share of RBDs, other basic measures (under Article 11.3.i) were not
enough to tackle significant pressures from water flow regulation and
morphological alterations (76% of RBDs), and from river management (54% of
RBDs), supplementary measures related to hydromorphological improvements were
proposed in most PoM. There were few exceptions e.g. Cyprus considered the measures included under Article 11.3.i sufficient to tackle significant
hydromorphological pressures and consequently no corresponding supplementary
measures were included in the PoM. The implementation of the majority of
supplementary measures addressing flow morphology and dams, weirs and other
morphological barriers is ongoing as of 2012.[26] Similar to basic measures (Articles 11.3.a
and 11.3.i), the PoM do not include any concrete assessment or information on
the way that supplementary hydromorphological measures would contribute to the
achievement of WFD objectives. In some cases, details are provided on the
reasons why extended deadlines for achievement objectives until 2012 or 2027
(exemptions) have been necessary due to issues related to hydromorphological
assessments. Lithuania reports that one of the reasons for extended deadlines
is that some hydromorphological measures (e.g. for water bodies affected by
hydropower plants or the naturalisation of river beds) require pilot activities
and further investigations. The number and extent of supplementary
measures taken varies widely across the Member States. In some Member States
(e.g. UK, LT), many supplementary measures are associated with the reduction of
hydromorphological pressures, while in other Member States (e.g. PL and SK),
only a few supplementary hydromorphological measures are reported. Considering the type of hydromorphological
measures included under Article 11.4, these usually entail technical measures,
e.g. renaturalisation of river beds, upgrading HPP turbines, fish passes,
habitat restoration, floodplain restoration, along with actions for ecological
flows. In addition, supplementary hydromorphological measures are often
investigations and measures targeted at further data collection, e.g. actions
on the morphological characterisation of rivers (e.g. IT), continuation of
testing of candidate HMWB (e.g. SK). In fact, in certain Member States (e.g. LV, SE), measures
directly related to improvements in hydro-morphological conditions were
relatively few. Most of the supplementary hydromorphological measures were
related to the examination of the existing situation and development of further
action plans, because knowledge on the possible effects of hydromorphological
measures was insufficient in the 1st cycle. Supplementary
measures of such investigative nature are not expected to contribute to the
achievement of WFD objectives short-term, but provide the necessary decision
basis for coming planning cycles.
12.4
Key Types of Measure
The most relevant Key Types of Measures
(KTM) associated with reducing the pressures and impacts from the
hydromorphological alteration of water bodies are:
KTM5. Improving longitudinal continuity
(e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams);
KTM6: Improving hydromorphological
conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity;
KTM7: Improvements in flow regime and/or
establishment of minimum ecological flow.
Information on KTM7 is provided in chapter
11 on measures to reduce pressures from water abstractions. Quantitative indicators for the scale and
progress with the implementation of measures were proposed for each of the
defined Key Types of Measure. Member States could also report their own
indicators if the proposed ones were not appropriate for their specific
national situations. The following figures present progress in terms of the
pre-defined indicators.
12.4.1 KTM5. Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish
passes, demolishing old dams)
Figure 13: Percentages of indicator/measures
associated with KTM5 that were reported as being not started, planning
on-going, construction on-going and completed at the Member State level in 2012 || Key to indicators The annotations next
to each bar in the Figure shows “RBDCode; Indicator number; (value of the
indicator when 100% completed)":
5.1 Number
of projects/measures to improve longitudinal continuity
5.2 Estimated Total Costs ( €) of the measures ES080 || Other (1) || % of projects LU_RB_000 || Other (2) || % of number of selected priority dams In Germany the
indicators of the KTMs for each RBD are presented as percentages at different
states of implementation and are considered as comparable between RBDs. The
indicators for some French RBDs are also presented as percentages of the
measures at different states of implementation. Figure 13
illustrates the indicators reported by 16 Member States for KTM5. There is a
wide variation in the degree of implementation of the measures between Member
States. Overall in a quarter of the 16 Member States over 40 % of the measures to
improve longitudinal continuity were not started, and in half of the Member
States, 80% were either not-started or on-going. This indicates that a much
increased effort would be required over the next period of the plan to reach
full completion by 2015.
12.4.2
KTM6: Improving hydromorphological conditions
of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity
Figure 1: Percentages of indicator/measures
associated with KTM6 that were reported as being not started, planning
on-going, construction on-going and completed at the Member State level in 2012 || Key to indicators The annotations
next to each bar in the Figure shows “RBDCode; Indicator number; (value of the
indicator when 100% completed)": 6.1 Length of rivers (km) affected by measures
6.2 Area of RBD (km2) affected by measures
6.3 Number of projects/measures
6.4 Estimated Total Costs (€) of the measures BEMaas_VL, BESchelde_VL || 6.3_1 || Number of projects with structural restoration BEMaas_VL, BESchelde_VL || 6.3_2 || Actions related to hydromorphological recovery within Natura 2000 site BEMaas_VL, BESchelde_VL || 6.3_3 || Number of protection or recovery programmes BESchelde_VL || 6.3_4 || Number of projects, analysis of hydromorphological development opportunities within SPAs BEMaas_VL, BESchelde_VL || Other (1) || km of navigable waterways on which a shoreline management plan is applicable ES080 || Other (2) || % of projects LVGUBA, LVVUBA || Other (3) || % actions in progress UK01, UK02 || Other (4) || Area (km2) of agricultural land covered by requirements for buffer strips UK03 to UK12 || Other (5) || Other - Measures to ensure Natura 2000 protected areas achieve their objectives In Germany the
indicators of the KTMs for each RBD are presented as percentages at different
states of implementation and are considered as comparable between RBDs. The
indicators for some French RBDs are also presented as percentages of the measures
at different states of implementation. Figure 1
illustrates the indicators reported by 16 Member States for KTM6. As in other
KTMs there was a wide variation of the measures between Member States. Two of
the measures are 100% completed in the United Kingdom but one measure had not
been started in 1 RBD in Spain. Overall in terms of numbers of measures
planned, in 10 of the 14 Member States reporting the number of
projects/measures (indicator 6.3) at least 80% of measures were either
not-started or planned, again indicating that there appears to be a significant
proportion of planned measures that need completing before 2015.
13. Progress
with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from urban waste water treatment
13.1
Context
Discharges from urban
waste water treatment works are most often associated with loads of nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorus), organic matter, sediment, toxic substances such as
ammonia and some priority substances and river basin specific pollutants: the
actual loads of each contaminants in treated effluent depends on the level of
treatment in the works and the proportion and nature of domestic and industrial
facilities discharging into the sewage collection systems. In the context of pressures
arising from urban waste water treatment:
16 out of the 23 Member States that
reported on pressures at the surface water body level indicated that point
source pressures from UWWT works were significant;
5 other Member States just reported at
the aggregated level (without identification of contributory specific
sectors) that point sources were significant;
9 Member States reported that pressures
from storm overflows were significant; and,
Releases from facilities not connected to
sewerage network were significant in 13 Member States.
All 21 and 18 of the 21 Member States that
reported indicated that nutrient enrichment and organic
enrichment, respectively, were significant impacts on surface water bodies.
Urban waste water treatment is a significant (but not necessarily the sole)
source of pollutants that can cause these two impacts. 23 Member States indicated that Article
11.3.a basic measures were not enough to reduce pressures from point source to
levels compatible with the achievement of WFD objectives.
13.2
Quantification of the scale of the pressures
All Member States
for which an assessment was conducted have identified that UWWT plants are a
significant pressure. The majority of Member States do not know by how much the
loads of pollutants discharged from UWWT plants need to be reduced to achieve
the objectives of the WFD. Four Member States have carried out some
form of quantitative analysis for all pollutants: Germany has carried detailed
pressure assessment for UWWT plants >2000 pe, and the United Kingdom has
used a modelling approach to determine the load reduction required to achieve
the required standards in receiving waters when reviewing permits for UWWT
plants. Similarly, Lithuania used a modelling approach to identify which water
bodies would fail to achieve the WFD objectives after the implementation of the
basic measures, and proposed supplementary measures where required. Italy has
included an assessment of the load reduction required to achieve WFD objectives
in the RBMPs. Three Member States have calculated the
load reductions required for some pollutants, but not all. Austria has
calculated the load reductions required for chemical pollution (priority
substances and river basin specific pollutants) but has not quantified the load
reduction required for nutrients, whilst Sweden and Latvia have carried out a
detailed source apportionment for nutrients only. In addition, Portugal has
made an assessment of the load reduction required to achieve WFD objectives on
a water body basis, where the data exists. However, the data does not exist for
many water bodies. Estonia has calculated the reduction in load required to
achieve the WFD objectives in coastal and marine waters, but has not done this
assessment for surface waters. Finland has quantified the sources of
nitrogen and phosphorus to each water body but has not calculated the total
loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in each water body. Romania has identified the load reduction
that will be achieved from the measures applied to UWWT plants, and has
separately estimated the number of water bodies that it expects to be in good
status by 2015, but no explicit link has been made between the measures and the
achievement of good ecological status. Seven Member States (BE, CZ, FR, HU, LU,
NL, SK) have carried out an analysis of the pressure that UWWT plants exert on
each water body, but have not specified by how much the load needs to be
reduced to achieve the WFD objectives. Four Member States (CY, ES, IE and MT) have
not quantified the scale of the pressures arising from UWWT plants.
13.3
Assessment of measures for the achievement of
WFD objectives
Implementation and
compliance with the UWWT Directive is considered to be important in respect of
achieving WFD objectives, but the majority of Member States do not know by how
much the loads of pollutants discharged from UWWT plants need to be reduced to
achieve the objectives of the WFD in the receiving water bodies. Four
exceptions seem to be Belgium (Flanders), Lithuania, Romania and the United
Kingdom (England and Wales) where there have been detailed modelling of the
effects of point sources (all 4 countries) and diffuse sources (LT and RO only)
on the status of water bodies. Focus instead has been on the load
reductions in treated wastewater required by the UWWT Directive. Nine Member States (EE, ES, FI, LU, LV, PT,
RO, SK, UK) have identified that the implementation of the UWWT Directive will
help achieve improvements, but there is no clear view on how much of the gap
will be filled, or by when. Nine other Member States (CY, CZ, DE, FR, IE, HU,
MT, NL, PL) have planned measures but have made no assessment or judgment as to
how much the measures will contribute to the achievement of the WFD objectives.
For example, Austria and the Netherlands state that they have fully implemented
the UWWT Directive and that the minimum reductions in treated effluent for
phosphorus and nitrogen have been met, but give no assessment of how that has
contributed to the achievement of WFD objectives. Article 11.3.g and supplementary measures
have also been widely applied or planned, but the contribution this will make
to achieving WFD objectives have not generally been assessed. In those Member
States that have identified that supplementary measures are required, only 1 (LT)
has clearly assessed the contribution these will make to closing the gap to
compliance.
13.4
Key Types of Measure
The most-relevant Key Type of Measure (KTM)
associated with reducing the pressures and impacts arising from nutrients and
organic pollution from urban wastewater treatment is:
KTM1. Construction or upgrades of
wastewater treatment plants beyond the requirements of the Directive on
Urban Waste Water Treatment.
Note that nutrients are also discharged
from diffuse run-off from urban areas (e.g. storm overflows) and diffuse
sources of urban waste water not connected to sewers. It is not clear whether
measures to tackle these potential sources are included in the reporting of
KTM1 though some Member States linked supplementary measures tackling these pressures
to this KTM. Quantitative indicators for the scale and
progress with the implementation of measures were proposed for each of the
defined Key Types of Measure. Member States could also report their own
indicators if the proposed ones were not appropriate for their specific
national situations. The following figures present progress in terms of the
pre-defined indicators.
13.4.1 KTM1. Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants
beyond the requirements of the Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment
Figure 1: Percentages of indicator/measures
associated with KTM1 that were reported as being not started, planning
on-going, construction on-going and completed at the Member State level in 2012 Key to
indicators measures The annotations next
to each bar in the Figure shows “RBDCode; Indicator number; (value of the
indicator when 100% completed)”
1.1 Number of population equivalent covered
by measures beyond the requirements of the UWWTD
1.2 Number of projects/measures
1.3 Estimated Total Costs (€) of the measures ES080 – Other
percentage of projects SE -
Other - The figures indicate the
measure of work to achieve wastewater directive's requirements for nitrogen
removal. In Germany the indicators of
the KTMs for each RBD are presented as percentages at different states of
implementation and are considered as comparable between RBDs. The indicators
for some of the KTMs in some French RBDs are also presented as percentages of
the measures at different states of implementation. Figure 1
illustrates the indicators reported by 19 Member States for KTM1. There is a
wide variation in the degree of implementation of the measures between Member
States with for example, 1.1 being 100% completed in Austria and United Kingdom
(Northern Ireland), 80% planning on going in Italy and Luxembourg, and 60% not
started in Latvia. Overall in terms of the implementation status of measures
(indicator 1.2), for 12 of the 13 Member States reporting this indicator, at
least 50% of measures were not started or on-going, and for 3 of these at least
80% were not started or on-going. This seems to indicate that in most of the
13 Member States there is a significant gap to the completion of all measures
by 2015.
14. Progress
with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from water abstractions
14.1
Context
Pressures from the
abstraction of water can arise from a number of sources including:
Agriculture (9 and 8 Member States,
respectively, reported this source was a significant pressure on surface
and on ground water bodies);
Public Drinking Water Supply (9 and 13
Member States, respectively, reported this source was a significant
pressure on surface and on ground water bodies);
Manufacturing (8 and 9 Member States,
respectively, reported this source was a significant pressure surface and
on ground water bodies);
Electricity cooling (6 Member States
reported this source was a significant pressure);
Fish farms (8 Member States reported this
source was a significant pressure);
Hydro-energy not cooling (7 Member States
reported this source was a significant pressure);
Quarries (4 Member States reported this
source was a significant pressure on both surface and ground water
bodies);
Navigation (2 Member States reported this
source was a significant pressure);
Water transfer (8 Member States reported
this source was a significant pressure); and
In addition, a further 5 Member States
only reported water abstraction pressures on surface and groundwater
bodies at an aggregated level with no indication of the responsible
sectors, making a total of 19 out of the 23 Member States that reported
water abstraction pressures at either aggregated or disaggregated level.
Water abstraction pressures can lead to
changes in the natural volume and flow regimes of affected water bodies thereby
adversely altering aquatic and water dependent habitats. 19 out of 21 Member
States that reported information indicated that altered habitats were a
significant impact on their surface water bodies: pressures other than those
from water abstraction can also cause these impacts as is described in Section
12 of this report. Six out of 22 Member States also reported that altered
habitats were a significant impact resulting from pressures on groundwater. Member States were asked to report whether
or not basic measures were enough to meet WFD objectives in terms of water
abstraction pressures. 16 Member States (out of 28 Member States that reported
on whether basic measures were enough or not) indicated that either or both
Article 11.3.e and Article 11.3.c measures were not enough to reduce water
abstraction pressures on surface water bodies to levels compatible with the
achievement of WFD objectives. In terms of groundwater, 21 out of the 26 Member
States that reported this information indicated that either or both Article
11.3.e and Article 11.3.c measures were not enough to reduce water abstraction
pressures on groundwater bodies to levels compatible with the achievement of
WFD objectives.
14.2
Quantification of the scale of the pressure
Only one Member
State (of the 23 assessed) has quantified the scale of the abstraction
pressures that need to be reduced to achieve WFD objectives. Different studies
have been carried out in Spain to identify which ecological flows (in the first
planning cycle only focused on minimum flows and hydro-peaking) should be
established in order to achieve the WFD environmental objectives (high and good
ecological status and good ecological potential) in a large number of WBs and an
extrapolation exercise has been developed for other WBs. In terms of expressing the scale of water
abstraction pressures, 9 Member States (AT, EE, FI, HU, IT, NL, PL, RO, UK)
report the number of water bodies significantly affected; exploitation indicators
have been calculated in 2 Member States (CZ, ES); and the water balances of
groundwater bodies in Malta have been calculated. In the United Kingdom
(England and Wales) Environmental Flow Indicators have been used to provide the
proportion of the flow regime of a water body that can be allowed for
abstraction without causing unacceptable impacts on the water environment. They
provide an initial base for identifying those impacts of abstraction on surface
flows that could limit good ecological status.
14.3
Assessment of measures for the achievement of
WFD objectives
In terms of
Article11.3.a basic measures, those associated with the Environmental Impact
Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) can
contribute to reducing the gap. Out of the 23 assessed Member States, one of
them (ES) has developed a quantitative assessment of the gap that will be
filled by these measures, and by when. 2 Member States (EE, PT) consider that
the measures are expected to help achieve improvements but there is no clear
view on how much of the gap will be filled and/or by when. In 8 Member States
(AT, BE, CY, FI, IE, MT, NL, PL) the measures are planned but there is no
assessment or judgement as to how much the measures will contribute to the
achievement of WFD objectives. For the remaining 9 Member States (CZ, DE, FR,
HU, IT, RO, SE, SK, UK) no information was found. In 3 Member States water
abstraction pressures are not relevant. This result reflects the lack of
integration of Nature Protected Areas and their water requirements into the
RBMPs, in particular when establishing specific additional objectives and
measures, such as analysed in the Background Document to the Workshop on Water,
Marine, Nature and Biodiversity (December 2014). Significant steps forward can
also be expected when ecological flows are consistently being applied, in
strong correlation with the requirements of protected species and habitats. Basic measures under Articles 11.3.c and
11.3.e (measures to promote an efficient and sustainable water use and controls
over the abstraction, respectively) and supplementary measures can contribute
to the reduction of the pressures in affected water bodies. As for Article
11.3.a basic measures, the only Member State to quantify the reductions required
to achieve WFD objectives was Spain.
14.4
Key Types of Measure
The most relevant Key Types of Measures
(KTM) associated with reducing the pressures and impacts arising from water
abstractions are considered here to be:
KTM 7: Improvements in flow regime and/or
establishment of minimum ecological flow;
KTM 8: Water efficiency measures for
irrigation (technical measures);
Quantitative indicators for the scale and
progress with the implementation of measures were proposed for each of the
defined Key Types of Measure. Member States could also report their own
indicators if the proposed ones were not appropriate for their specific
national situations. The following figures present progress in terms of the
pre-defined indicators.
14.4.1 KTM7: Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of minimum
ecological flow
Figure 1: Percentages of indicator/measures
associated with KTM7 that were reported as being not started, planning
on-going, construction on-going and completed at the Member State level in 2012 || Key to indicators measures The annotations next
to each bar in the Figure shows “RBDCode; Indicator number; (value of the
indicator when 100% completed)”
7.1 Number of
projects/measures (including permits)
7.2 Length of rivers (km) affected by measures
7.3 Estimated Total Costs (€) of the measures BEEscaut_RW, BEMeuse_RW, BERhin_RW, BESeine_RW || Other (1) || Characterising low water flow in the Walloon Region ES017, ES018 || Other (2) || Number of RWB/TWB with minimum flow regime ES080 || Other (3) || % of projects FRD, FRF, FRI, FRJ || Other (4) || Number of catchments for which reference flows were defined UKGBNIIENB, UKGBNIIENW, UKGBNINE || Other (5) || km of water mains replaced Figure 1
illustrates the indicators reported by 12 Member States for KTM7. As in other
KTMs there was a wide variation of the measures between Member States. Measures
are largely completed in Belgium but measures had largely not been started in
Spain. In 8 of the 11 Member States reporting indicator 7.1 (number of
measures), at least 50% of the measures (and in 6 of these Member States, at
least 80% of the measures) were not started or on-going. The ambition, in terms of reported
measures, is uneven. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Spain and France report more
than 100 projects while United Kingdom have included up to 290 only in Scotland
(UK01); in Finland this line of action is incidental (1 project).
14.4.2 KTM8: Water efficiency measures for irrigation (technical measures)
Figure.2: Percentages of indicator/measures
associated with KTM8 that were reported as being not started, planning
on-going, construction on-going and completed at the Member State level in 2012 Key to
indicators measures The annotations next
to each bar in the Figure shows “RBDCode; Indicator number; (value of the
indicator when 100% completed)”
8.1 Area covered by projects;
8.2 Number of projects/measures;
8.3 Estimated Total Costs (€) ES080 Other
(1) % of projects Only 6 Member States reported this KTM (Figure.2) using one or more of the predefined
indicators. Regarding the status reported in 2012, the
majority of the projects were “on-going” in Bulgaria, France, Italy, Romania
and Spain. There is a difference though in the completion of the projects:
Spain (30%) and Italy (31 projects) reported on a significant number of
“completed” projects but no completion has been achieved yet in Bulgaria and
Romania. A limited number of projects were reported as “not started” in 2012.
Bearing in mind this status of implementation, increased efforts are needed in
order to achieve the objectives by 2015 for the Member States that have
reported on this KTM.
15. Obstacles
to the implementation of measures
15.1
Overview of obstacle reported in 2012
A variety of obstacles to delivery of the Programmes of Measures has
been reported by the Member States, the most common of which is a lack of
finance (17 Member States). Many Member States (10) report unexpected planning
delays and some (7) report governance issues that cause delays or problems in
implementing the PoM. Further details are provided in Table 1. Table 1: Obstacles to delivering the Programme of
Measures Obstacles to delivering the PoM || Number of MS || MS Governance issues || 7 || AT, BE, FI, IE, MT, NL, SE (Unexpected) planning delays || 10 || AT, BE, BG, FI, FR, LT, NL, PL, PT, RO Lack of finance || 17 || BG, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK Lack of mechanism for implementing measures || 3 || CY, IE, LT Planned measure no longer considered as being cost effective (e.g. national regulations not yet adopted) || 3 || BE, LT, UK Unexpected extreme events (e.g. accidents, droughts, floods) || 1 || BE Other (some identified below) || 16 || AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, RO, SK, UK No specific obstacles identified || 1 || EE No information || 1 || HU Note: BE
data covers the RBDs in Flanders and in Wallonia but not the ones in Brussels
and in the coastal region. Other obstacles identified by the Member
States in implementing the PoMs include the following:
Lack of acceptance or inertia by
stakeholders (sometimes volunteers) tasked with implementing measures or
stakeholders who will be affected by measures (CY, DE, FR, PL, UK). This
indicates a need for a more considered public participation process that
ensures stakeholders actively support the measures that are put in place;
Trouble acquiring the land or property
rights needed to implement the measures (DE, NL, PL, RO, SK);
Knowledge gaps (AT, ES, LT);
Complexity of measure (ES, FR, UK);
Lack of or poor coordination with
neighbouring Member States and/or non-EU countries in the preparation of
international RBMPs (LT, LV); and,
Lack of management plans for Natura 2000
protected areas (BG).
Lack of funding and the economic crisis
have been reported as a main obstacle in relation to hydromorphological
improvements in several countries. For example in France, the implementation of
hydromorphological measures is facing delays due to the economic crisis.
Project developers and local governments face a reduction of financial means
for measures related to hydromorphological restoration.
15.2
Inspection and enforcement of measures
Enforcement refers to the broad range of activities undertaken by
authorities to ensure that permits are issued and other legal requirements are
followed, as well as actions done in the case of possible infringements.
Enforcement thus includes control procedures as well as sanctions and legal
action via courts. Inspections are on-site visits by authorised government
officers to ensure that the conditions in the permits and other legal
requirements are respected. Effective enforcement is of critical
importance for reaching the WFD objectives. In its Preamble, the Water
Framework Directive underlines the importance of ‘full implementation and
enforcement’ of existing environmental legislation (recital 53). The Directive
calls on Member States ‘to determine penalties applicable to breaches’; these
should be ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ (Art. 10). Enforcement is an important concern, along
with implementation of the WFD: the EU Environment Council, in December 2010,
called on the Commission and Member States to ‘enhance and improve’ the
implementation and enforcement of EU environmental legislation[27]. In 2012, the
European Commission released a Communication on better knowledge and
responsiveness for environmental measures[28]. The Communication noted that there is a ‘lack of data on
compliance and enforcement work being undertaken at national level by
inspectors, prosecutors and courts’. These aspects were further investigated in
the “Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the Major River Basin
Management Plans”[29] undertaken in 2012. Information was obtained either directly
through questionnaires or interviews with Member States’ representatives of the
CIS[30] Strategic Coordination Group or through results of previous studies
for 24 Member States (EL, FR and MT not included). It was found that there were many
differences across the Member States in terms of their approaches to
enforcement in the area of water governance as well as concerning the number of
inspections and level of sanctions. At the same time, data on enforcement were
incomplete in many Member States, hindering both the attainment of an overview
of national work in this area as well as an assessment of the achievement of EU
goals to strengthen the implementation and enforcement of environmental
legislation. In most of the smaller Member States, there
is one main environment enforcement authority and this body carries out
inspections of water-related permits across all the main economic sectors:
examples include Cyprus, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovenia. In one larger Member
State, the United Kingdom, the three regional environment agencies (for England
and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland) also enforce permits across all main
sectors. In some other Member States, however,
differences for specific economic sectors are seen, which often relate to IPPC
installations. In Austria, for example, enforcement for large IPPC
installations is carried out at federal level, while all other water-related
enforcement occurs at lower levels. In Luxembourg, the Environment Agency leads
enforcement for IPPC facilities (and smaller ‘classified installations’), while
the Water Management Agency is the lead authority for all other enforcement
related to water. As described in earlier sections of this
report, diffuse agricultural pollution is a major problem for water bodies
across the EU. In some Member States control permits do not adequately address
diffuse pollution . In addition, the the Court of Auditors report highlighted
limitations in how Member States define and enforce cross-compliance
requirements e.g. the requirements for farmers were not precise enough, the
actual volume of water abstracted was not checked. In several Member States,
specific sectors were identified where greater enforcement efforts were
needed: small facilities and hydropower in Sweden; dams and diffuse sources in
Estonia; and agriculture in Ireland.
16. Overall
progress with implementation of programmes of measures
This section
examines the overall progress in implementation of the Programmes of Measures,
focusing in particular on reported achievements and delays. Member States were asked to report on the
main achievements made in delivering the Programmes of Measures. For the
majority of Member States (19), some but not all measures have been started and
some but not all measures have been completed. No Member State reported having
completed all measures and only one Member State (AT) reports that the status
of water bodies is improving. The majority of Member States (17) reported that
new legislation or regulations have been adopted as a requirement to fulfilling
certain measures. Table 1 summarises the main achievements
reported by Member States. Table 1: Member States’ reported achievements in
delivering the PoM Achievements in delivering the PoM || Number of MS || MS Required new legislation and/or regulations adopted or in progress || 17 || AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, PL, RO, SK, UK All planned measures started || 1 || NL Some planned measures started || 19 || AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SK, UK All measures completed || 0 || (none) Some measures completed || 19 || AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO, SK, UK Finance secured for planned measures || 9 || AT, EE, FR, IT, LU, MT, PL, RO, UK Status of water bodies improving || 1 || AT Other achievements (some identified below) || 11 || AT, EE, FR, IE, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, UK No achievements described || 1 || SE No information reported || 1 || HU Note: BE
data covers the RBDs in Flanders and in Wallonia but not the ones in Brussels
and in the coastal region. The types of “other achievements” reported
(i.e. achievements other than those described in Table 1) include the following:
Pollution reduction and
hydromorphological improvements (AT);
Protection of ecologically important
areas (AT);
Research on the effectiveness of measures
(AT);
Research on the assessment
of long-term wastewater irrigation (water reuse) impacts on the soil
geochemical properties and the bioaccumulation of heavy metals to the
agricultural products (CY)
Improvements in water
efficiency/reduction in per capita drinking water consumption (MT, FR);
Cooperative working between public
authorities and stakeholders at international, national and/or local
levels (AT, MT, UK);
Implementation of measures delivering
multiple benefits (UK); and,
Improved monitoring or surveys of
catchments to identify pressures and assess status (CY, LT, MT, UK).
Member
States also reported on measures that were included in the first RBMPs but
which have been significantly delayed. Table 17 provides the percentages of the
substantial delays in other basic measures and supplementary measures per
Member State. Table 2: Substantial delays in the
implementation of measures (combined Article 11.3 b to l and Article 11.4
measures) reported by Member States in 2012 Member State || % of measures delayed || || Member State || % of measures delayed AT || 0% || || IE || 21% BE || 3% || || IT || 19% BG || 6% || || LT || 8% CY || 7% || || LU || 0% CZ || 56% || || LV || 0.4% DE || 18% || || MT || 7% DK || NR || || NL || 9% EE || 0% || || PL || 11% EL || NR || || PT || 7% ES || 10% || || RO || 6% FI || 8% || || SE || 77% FR || 7% || || SI || 0% HR || NR || || SK || 13% HU || 5% || || UK || 0.2% || || || || || || || EU(25) || 12% Note: NR = Not reported The % of measures delayed for each Member State was
calculated as the average of the percentage of basic measures (Article 11.3 b
to l) and percentage of supplementary measures (Article 11.4) reported to be
delayed in 2012 Over 10% of
measures were substantially delayed in a third of the 25 Member States
reporting information. There were large differences across the EU with Member
States such as Austria, Estonia, Luxembourg and Slovenia reporting no
substantial delays in the implementation of their measures to the Czech
Republic and Sweden where over half of their measures were significantly
delayed. At EU level,
23% of WFD-specific basic measures (Article 11(3) b to l) were reported as
completed, 66% on-going and 11% not started. The figures reported for
supplementary measures (Article 11(4)) were 29% completed, 54% on-going and 17%
not started. All these figures indicate that in spite of the numerous
achievements completed by the Member States so far, in some cases there is an
urgent need to overcome delays in the implementation of the measures and to
speed up the necessary processes in the Member States.
17. Main
changes and improvements envisaged for the second planning cycle
Shortcomings in the implementation of
programmes of measures by Member States have been identified in the
Commission’s 2012 implementation report and also in the Preliminary Assessment
report of progress produced in 2013. The Commission has asked Member States
questions in their bilateral meetings on how these shortcomings are planned to
be addressed in the second planning cycle. Member States provided in their bilateral
meeting with the Commission much information that indicates that there are
planned changes and improvements in the second cycle. Based on the information
we can point out several areas where improvements in the second river basin
management plans are expected: - At least 10 Member States intends to
establish, finalize or extend its inventory of sources of pollution in relation
to Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSP) in the second
RBMPs. - A shortcoming identified in the first plans
was insufficient monitoring programmes; eight Member States indicated that they
would be increased or better monitoring of the biological quality elements, and
7 said there would be better or revised monitoring networks in general for the
second plan. - It also appears that the methods used to
assess and classify water status are to be improved in terms of developing or
improving the assessment methods for the biological quality elements
(8 Member States), and by the inclusion of RBSP in the assessment of
ecological status (7 Member States). - In terms of the analysis of pressures and
impacts, at least 7 Member States expect improved methods for the assessment of
significant pressures and impacts and/or apportionment to sectors (including 5
Member States that expect to improve the models that can be used for source
apportionment purposes), and the improved assessment of hydromorphological
significant pressures and linkage to measures in 7 Member States.
18.
Annex - Recommendations to the Member States
Background As it was mentioned in the introduction,
the Commission has collected a significant amount of information on the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in the Member States
through the assessment of the first river basin
management plans (RBMPs), the interim report on the programmes of measures
(PoMs) and in bilateral meetings on the implementation of the RBMPs. This information provides the Commission
with a general understanding of what are the strengths and weaknesses in the
different Member States of the implementation of the WFD. The recommendations
in this annex are based on this information and knowledge. Aim and nature of the recommendations The recommendations aim to assist Member
States in identifying the areas where improvement in the implementation of the
WFD is needed and expected as a matter of priority. The Commission expects Member States to
address the gaps in implementation in their second RBMPs (to be published at
the end of 2015) at least in the form of measures included in the PoMs. The recommendations do not only cover the
PoMs but also previous steps of the WFD planning process which are essential
for the design of effective PoMs (see Chapter 4). The recommendations are intentionally kept
general and succinct in order to highlight certain areas of particular concern
where the need for improvement is expected as a priority. Therefore, the set of
recommendations cannot be considered exhaustive. The number of recommendations does not
necessarily indicate the level of performance of the Member State in the
implementation of the WFD because the seriousness of the gaps that such
recommendations address differs among Member States. RECOMMENDATIONS
TO AUSTRIA Austria should:
Make sure that RBMPs are more precise in
analysing and linking pressures and impacts (information regarding status
and the scale of the pressures is not always clear). Similarly, the gap
analysis of the measures required to achieve good status in the light of
the pressures should be more strongly elaborated.
Develop fully the economic analysis of
water use, including the calculation of environmental and resource costs,
and how the cost effectiveness analysis influenced the selection of
measures. The RBMPs should provide more information about the measures,
especially the expected impact/effect on the WB status. Other information,
such as the location, timing and financing would add an additional level
of concretisation to the RBMPs.
Clarify delineation of small water bodies
in 2nd RBMPs.
Make clearer the approach regarding
exemptions in the RBMPs: methodology applied for defining technical
feasibility and disproportionate costs; measures under Article 4.5;
measures for planned new hydropower development; explanations on
implementation of Article 4.7; consideration of uncertainties in the
Article 5 pressures and impacts analysis; monitoring and classification of
status has influenced the targeting of measures.
Review the degree to which the existing
measures to implement the Nitrates Directive (ND) are sufficient to
address agricultural pressures and ensure basic measures as per Article
11.3.h are put in place to control other diffuse pollutants – e.g.
phosphate, pesticides, particulate matter. These measures should be
specific, have a clear legal basis, and include appropriate advice,
monitoring and inspection regimes to ensure their effective
implementation. In addition to the basic measures, it should be set out
clearly what supplementary measures will be needed to bridge the gap to
good status and which of these measures will be included in the 2nd
PoMs and what funding sources will be used to deliver these. Clear
references to expectations for the Rural Development Programs in this
regard (and to other funding sources) are expected.
Provide more information in 2nd
RBMPs about measures taken or being taken to address diffuse sources of
pollutants (e.g. existing laws better enforced; action plans or guidance
modified in order to specifically support the achievement of WFD
objectives).
Work in the next cycle RBMPs to improve
the revision of the designation of Highly Modified Water Bodies and
methodologies for establishing Good Environmental Potential (GEP). Water
Bodies below storage lakes or dams for hydropower production are
automatically classified as heavily modified water bodies (HMWB) according
to the Austrian RBMPs provisions. There are a significant number of water
bodies with water flow and morphological alterations due to hydropower
plants (nearly 56 % of WB).
Provide a clear commitment in the 2nd
RBMPs to properly prioritised hydromorphological measures and to a review
of hydropower permits as restoration measures and the establishment of an
ecological flow downstream of hydropower plants will be necessary to
achieve good surface water status
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO BELGIUM Belgium should:
Ensure good coordination between the
different regions. In the past, plans were developed separately by each of
the Regions and by the Federal government for coastal waters. Although the
Regions and the Federal government participate in the International River
Commissions of the Scheldt and the Meuse, this is not sufficient to enable
effectively coordinated implementation of the WFD. In particular, the PoMs
need to be clearly linked where they concern pressures and measures that
affect several Regions (e.g. pollution from the Regions that affects
coastal waters).
Ensure that consultation processes at
various levels (regional, national, international) are coordinated and
that key information (pressures, monitoring, status, environmental
objectives and exemptions, measures) is made available in a consolidated
way for the whole of the RBDs (at least for the Belgian part), avoiding
separate products available in different timelines which made impossible
having a completed picture of the RBD.
Establish a quantitative source
apportionment and a link between pressures/impacts and their sources.
Belgium should use these as a basis for determining the Programmes of
Measures.
Improve the methods for the status
assessment of water bodies to reduce the degree of uncertainty in status
classification and thus support the gap analysis required to identify
measures.
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify
the gap to good status for individual pressures and water bodies, and that
PoMs are designed and implemented to close that gap since none of the
three Regions carried out an assessment/analysis of how far pressures (and
their corresponding sources) have to be reduced to achieve the WFD
objectives. Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body
level.
Ensure that cost-effectiveness analyses
are conducted in the Brussels and Walloon Regions to inform their next
RBMPs (only Flanders has carried it out).
Increase significantly the level of
ambition and justify better the exemptions applied based on the assessment
of the measures needed to reach good status and a proper assessment of
alternative solutions and all necessary mitigation measures for exemptions
for new infrastructure.
Review the degree to which the existing
measures to implement the Nitrates Directive (ND) are sufficient to
address agricultural pressures to allow the more stringent nutrient
conditions for the WFD and MSFD to be met. Additionally, Belgium should
ensure basic measures as per Article 11.3.h are put in place to control
other diffuse pollutants – e.g. phosphate, pesticides, particulate matter.
These measures should be specific, have a clear legal basis, and include
appropriate advice, monitoring and inspection regimes to ensure their
effective implementation. In addition to the basic measures, it should be
set out clearly what supplementary measures will be needed to bridge the
gap to good status and which of these measures will be included in the
second PoMs and what funding sources will be used to deliver these. Clear
references to expectations for the Rural Development Programs in this
regard (and to other funding sources) are expected.
Include in the 2nd RBMPs the
necessary hydromorphological measures to achieve good status, including
those targeting the good ecological potential for heavily modified water
bodies (to broaden the scope, make the designation process clearer and
ensure the necessary budget).
Include in the 2nd RBMPs
additional objectives for protected areas and measures to achieve these
objectives.
Integrate environmental and resource
costs into cost recovery calculations for the 2nd RBMPs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO BULGARIA Bulgaria should:
Ensure the necessary coordination of
approaches and methodologies among its 4 RBDs in the 2nd RBMPs.
Review all existing permits in all RBDs
and where necessary, amend them to ensure that they are compatible with
the WFD objectives.
Include in the 2nd RBMPs
results of the international cooperation with neighbouring countries.
Review the pressures and impacts analysis
and status assessment in a consistent manner across all RBDs in the 2nd
RBMP and ensure that the measures are based on the updated pressures and
impacts analysis and status assessment of water bodies.
Complete the development of methods for
the status assessment of water bodies and determination of reference
conditions. An adequate WFD-compliant assessment and monitoring framework
is a necessary pre-requisite to design effective PoMs and ultimately to
achieve the WFD objectives.
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify
the gap to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to
close that gap. Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body
level.
Identify in the 2nd RBMP a
solution to address the significant pressure from landfills, and commit to
accelerating the implementation of measures to comply with the UWWTD.
Ensure that significant point and diffuse
sources of chemical pollution are proactively identified and measures put
in place to control them.
Review in the 2nd RBMP the
environmental quality standards for the river basin specific pollutants
and take the updated standards into account when designing measures for
those pollutants.
Set out in the 2nd RBMPs a
clear assessment of the pressure agriculture is exerting on the status of
water bodies.
Review the degree to which the existing
measures to implement the Nitrates Directive (ND) are sufficient to
address agricultural pressures and concentrate efforts on ensuring farmers
understand their obligations in this regard and can finance the necessary
investments. Additionally Bulgaria should ensure basic measures as per
Article 11.3.h of the WFD are put in place to control other diffuse
pollutants – e.g. phosphate, pesticides, particulate matter. These
measures should be specific, have a clear legal basis, and include
appropriate advice, monitoring and inspection regimes to ensure their
effective implementation. In addition to the basic measures, it should be
set out clearly what supplementary measures will be needed to bridge the
gap to good status and which of these measures will be included in the
second POM and what funding sources will be used to deliver these. Clear
references to expectations for the Rural Development Programs (RDPs) in
this regard (and to other funding sources) are expected.
Ensure coordination between water and
agriculture departments to make sure that developments supported by these
investments do not undermine the achievement of WFD objectives (Bulgaria
is considering significant investment in irrigation and drainage under the
RDP 2014-2021).
Set more stringent objectives for all
drinking water protected areas in the 2nd RBMP cycle and
complete the establishment of drinking water safeguard zones. These
measures should be included in the PoMs.
Prioritize the agglomerations with more
than 2.000 PE in terms of the WFD principles and of financing in the 2nd
RBMPs but should also assess the pressures due to waste water from small
agglomerations (less than 2.000 PE) in the second RBMP cycle.
Ensure compliance with Article 5 UWWTD
for more stringent treatment, especially in big cities.
Develop in the 2nd RBMPs an
appropriate methodology to establish good ecological potential including
the necessary mitigation measures linked to water uses and quality level.
Develop a proper methodology for
establishing ecological flow linked with good ecological status in the 2nd
RBMPs and ensure this e-flow is applied through review of permits.
Implement measures to mitigate the
effects of navigation and related activities in the Black sea RBD.
Establish an improved and harmonised
approach to exemptions in the 2nd RBMPs. The methodology should
include calculations of disproportionate costs, assessment methods for
adverse effects and better environmental options.
All the planned projects that may
deteriorate the status of a water body have to be included in the 2nd
RBMPs Should adequately justify and support new modifications (such as
dams and navigation projects) by a proper assessment of alternative
solutions and include all necessary mitigation measures.
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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO CYPRUS Cyprus should:
Provide a more detailed analysis of
pressures and impacts, as well as an improved risk assessment based on the
improvement of the monitoring network. The RBMPs should be explicit about
the impacts related to each significant pressure and provide quantitative
figures on the scale of the pressures that need to be reduced, to reach
WFD objectives. Also, the targeting of the measures should be explicit in
terms of their type and extent, to ensure that pressures are addressed
adequately.
Develop fully the economic analysis of
water use, including the calculation of environmental and resource costs,
and how the cost effectiveness analysis influenced the selection of
measures.
Increase the use of EU funds to finance
PoMs.
Utilise metering (especially for
agriculture) to better determine quantitative status of WBs and to secure
their long-term protection because abstraction of groundwater is a
significant pressure in Cyprus, mainly due to unregulated
self-abstractions and permits not set consistent with environmental
needs.
Enforce the Law for groundwater status
improvement (the application deadline for non-licensed boreholes was
extended until June 2014 for farmers).
Promote more efficient irrigation
networks and maximization of water reuse.
Consider switching to less
water-intensive agricultural products, which can often provide a better
economic return.
Review the degree to which the existing
measures to implement the Nitrates Directive (ND) are sufficient to
address agricultural pressures and concentrate efforts on ensuring farmers
understand their obligations in this regard and can finance the necessary
investments. Additionally Cyprus should ensure basic measures as per
article 11.3.h of the WFD are put in place to control other diffuse
pollutants – e.g. phosphate, pesticides, particulate matter. These
measures should be specific, have a clear legal basis, and include
appropriate advice, monitoring and inspection regimes to ensure their
effective implementation. In addition to the basic measures, it should be
set out clearly what supplementary measures will be needed to bridge the
gap to good status and which of these measures will be included in the
second POM and what funding sources will be used to deliver these. Clear
references to expectations for the Rural Development Programs (RDPs) in
this regard (and to other funding sources) are expected. Irrigation investments
made in the Rural Development Programmes must be carried out to ensure
water saved goes back to restore depleted aquifers.
Develop further the hydromorphological
assessment methods so that improved biological monitoring results will
allow for better risk assessment and more targeted measures concerning
hydromorphological pressures. Cyprus should be more ambitious in 2nd RBMPs
in relation to hydromorphological measures.
Consider and prioritise the use of green
infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a
range of environmental (improvements in water quality, increase of water
infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, habitat conservation etc.), social
and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than
grey infrastructure.
Accelerate implementation of the UWWTD
measures, availing of EU funds as collecting systems and treatment plants
are not fully operational (62,0% of the population equivalent according to
2010 data).
Present in the 2nd RBMPs
improved identification of pressures from chemical pollutants on the basis
of the inventory of priority substances emissions (established since June
2013).
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO CZECH REPUBLIC Czech Republic should:
Ensure good coordination between public
administration and other stakeholders to improve the planning and
implementation of PoMs and to monitor their effectiveness.
Ensure in the 2nd RBMPs that
measures adopted in the PoMs are based on a reliable status assessment of
water bodies (clear setting of the scale of
pressures, measures needed to fully address the pressures and proportion
of these measures) and are linked to the relevant pressures. The
explanation of the links between pressures and status and respective
measures should be included in the update of the RBMPs.
Focus better the operational monitoring
of water bodies on verification of results from the pressures and impacts
analysis, e.g. the link between impacts on water bodies and
hydromorphological pressures should be addressed. Furthermore, Czech Republic
should clarify the link between the pollution by hazardous substances and
their sources. Czech Republic should consider necessary changes in
operational monitoring to pick up potential polluting loads.
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify
the gap to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to
close that gap. The identified impacts have to be clearly apportioned
between the sources and sectors/drivers responsible for the pressures for
all significant water management issues.
Base the assessment of measures for River
Basin Specific Pollutants on appropriate Environmental Quality Standards
(EQS) in the 2nd RBMPs cycle.
Assess what additional
objectives/measures are needed for Protected Areas (Species and Habitats,
Drinking Water, Bathing Water) and to include these additional
objectives/measures in the 2nd RBMPs.
Indicate clearly in the 2nd
RBMP when WFD objectives will be achieved. Exemptions should be adequately
justified at water body level and, in particular for new modifications,
compliance with Article 4.7 of the WFD has to be ensured in the 2nd
RBMPs cycle.
Present in the 2nd RBMPs a
clear assessment of the number of water Bodies failing to reach good
status due to agriculturally derived pressures because diffuse sources of
pollution from nitrogen and pesticides were identified as the main
significant pressures from agriculture in the Czech Republic. Czech
Republic should start measures to control diffuse sources of pollution
outside of NVZs and Czech Republic should improve controls of
hydromorphological pressures from agriculture. Czech Republic should
report quality of lakes.
Review the degree
to which the existing measures to implement the Nitrates Directive (ND)
are sufficient to address agricultural pressures. Additionally Czech
Republic should ensure basic measures as per article 11.3.h of the WFD are
put in place to control other diffuse pollutants – e.g. phosphate,
pesticides, particulate matter. These measures should be specific, have a
clear legal basis, and include appropriate advice, monitoring and
inspection regimes to ensure their effective implementation. In addition
to the basic measures, it should be set out clearly what supplementary
measures will be needed to bridge the gap to good status and which of
these measures will be included in the second POMs and what funding
sources will be used to deliver these. Clear references to expectations
for the Rural Development Programs (RDPs) in this regard (and to other
funding sources) are expected. The Czech Republic RDP proposes significant
investment in drainage measures, with the potential to lead to
deterioration of status. Compliance with Article 4.7 must be ensured.
Ensure that the Methodology for
ecological flows (called Minimum Residual Flow) is consistent with the WFD
environmental objectives (good ecological status or potential).
Provide information on future and current
actions to address hydromorphological pressures deriving from water
management, hydropower, private users and other related sectors, and to
put in place adequate measures in the 2nd RBMPs (in particular
to develop a strategy to implement fish passes and ensure connectivity)
and by including other restoration measures.
Justify adequately new hydromorphological
modifications (e.g. new hydropower plants, new drainage, etc.), support
them by a proper assessment of alternative solutions and include all
necessary mitigation measures.
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.
Ensure proper assessment of the chemical
status of its groundwaters and, if the quality standards in Annex I of the
GWD are insufficient to achieve the environmental objectives for
groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Czech Republic should establish more
stringent nitrates and pesticides threshold values (point 3 of Annex I of
Directive 2006/118/EC).
Identify clearly in the 2nd
RBMPs Basic measures to allow for a clear assessment of the need for
additional measures, e.g. Czech Republic should provide all information on
the level of compliance and timing to reach full compliance with Directive
91/271/EEC (article 15 and following) and what measures beyond this are
necessary to reach good status and which of these will be included in the
2nd RBMPs.
Develop fully the economic analysis of
water use, including the calculation of Environmental and Resource Costs.
Czech Republic should revise approach to the exemption from water fees
during scarcity periods, and CZ should elaborate on this issue in the 2nd
RBMP.
Carry out a cost effectiveness analysis
of potential measures (voluntary or obligatory), for achieving the
environmental objectives. The effectiveness of the implemented measures
will have to be demonstrated by the assessment of the status/potential of
water bodies in the second RBMPs. Available funding, in particular the EU
funds (e.g. RDP funds, Structural and Investment funds, LIFE Integrated
Projects and Horizon 2020) needs to be exploited as much as feasible in
order to implement PoMs. Consequently, appropriate priorities shall be set
in the programming documents (PA, OPs and RDPs) of the new EU funding
policy 2014-2020.
RECOMMENDATIONS
GERMANY Germany should:
Improve knowledge (in designing and
making operational the measures for the 2nd RBMP cycle) on the
link between pressures and impacts in order to:
Refine the significance of the pressures
by quantifying those which are likely to prevent the achievement of
environmental objectives;
Assess the reduction in pressures
required to achieve environmental objectives;
Apportion the source and clearly
identify the responsible sectors/areas.
Enhance measures to tackle pollution by
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) considering their impact on the
ecological status because diffuse pollution from agriculture is the main
reason for poor groundwater status, and all coastal and transitional
waters are failing due to eutrophication. Full consideration of the
basin-wide impact is needed in this respect (local and downstream impacts
including up to transitional and coastal waters).
Check that their nutrient standards are
consistent with biological requirements for the achievement of good status
and set out a more coherent strategy in the 2nd RBMPs that
reflects:
for agriculture: what will be achieved through measures to implement the
Nitrates Directive, through basic measures under article 11.3. of the
WFD, basic measures included in pillar 1 (GAEC, greening) of the CAP
and supplementary measures under pillar 2 of the CAP; Germany should put
in place a revised nitrates action programme under the Nitrates Directive
that can address this issue meaningfully
for urban areas: what will be achieved through compliance with the UWWTD and
what will be required beyond this (e.g. tightening of standards,
addressing storm water overflows).
In particular it
is expected that the 2nd RBMPs, based on the necessary reduction in
nutrient load, clearly identify the extent to which the measures already taken
under the implementation of ND and UWWTD contribute to the achievement of WFD
objectives and which additional measures should be taken to actually achieve
these objectives. A clear identification of basic (mandatory) measures is
expected to be made transparent both to the sectors and the general public.
Clarity on timescale of implementation of the measures is also expected.
Review regulation on the use of
pesticides (beyond nutrients) in order to prevent pollution at source and
effectively reduce current levels of contamination of both surface and
groundwater, making clear linkages with the implementation of the
Directive on the sustainable use of pesticides. If the National Action
Programme is intended to fulfil the requirement to have controls on
pesticide pollution as required by article 11.3 of the WFD, then the
detail on these controls (mandatory measures) should be set out in the
RBMPs and the PoMs.
Define measures targeted to agriculture
with a much better level of detail to ensure their uptake by farmers,
their inspection by relevant agencies and to assist tracking of
compliance. Basic measures are mostly presented as legislative acts and in
the next RBMPs Germany should present detail on technical measures
included in such acts.
Make a clear distinction in the RBMPs
between mandatory measures (the minimum being measures to implement
article 11.3.) and voluntary ones that will be funded under the EARDF.
Make clear to what extent the full range
of agriculture measures included in the RBMP will be sufficient to redress
agriculture pressures to allow good status objectives to be achieved.
Consider properly ecological flows
wherever existing and planned abstractions may jeopardize the achievement
of environmental objectives. This is particularly crucial when considering
the review of water allocations and permits.
Review the legislative base on morphology
to ensure that controls exist to adequately prevent new morphological
pressures.
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.
Provide more information in the RBMPs
about the measures, especially the expected impact/effect on the water
bodies´ status. Other information, such as the location, timing and
financing would add a level of specificity to the 2nd RBMPs
that was a weakness in the first RBMP.
Provide better information on how
measures are selected and targeted towards a water body. While
uncertainties related to the status and the effects of measures were
provided in the 1st RBMPs it is expected that many of these
obstacles should have been overcome in the 2nd RBMPs.
Provide more ambitious programmes of
measures for the 2nd RBMPs to increase the number of water bodies at good status
by 2021.
Review the designation of HMWBs, in
particular taking into account restoration measures that would make it
possible for water bodies to achieve good status, which will in turn
provide a legal driver for restoration measures.
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify
the gap to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to
close that gap. Should all measures not be put in place in the second RBMP
Germany is expected to provide better justification for exemptions to the
achievement of environmental objectives (in particular as regards the
assessment of affordability and disproportionate costs). Germany should
include in the RBMPs a clear timetable for the measures to be implemented.
Include in the 2nd RBMPs a
more consistent approach to substance-specific measures in the different
Länder and put in place substance-specific and general measures to address
pollutants at source.
Set out better information on the
allocation of financial resources for measure implementation in the 2nd
RBMPs.
Mainstream across Germany good practices
from some Länder on consistently addressing hydromorphological pressures
through the Rural Development Programmes.
Explore all opportunities to secure
necessary funding to pay for RBMP measures, e.g. wider application of
article 9, RDPs, national flood budget (with a priority for natural water
retention measures), water company investment and industry measures to
reduce chemicals at source.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ESTONIA Estonia should:
Ensure coherent trans-boundary
cooperation in PoMs development (with Latvia).
Finalise the setting of all reference
conditions for the purpose of the 2nd RBMP cycle; any gap (i.e.
lake diatoms) should be explained in the 2nd RBMPs.
Complement biological assessment with
(improved and harmonised) monitoring of hydromorphology in the 2nd
RBMPs.
Apply fully the one-out–all-out principle
in ecological status assessment in the 2nd RBMPs.
Assess for the 2nd RBMPs all
potential HMWB in relation to "other means" that can be a better
environmental option and restoration option. In accordance with WFD
requirements, take action to restore HMWB if feasible.
Focus in the 2nd RBMP cycle on
better linking pressures to impacts and measures, including by source
apportionment, and provide a clear assessment of how many of the pressures
(and their sources) have to be reduced to achieve the WFD goals.
Link clearly in the 2nd RBMPs
cycle the overcoming of the gap to good status with the implemention of
basic and supplementary measures.
Make more explicit the links between
other supporting programmes and legislation relevant to the WFD, such as
urban wastewater treatment and programmes for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
(NVZs). The contribution of these supporting programmes to achieving the
objectives of the WFD should be shown in quantitative terms.
Assess the requirements of Birds and
Habitats areas and, if additional water requirements (quality/ quantity)
are needed to achieve favourable conservation status, and include them as
additional objectives in the 2nd RBMPs.
Improve transparency in the application
of exemptions for the 2nd RBMPs; include the cost effectiveness of
measures in the RBMP; and define the criteria for the application of
"technical unfeasibility", "disproportionate costs"
and "natural conditions".
Be more concrete in the 2nd
RBMPs in terms of measures and the expected achievements and clearly link
the measures (both basic and supplementary) to specific pressures and
quantify the expected impact of the measures in terms of the WFD objectives.
Put in place measures in line with
article 11.3.h WFD to control diffuse pollution (controls mean binding
requirements - not voluntary measures, such as the code of good practice).
Establish a clear requirement for farmers
to protect water to the standard necessary under Nitrates Directive (ND)
and WFD.
Provide information on what binding
measures will be placed on agriculture to control diffuse pollution in the
second cycle especially outside Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) areas.
Take into consideration what types of
measures are needed to help deliver the WFD and then ensure these are
targeted to the right farmer/right location in the 2nd cycle RDPs.
Undertake accurate pressures analysis to
precisely define sources of nitrate and phosphate pollution.
Cover diffuse sources in the inventory of
pollution sources elaborated in the 2nd RBMPs to the highest
extent possible (e.g. agricultural sources of cadmium, pesticides; storm
water run-off, etc.).
Provide complete information on the level
of compliance, and timing to reach compliance, by agglomerations,
including information on funding, in accordance with Directive 91/271/EEC
(article 15 and following).
Integrate the action plan for the
Ordovician Ida-Viru oil-shale basin in the PoMs of the 2nd RBMPs.
Ensure that its ecological flow
methodology is compatible with Good Ecological Status (GES), and that it
takes into account the CIS guidance that has been adopted.
Improve the assessment of
hydromorphological significant pressures taking into account all significant
alterations, e.g. drainage, infrastructure, barriers etc.
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.
Describe clearly in the 2nd RBMPs how
status will be derived for non- monitored water bodies and to restrict and
streamline the use of expert judgement.
Apply fully the one-out–all-out principle
in ecological status assessment in the 2nd cycle
Take into account atmospheric deposition
in identifying RB specific pollutants and in deciding where to monitor
RBSPs and priority substances (PS).
Include for the 2nd RBMP priority
substances in chemical status assessment and river basin specific
pollutants in ecological status assessment.
Be transparent for the 2nd RBMP in the
HMWB designation process and provide rationale for the changes done since
the 1st RBMP.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO GREECE Greece should: § Urgently
adopt and report to the Commission the two outstanding Greek RBMPs. §
Improve transboundary cooperation, building on
the progress achieved so far; additional efforts in the context of
WFD-implementation are needed, so that the second RBMPs for international RBDs
are developed in close cooperation with neighbouring countries. §
Made fully operational the new National
Monitoring Programme (NMP). All outstanding assessment methods should be
developed and made operational as soon as possible. All water bodies should be
classified according to WFD compliant methods. The one-out all-out principle
should be used across the board. The data must be collected on a regular basis
for all relevant quality elements. The recommendations of the RBMPs regarding
the proposed modifications to the NMP need to be carefully considered and
actions for their implementation to be pursued. The data of the new NMP must be
quality assured, organised and archived. It is recommended that these data are
made available to all users and the general public through easily accessible
formats. § Develop
publicly available WFD compliant National Guidance Documents, addressing the
key implementation steps where significant weaknesses have been identified
(characterisation of pressures, typology, reference conditions, monitoring and
grouping of water bodies, methods for the status classification, HMWB
designation, application of exemptions and in particular regarding Article 4.7,
etc.), necessary to ensure WFD compliance and increased comparability and
transparency. §
The information obtained regarding chemical
pollution needs to be extended by filling gaps in monitoring, including the
monitoring of mercury and other relevant pollutants in biota, and trend
monitoring in biota and/or sediment. §
Ensure in the updated RBMPs a better
understanding and identification of the main risks and pressures in each river
basin, based on detailed harmonised methodologies, and underpinned by consolidated
and robust data. §
Particularly urgent is the development of sound
methodologies to address hydromorphological pressures. The current combination
of weak pressure analysis (with not precautionary enough thresholds of
significance), lack of ecological status assessment methods sensitive to
hydromorphological pressures, unclear process for designation of HMWB and lack
of development of GEP makes it very likely that significant hydromorphological
pressures are completely overlooked in the implementation process. Potential
effects of “smaller” modifications such as dams lower than 15 m, dredging,
river straightening, drainage, etc., including impacts to transitional and
coastal waters, should be assessed. §
Agriculture is indicated as exerting a
significant pressure on the water resource in most Greek RBDs. There needs to
be further investigation regarding the hydromorphological pressures from
agriculture. In addition, the measures taken as regards agriculture need to be
more specific, in order to have more reliable positive results regarding the
WFD-objectives. §
Regarding GW quantity issues, very limited
information about actual abstractions has been used. The latter are based on
estimates. Even if the revised NMP will provide better information the issue of
illegal abstractions/boreholes, their potential effects and ways to deal with
them needs to be considered most thoroughly. §
Regarding exemptions: overall and even if a
large number of water bodies are in “unknown” status, there is a limited number
of exemptions, linked to the fact that only a limited number of water bodies
“fail” the objectives of the WFD. This needs to be significantly re-considered
after monitoring information becomes available - and consequently, most
probably, more measures will need to be taken. §
The application of exemptions needs to be more
transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in
the plans. This especially holds true for a coherent and complete approach
regarding Article 4.7 exemptions. The use of exemptions under Article 4.7
should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the
WFD, in particular a proper assessment of whether the project will cause
deterioration or prevent the achievement of good status, whether the project is
of overriding public interest, whether the benefits to society outweigh the
environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would
be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be
carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact
on the status of the water. §
No clear link between measures and status
assessment is made. In order to address this, the gaps in the steps leading to
the Programme of Measures, such as pressure and impact assessment, monitoring
and status classification, should be addressed. This is important in order to
implement measures where they are needed to reach the WFD objectives. §
In relation to chemical pressures, the intention
to compile inventories of emissions in accordance with Directive 2008/105/EC
needs to be carried out, but does not in itself count as a measure against
chemical pollution. More information on relevant measures needs to be included
in the 2nd RBMPs. §
In relation to hydromorphological pressures, and
based on a sound assessment, measures should be taken to mitigate the impacts
(e.g. river restoration, removal of structures, etc.). §
Meaningful information regarding the scope, the
timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the PoM so the
approach to achieve the objectives is clear and the ambition in the PoM is
transparent. §
PoM in RBMPs: the limited level of ambition, and
lack of clarity regarding expected effects, need to be rectified. The PoM
includes mostly administrative acts that may not make a difference
(particularly if implementation is not enforced). Many projects that are in
apparent conflict with the WFD (e.g. new dams not properly justified, new
irrigation network projects) are included in the PoM (e.g. for improving GW
quantitative status since the irrigation water will come from a new reservoir
in the future). A thorough check of such projects that are included in the PoM
is needed in order to check if they really are WFD-relevant measures (linked
also to the Article 4.7 issue above). This inclusion of new dams/irrigation
schemes, etc. in most of the PoM also affects the costs indicated: a part of
the costs of the PoM-supplementary measures (as defined up to 2015) come for
such projects (often financed through the EU). Otherwise, there is very limited
financing included for “core” WFD-measures to achieve the environmental
objectives (e.g. restoration/mitigation, etc.) without clear commitments for
after 2015. There needs to be a clear separation of measures designed to
achieve WFD environmental objectives from measures designed to increase water
supply and other objectives. §
Develop fully the economic analysis of water use
(including the polluter pays principle, including a clear definition of water
services, harmonising methodologies and data in all RBMPs) and ensure that the
water tariffs/fees lead to adequate recovery of the costs of water services and
provide incentives for users to use water resources efficiently. This is
particularly important for agriculture. The implementation of measures on cost
recovery and water pricing based on a common approach across RBDs is urgent, in
order to fulfil the Article 9 requirements and to achieve economic
sustainability. §
Up to now, there is no consideration of climate
change - no “climate proofing” of the RBMP/PoMs. These issues need to be dealt
with urgently. §
The Drought Management Plans (DMP) developed as
supplementary to the RBMPs are a valuable addition. However, they need to be
taken a step further, be more harmonised, and evolve into an operational level
with the “measures proposals” being implemented in areas where relevant. §
Ensure that the authorities responsible for
water management are fully in charge of the contents and development of the
RBMPs. Support from consultants and researchers is often necessary, but the
authorities' ownership of the RBMP should be ensured to embed the WFD
principles and obligations into practice and avoid the disconnection of the
planning process from the water management reality. Long-term capacity and
expertise building should be ensured in the water administration, based on
sufficient resources and personnel available at all relevant administrative
levels. §
The consultation process needs to be
strengthened. More efforts should be done to ensure active participation of all
relevant stakeholders and the comments should be taken under consideration in a
more transparent way. RECOMMENDATIONS
TO SPAIN Spain should:
Adopt as soon as possible the outstanding
RBMPs for the Canary Islands
Ensure the consultation and adoption of
the 2nd RBMPs according to the WFD timetable, avoiding delays.
Fill as soon as possible the gaps in
transposition in the intra-community RBDs
Improve reporting to WISE, ensuring that
the information uploaded is the same as in the RBMPs. Report for the 2nd
RBMPs complete information as regards significant pressures, including the
results of the quantitative analysis, translated into the simple
qualitative report required in WISE.
Consider reviewing the legislation to
incorporate explicitly the identification, by way of the pressures and
impacts analysis, of water bodies at risk.
Ensure the completion as soon as possible
of the framework for status assessment considering the following:
Reference conditions and boundaries for
quality elements have to be binding. Revise typology if needed to ensure
that it is fit to serve as a basis for classification.
Translate the results of the
intercalibration exercise to the assessment systems in a transparent way
The complete assessment framework, and
in particular the intercalibration results of 2013 and the new standards
introduced by Directive 2013/39/EU for existing priority substances,
should be considered in the status assessments for the second RBMP.
Fill the gaps in assessment systems for
biological quality and supporting elements, in particular for fish
Include the complete assessment systems
for coastal and transitional waters.
Report transparently the confidence and
limitations of the assessments as appropriate.
Fill urgently the gaps in monitoring of
surface waters and ensure consistent monitoring with appropriate coverage
(and thereby classify the status of all water bodies). Ensure that
monitoring is adequately resourced and maintained to inform adequately the
RBMPs and the decisions on the PoMs.
Extend chemical monitoring beyond water
bodies affected by industrial discharges. Consider as well atmospheric
deposition and urban waste water discharges as relevant sources of
chemical pollution.
In the context of designation of HMWBs,
develop clear criteria/thresholds to define the significant adverse effect
of restoration measures on water uses, and a proper (real) assessment of
other alternatives that could be better environmental options.
Ensure that GEP is correctly defined for
all HMWBs and AWBs (in terms of biological condition and mitigation
measures).
Ensure that environmental objectives are
established for all water bodies in the second cycle, including for HMWBs
and AWBs. If no objectives are defined, appropriate measures cannot be
established either.
Ensure that the assessment of groundwater
quantitative status considers all aspects of the definition, including
local falls in the water table that may lead to a risk in water-dependent
ecosystems, and including protected areas.
Develop a plan to extend and generalise
the use of flow meters for all water abstractions and uses, and to require
users to report regularly to the river basin authorities the volumes
actually abstracted. Use this information to improve quantitative management
and planning.
Ensure that:
all abstractions are registered and
permits adapted to the available resources.
all abstractions are metered and subject
to control of the river basin authorities
the necessary amendments to the
legislation are enacted to require all abstractions to be registered and
regulated, no matter under which regime they got their permit (pre- or
post-1985 Law).
Ensure that the e-flows established
guarantee good ecological status. If this is not the case, report
transparently the deviations and the justifications on the basis of
technical feasibility or disproportionate costs. In the relevant water
bodies, consider the objectives of water-dependent protected habitats and
species in setting e-flows.
Harmonise the consideration of temporary
streams in the Mediterranean area on the basis of sound ecologically-based
scientific criteria and methodologies. Ensure distinction between
situations of dry rivers due to natural causes (temporary streams) and
human activity (due to over-abstraction).
Provide better justification of
exemptions. There is no analysis of the measures needed to achieve good
status. Therefore, it is not possible to justify whether measures are
disproportionately costly or technically unfeasible. Measures need to be
taken as far as possible in water bodies where exemptions are applied, and
report them in the RBMPs.
Ensure in the 2nd RBMPs that the status
of all water bodies is assessed in accordance with the WFD before
considering any further infrastructure that would be liable to cause
deterioration in the status of water bodies or prevent the achievement of
good status. These infrastructures can only be authorised if the
conditions of article 4(7) are fulfilled. The justification needs to be
included in the RBMP. The "declaration of general interest" in
the Spanish legislation cannot be automatically equated with the concept
of "overriding public interest" in article 4(7)(c). This has to
be justified case by case in the 2nd RBMPs.
Avoid presenting the maintenance of
ecological flow in new dams as an ecological benefit of the dam, but
consider it as a mitigation measure. Justify the flood protection share on
a case by case basis, including the justification that there is no better
environmental option.
Separate very clearly in the 2nd RBMPs
the measures designed to achieve the environmental objectives from others.
The latter need to be treated as Article 4(7) exemptions whenever
appropriate (i.e. modifications to water bodies liable to cause
deterioration or prevent the achievement of good status or potential).
Review the way the modernisation of
irrigation is considered in the PoMs. Only those projects which genuinely
contribute to the WFD objectives should be labelled as such. Such
contribution should be justified and quantified in the RBMPs on a case by
case basis. The abstraction permits should be reviewed and set to meet the
environmental objectives and then modernisation is the efficiency measure
put in place to achieve compliance with the new permit condition.
Ensure that there is a proper integration
of the pressures and impacts analysis, the status assessment and the
design of the PoMs. Avoid defining the PoMs on the basis of business as
usual and a non-transparent assessment of “what can be done”, but rather
on a genuine gap analysis that identifies which measures are needed to
achieve good status and can also support the justification of exemptions.
Ensure that RBMPs apportion impacts to
pressures and sources/drivers, to increase the understanding of which
activities and sectors are responsible – and in which proportion - for
achieving objectives.
Ensure that RBMPs provide much more
information about the measures, such as their location (including the
number of water bodies), classification (basic, other basic, supplementary)
and character (voluntary or binding), the targeted sector and source, the
pressure they address (beyond the current grouping by general topics) and
the expected specific effects in terms of status improvement.
Consider and prioritise the use of green
infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a
range of environmental (improvements in water quality, increase of
infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, habitat
conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many
cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure, as well as other
restoration measures, removal of dams and other hydro morphological
barriers.
Ensure that the process of selecting (or
not) measures is more sound and transparent, providing in the RBMPs not
only statements that a cost-effectiveness analysis has been carried out,
but also informing on the measures that have been considered in the
analysis, its results and how this assessment has influenced the selection
of measures.
Clarify in the RBMPs what technical
measures are behind legislation and how much they contribute to closing
the gap to good status as basic measures are mostly presented as
legislative acts (e.g. articles of the Water Law and related regulations).
Ensure that appropriate basic measures
are established for control of diffuse pollution. The basic measures for
diffuse pollution should go beyond the Nitrates Directive codes of
practice, which are voluntary instruments limited to nitrates issues. They
do not address other agricultural pressures (phosphates, pesticides,
etc.). Mandatory measures that are controllable should be included in the
2nd RBMPs.
Ensure that monitoring of drinking-water
protected areas includes all relevant parameters of the Drinking Water
Directive.
Define the status of protected areas to
ensure a harmonised approach across the country.
Carry out a comprehensive study together
with the responsible authorities for nature to derive the quantitative and
qualitative needs for protected habitats and species, translated into
specific objectives for each protected area which should be inserted in
the RBMPs. Appropriate monitoring and measures should also be included in
the RBMPs.
Introduce volumetric abstraction fees for
all users (including self-abstraction of groundwater) covering properly
calculated environmental and resource costs. Ensure that the cost-recovery
instruments are adapted as soon as possible to the WFD to ensure that they
provide adequate incentives to use the water efficiently. In addition, the
revenues of cost-recovery instruments should be sufficient for the river
basin authorities to effectively execute their water management tasks
(update and maintenance of register of abstractions, monitoring, etc.).
Develop a basic harmonisation of the
minimum elements to be included in water tariffs for drinking water supply
and waste water treatment for the 2nd RBMPs to ensure long-term
sustainability of investments in water protection across the country.
Consider water use for energy production (hydropower
and cooling) as a water service, and present relevant information (cost
recovery, environmental and resource costs, "discount rates for
dams") transparently in the updated RBMPs.
Present transparently subsidies and
cross-subsidies in the 2nd RBMPs (i.e. desalinated water, dam
construction, etc.) and justify dam discount calculation on a case by case
basis.
Extend calculation of environmental costs
to costs related to energy production (hydropower, cooling) and diffuse
pollution from agriculture.
Reinforce the cooperation with Portugal
and France in shared RBDs (covering characterisation, pressures and
impacts, monitoring, assessment of status, public consultation, measures,
etc.), ensuring that there is a common understanding for transboundary water
bodies and catchments for these issues. The outcomes of such cooperation
(in particular with Portugal) should be reflected in the RBMPs or ad-hoc
background documents.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO FINLAND Finland should:
Provide more information about the
threshold values/standards that have been set to support good status, not
only for surface waters, but also for groundwater and coastal waters.
Provide a more comprehensive
cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis, to clarify the criteria
applied for the selection of measures in the RBMPs.
Clarify the methods used and criteria
applied for determining pressures in the RBMPs. Moreover, the links
between different pressure-impact-measures should be further explained.
Measures should be more concrete and include the final expected
achievements and, if possible, quantify the impact in terms of the WFD
objectives.
Address the gaps in basic measures (e.g.
tools to control P pollution, especially in terms of monitoring the actual
P applications).
Ensure the link between Nitrates
Directive and WFD (e.g. measures used to track and monitor compliance,
outcomes of the Nitrates Decree amendment process and the resulting
improved linkages, etc.).
Introduce binding requirements for
farmers to address their nutrient inputs, particularly of phosphates,
where the voluntary programmes/scheme do not work.
Adopt measures oriented towards manure
handling and recycling, decrease nutrients discharges, etc. in order to
improve nutrient balances.
Include information on the activities
that will be undertaken in order to reduce the deficiencies in the
requirements for cross-compliance (manure collection, storage, etc.)
depending on the outcome of the impact assessment on slurry storage.
Finland should ensure that funding for these activities is designated and
enforcement ensured via the RBMPs.
Provide further clarification on how
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funding will be targeted once the
approach is clarified (budget share and implementation schemes – voluntary
or mandatory - of measures funded by CAP Pillar II that help to achieve
water objectives). Finland should take into account the measures
highlighted during the bilateral meeting with COM services held on 17th
September 2014.
Reducing the quantity of nutrients (N and
P) from urban waste water is necessary to allow the achievement of WFD
objectives. Finland should ensure nitrogen removal from UWWTPs in order to
achieve good environmental status, especially in relation to problems in
removing nitrogen in low-temperature environments.
Ensure close linkage of the analysis of
pressures and impacts with the determination of measures in the RBMPs in
relation to chemical pollution.
Clarify any reasoning for exemptions and
explain the measures that have been put in place for Drinking Water.
Approve additional more stringent
standards in the RBMPs for water bodies that appear eutrophic but need to
comply with Bathing and Habitats Directives.
Provide more detailed information in the
RBMPs on activities that may modify the hydromorphological conditions of
the water bodies and have a negative impact on the ecological status,
including on the mitigation measures included in the Water Act (587/2011).
Finland should include in the RBMPs a clear measure to review all existing
hydropower permits to ensure the achievement of WFD objectives, in
particular in relation to the ecological flow, fish passes and other
mitigation measures.
Consider and prioritise the use of green
infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range
of environmental (improvements in water quality, prevention of diffuse
pollution from agriculture, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.),
social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more
cost-effective than grey infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO FRANCE France should:
Close the remaining gaps in monitoring
networks and assessment methodologies as regards ecological status or
surface water, chemical status of surface and groundwaters and
quantitative status of groundwaters.
Improve knowledge about the link between
pressures and impacts in designing and making operational the measures for
the second cycle, in order to:
Refine the significance of the pressures
by quantifying those which are likely to prevent the achievement of
environmental objectives
Assess the reduction in pressures
required to achieve the environmental objectives
Apportion pressures by their sources and
identify the responsible sectors/areas.
Enhance measures to tackle pollution by
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), considering their impact on
ecological status. Full consideration of the basin-wide impact is needed
in this respect (local and downstream up to transitional and coastal
waters). To this extent, France should check that their nutrient standards
are consistent with biological requirements for the achievement of good
status and provide a more coherent strategy encompassing WFD with:
the Nitrates Directive and CAP in
agriculture
the UWWT Directive in urban areas
In particular,
it is expected that RBMPs, based on the necessary reduction in nutrient load,
clearly identify the extent to which the measures already taken under the
implementation of ND and UWWTD contribute to the achievement of WFD objectives
and which additional measures should be taken to actually achieve these
objectives. A clear identification of basic (mandatory) measures is expected to
be made transparent both to the sectors and the general public.
Review the regulation of the use of
pesticides in order to effectively reduce current levels of contamination
of rivers and groundwater, making clear linkages with the implementation
of the Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.
Define measures targeted to agriculture
at an appropriate level of detail to ensure their uptake by farmers and
their inspection by relevant agencies. The RBMPs are expected to make a
clear distinction between mandatory measures and voluntary ones that will
be funded under the EARDF.
Clearly and transparently identify river
basin specific pollutants and set an ambitious approach to combating
chemical pollution with adequate measures.
Ensure that ecological flow is considered
wherever existing and planned abstractions may jeopardize the achievement
of environmental objectives. This is particularly crucial when considering
the review of water allocations and permits and the construction of new
dams and reservoirs.
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify
the gap to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to
close that gap with transparent and meaningful information regarding the
scope, the timing and the funding of the measures. France is expected to
provide a more consolidated methodology for justification of exemptions to
the achievement of environmental objectives (in particular as regards the
assessment of affordability and disproportionate costs).
Provide a more complete definition of
water services and a proper recovery of cost to contribute to the
objectives, especially when fully accounting for environmental and
resource costs for services creating a pressure on water bodies.
Consider restoration measures as well as
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.
Incorporate more extensively the
consideration of climate change issues including pressure analysis,
monitoring and a climate check of the measures.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO CROATIA Croatia should:
Review all existing permits and where
necessary, amend them to ensure that they are compatible with the WFD
objectives.
Coordinate the preparation of the next
RBMPs with the preparation of the international Danube RBMP and the Sava
RBMP and ensure that cooperation with the neighbouring countries extends
to all shared catchments. Coordination of measures in internationally
shared karstic aquifers should be established.
Review the pressures and impacts analysis
and status assessment in the 2nd RBMPs and ensure that the
measures are based on the updated pressures and impacts analysis and
status assessment of water bodies. Besides basic measures, supplementary
measures that are necessary to achieve the objectives set should also be
included in the 2nd RBMPs.
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify
the gap to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to
close that gap. Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body
level.
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 PoMs and ultimately to achieve the WFD
objectives.
Make improvements to groundwater
monitoring, investigate and address reasons for saline intrusions.
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.
Review existing controls to ensure that
agricultural practices do not cause hydromorphological pressure and update
controls where necessary for inclusion in the PoM of the 2nd
RBMPs.
Include hydromorphological measures in
the PoM of the 2nd RBMPs.
Ensure that an ecological flow consistent
with good status is established and review the existing permits where
relevant.
Ensure the appropriate designation of
HMWBs and develop a methodology for establishing good ecological
potential. These methodologies should be documented in the RBMPs.
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.
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.
Establish an improved and harmonised
approach to exemptions in the 2nd RBMPs. The methodology should
include calculations of disproportionate costs, assessment methods for
adverse effects and better environmental options.
Review and update the list of river basin
specific pollutants.
Ensure that abstraction controls are in
place by the time of the 2nd RBMPs.
Provide in the 2nd RBMPs 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 2nd
RBMPs but should also assess the pressures due to waste water from small
agglomerations (less than 2.000 PE) in the 2nd RBMPs cycle.
Ensure the compliance of Article 5 UWWTD
for more stringent treatment, especially in big cities.
Assess the need to take additional
measures on point source pollution beyond the requirements of the UWWTD
and IED to fulfil the WFD objectives.
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).
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.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO HUNGARY
Hungary should:
Carry out a more detailed, quantitative
pressures and impacts analysis using source apportionment in the 2nd
RBMPs. Applying this more detailed analysis, measures could be assigned to
water bodies specifically more focused on agriculture, water abstraction
and protected areas. Hungary should also further analyse
hydromorphological pressures and impacts in the 2nd RBMPs and
reconsider the necessary supplementary measures which should be
implemented to reach targets.
Strengthen monitoring to reduce unknowns
and uncertainties by implementing robust monitoring programmes to support
the application of methods for the status assessment of water bodies and
definition of reference conditions. An adequate WFD-compliant assessment
and monitoring framework is a necessary pre-requisite to design effective
PoMs and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives.
Ensure in the 2nd RBMPs that
measures adopted in the PoMs are based on a reliable status assessment of
water bodies and are linked to the relevant pressures.
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify
the gap to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to
close that gap. Hungary should indicate in the 2nd RBMP when
WFD objectives will be achieved. Exemptions should be adequately justified
at water body level.
Ensure that abstraction is addressed
through effective permits, metering and controls.
Ensure in the 2nd RBMP that
controls are put in place including mandatory requirements for farmers
where necessary at farm level to tackle diffuse pollution from nutrients
and pesticides, in order to meet WFD objectives.
Ensure that the Rural Development
Programme adequately contributes to the achievement of WFD objectives.
Develop an appropriate methodology for
the designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies.
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.
Ensure the correct application of Article
4.7 for new infrastructure projects liable to cause deterioration in the
status of water bodies, in particular for the assessment of best
environmental option, cost-benefit analysis and to ensure that all
practicable steps are taken to mitigate adverse effects.
Develop fully the economic analysis of
water use, including the calculation of Environmental and Resource Costs
covering those generated by diffuse and point sources, and ensure that the
water tariff and the water fees lead to adequate recovery of the costs of
water services.
Consider whether exclusion of water
pricing in agriculture is justified. Hungary should elaborate on this
issue in the 2nd RBMPs. Prioritize clearly the measures
foreseen in terms of cost-effectiveness and define whether measures are
voluntary or obligatory.
Ensure implementation of WFD compliant
monitoring and of the PoMs by allocating adequate human and financial
resources, exploring the possibility of using EU funds (e.g. RDP funds,
Structural and Investment Funds and LIFE Integrated Projects).
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IRELAND Ireland should:
Step up recent efforts to better
understand the links between impacts and pressures at the water body or
catchment scale, and use this information, together with results from
enhanced monitoring, to better design and target measures in the 2nd
RBMPs.
Provide an improved assessment of the gap
to the achievement of objectives. This should be comprehensive and
identify the significant gaps that exist in terms of Ireland's
under-implementation of article 11.3.a basic measures (especially for
drinking water and urban waste water treatment) and identify all further
measures that are necessary beyond this to allow achievement of WFD good
status.
Define clearly the totality of action
needed if it may not be possible to deliver all measures in the 2nd
RBMP. This will be essential for justifying any exemptions claimed.
Provide greater certainty on the
financing of measures in the 2nd RBMPs cycle. This is expected
to include water charges, EU and national funds. Adequate financial
resources for effective planning and regulatory functions of the EPA and
other authorities are further necessities to underpin cost-effective water
management decisions. A wider definition of water services and a fuller
recovery of costs are expected to contribute to achieving the objectives
in the 2nd RBMPs.
Set out clearly the remaining gap to be
closed to good status. Ireland has put in place quite good basic measures
in the first RBMP (whole territory approach to Nitrates directive and
controls on phosphate), however, it was not clear in the first RBMPs how
the remaining gap can be closed. Agricultural production ambitions
associated with Harvest 2020 could pose a risk to achievement of WFD
objectives and appropriate safeguard measures should be added into
enhanced basic measures (e.g. mandatory soil testing; controls on sediment
and pesticides) and supplemented by measures to protect and restore water
in the Rural development and forestry programmes 2012-2021. Where the 2nd
RBMPs identify additional measures necessary for the agriculture sector,
RDPs may need to be reviewed to include these.
Use the information on impacts from
chemical pressures (which is emerging as a result of enhanced monitoring
since the first cycle plans with some exceedances of EQSs reported) to
underpin a source apportionment to establish the relative contributions
from relevant sectors and inform the appropriate measures to ensure
compliance with objectives.
Address existing gaps in the legislative
framework (abstraction and morphological controls) for the correct
implementation of the WFD to ensure all basic measures are in place with a
legal basis in the 2nd RBMPs.
Characterize better impacts arising from
water abstractions. There is not enough information relating
hydromorphological measures to pressures and the linkages between the
measures and their expected effects are not indicated in the plans.
Complete the review of the legislative
framework to improve the management of abstractions and to address
morphological impacts. Ireland should make measures operational in the 2nd
RBMPs.
Ensure that orphan hydromorphological
modifications (i.e. no clear user/responsibility) are addressed through a
restoration programme which is adequately funded.
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.
Ensure effective coordination between the
WFD and FD, especially in the identification and prioritization of natural
water retention measures that can deliver cost effective outcomes for
both. Funding for such measures should be prioritised from EU (e.g.
agriculture, forestry) and national funds.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO ITALY Italy should:
Ensure that the PoMs are designed on the
basis of robust information on pressures and status. Selection of measures
should be based on a cost-effective analysis. Transparent information
should be reported in the 2nd RBMPs on the expected
effectiveness of the measures in terms of status improvements.
Complete the development of methods for
the status assessment of water bodies and apply them through the
implementation of robust monitoring programmes.
Apply exemptions in a more transparent
manner and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in
the 2nd RBMPs cycle, in particular in relation to the technical
infeasibility and the disproportionate costs.
Provide in the RBMPS information on the
actual application of Article 4(7) (there is no instance of application
reported) because a high number of new hydropower projects have been
authorised in Italy during the past 5 years and the RBMPs have included
some general explanations about how a few regions would apply Article 4(7).
Ensure proper implementation of the
exemption under Article 4(7) for projects liable to cause status
deterioration or prevent the achievement of good status. The effects of
new hydropower plants on ecological status should be properly assessed
and, if relevant, all conditions of Article 4(7) should be met.
Establish in the 2nd RBMPs
cycle an appropriate water pricing policy (article 9 WFD), in particular
for agriculture, that provides adequate incentives for users to use water
efficiently. Both water provision and self-abstraction should be covered.
Cost-recovery instruments should include all financial, environmental and
resource costs.
Enforce in the 2nd RBMPs cycle
the implementation of metering to all abstractions. Users should report
consumption regularly to river basin authorities. This information should
be used for the preparation of future RBMP updates.
Introduce binding requirements for
farmers to improve nutrient balances (measures oriented towards manure
handling and recycling, decrease nutrients discharges, etc.).
Review systematically the abstraction
permits and, if necessary, revise them, to ensure they are consistent with
the environmental objectives.
Set out in the 2nd RBMPs cycle
which basic and supplementary measures are necessary to achieve good
status. This gap analysis can then be used to justify exemptions where
necessary.
Ensure improved information on costs of
measures in the 2nd RBMPs cycle.
Ensure that the PoMs are adequately
funded and will be implemented to ensure reaching the objectives of good
status. Italy should look into and rely on all available sources of
funding, including EU funds.
Improve coordination between regions and
RBD authorities and improve reporting to make it more integrated at RBD
level (it is essential to clarify the respective roles of the Regions and
RBD authorities and give further detail on the integration and
coordination of regions, RBD and the national level for reporting).
Include substance-specific as well as
general measures against chemical pollution in its 2nd RBMPs.
Identify the extent of the problem from
UWWTD in article 5 analysis – pressures from discharge of urban wastewater
- for the 2nd RBMPs cycle (this should be clearly and
transparently presented, also for small agglomerations).
Improve substantially the information on
hydromorphological pressures for the 2nd RBMPs. Measures should
be included in the PoM to tackle hydromorphological pressures.
Consider and prioritise the use of green
infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a
range of environmental (improvements in water quality, increase of water
infiltration – aquifer recharge, flood protection, habitat conservation
etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more
cost-effective than grey infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO LITHUANIA Lithuania should:
Ensure coherent trans-boundary
cooperation in PoMs development (with Latvia).
Ensure for the 2nd RBMPs cycle
that the maximum scenario set out what it would cost to implement the
measures needed to achieve good status (this should be informed by the
updated article 5 -pressures and impacts analysis-).
Assess the gap to Good Environmental
Status/Good Environmental Potential as a starting point for the planning
of measures and the justification of exemptions in the 2nd
RBMPs cycle.
Use MSFD results for preparing the 2nd
RBMPs. MSFD objectives should be taken into account when defining WFD
measures.
Set up the missing reference conditions
for the 2nd RBMPs.
Finalise the assessment methods for
quality elements, make full use of the one-out-all-out principle, include
RBSPs in the ecological status assessment, assess chemical status in
relation to both AA-EQS and MAC-EQS, consider uPBTs and atmospheric
deposition when deciding on monitoring sites for the 2nd RBMPs
cycle.
Focus more in the second RBMPs on the
source and pressure identification from chemicals, as well as the
information regarding the status and scale of the pressures.
Improve the characterization of pressures
in order to significantly reduce the cases of unknown pressures, and to
ensure that pressures are linked with appropriate measures, and that
funding is made available for them.
Pay special attention in setting
thresholds for significance of pressures considering actual impact on the
water status as informed by the monitoring data.
Improve the analysis of compliance with
the requirements related to the basic measures in the 2nd RBMPs
cycle. The RBMPs do not include a comprehensive assessment of compliance
with the requirements of Article 11.3.b-l on the basic measures. It is not
clear how much of the gap to the achievement of the WFD objectives is
expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.3.b-l.
Present the implementation level of basic
and mandatory measures the 2nd RBMPs cycle. The farming
community should be involved and education strengthened on this issue.
Lithuania should take into consideration the opportunities provided by the
Rural Development Programme (RDP).
Ensure a clear strategy that defines the
basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the
additional supplementary measures that can be financed. Also, Lithuania
should ensure a clear baseline so that farmers know the rules and the
authorities in charge of Common Agriculture Policy funds can adequately
set up Rural Development Programmes and cross compliance water
requirements.
Ensure that RDPs provide for sufficient
financing of supplementary measures to help reach good status in the 2nd
RBMPs. Where this is not provided – further action through basic measures
will be necessary.
Report transparently in the 2nd
RBMPs on what load reduction of nutrients is necessary to reach nutrient
conditions consistent with good status and devise measures to implement
the reduction.
Provide a more detailed assessment in the
2nd RBMPs cycle of the percentage of farmers having sufficient
slurry/manure storage facilities.
Collect statistics on the level of farmer
compliance with basic measures (an understanding of the level of
compliance with basic measures should inform the gap analysis and the
preparation of the 2nd RBMP PoMs).
Assess any new or maintenance work on the
drainage of agricultural lands against Art 4.7, and execute only compliant
projects.
Take into account the inventory of
sources of pollution (established in accordance with the requirements set
out in Article 5 of the EQS Directive) in identifying measures against
chemical pollution. Diffuse sources need to be considered.
Provide complete information on the level
of compliance, and timing to reach compliance, by agglomerations,
including information on funding, in accordance with Directive 91/271/EEC
(article 15 and following UWWTD).
Ensure compliance with the new Law on
Drinking Water Supply and Wastewater Management that was adopted on 12
June 2014 (and came into force on 1 of November 2014) and the Regulation
on wastewater management: Order D1-515 of Minister of Environment dated 8
October 2007 (environmental requirements for the IAS), especially in
following aspects: effectiveness of IAS reach a level of environmental
protection similar to what is requested by the UWWTD, obligation to
connect to centralize system by households, implementing projects of
collecting systems, etc.
Develop a more ambitious set of measures
for the mitigation of major hydromorphological pressures in the 2nd
RBMPs cycle, such as land drainage, hydropower, flood protection,
navigation and deepening of river beds.
Identify and implement no-regret
measures. There is no need to have full certainty to take action to
restore hydromorphology.
Include results of the hydropower plants'
study into the 2nd RBMPs cycle and include measures based on
the results of the study in the 2nd RBMPs cycle including as
necessary the review of the permits to incorporate mitigation measures.
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.
Identify additional measures as needed
and planned in the protected areas and set additional objectives for the
areas on drinking water.
Ensure that the assessment of additional
objectives is carried out in particular for Protected Areas designated for
the protection of species and habitats for the 2nd RBMPs. These
objectives need to be clearly identified and included in the plans and LT
should ensure better integration of the 2nd RBMP for Protected
Areas (PA) with, in particular Natura 2000 Plans.
Identify the measures needed for the
additional objectives identified in Protected Areas, include them in the 2nd
RBMPs cycle and ensure links with the Natura 2000 Management Plans.
Ensure that the new legislation on water
tariffs requires recovery of costs of water services (water supply and
sanitation) taking into account social and economic circumstances, and
providing incentives for efficient water use.
Improve significantly the PoMs for the 2nd
RBMP cycle in order to ensure that pressures are linked with
appropriate measures
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO LUXEMBOURG Luxembourg should:
Close the remaining gaps in monitoring
networks and assessment methodologies as regards ecological status or
surface water, chemical status of surface and groundwaters and
quantitative status of groundwaters.
Improve the structure of the RBMPs by
clearly distinguishing the information and the measures that are relevant
for the Rhine RBD, for the Meuse or for both.
Improve knowledge about the link between
pressures and impacts in designing and making operational the measures for
the 2nd RBMPs cycle in order to:
Refine the significance of the pressures
by quantifying those which are likely to prevent the achievement of
environmental objectives
Assess the reduction in pressures
required to achieve environmental objectives
Apportion pressures by their source and
identify the responsible sectors/areas
Enhance measures to tackle pollution by
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) considering their impact on ecological
status. Full consideration of the basin-wide impact is needed in this
respect (local and downstream up to transitional and coastal waters). To
this extent Luxembourg should check that their nutrient standards are
consistent with biological requirements for the achievement of good status
and provide a more coherent strategy encompassing WFD with:
the Nitrates Directive and CAP in
agriculture
the UWWT Directive in urban areas
In particular,
it is expected that RBMPs, based on the necessary reduction in nutrient load,
clearly identify the extent to which the measures already taken under the
implementation of ND and UWWTD contribute to the achievement of WFD objectives
and which additional measures should be taken to actually achieve these
objectives. A clear identification of basic (mandatory) measures is expected to
be made transparent both to the sectors and to the general public.
Define measures targeted to agriculture
with an appropriate level of detail to ensure their uptake by farmers and
their inspection by relevant agencies. The RBMPs are expected to make a
clear distinction between mandatory measures and voluntary ones that will
be funded under the EARDF.
Review the regulation of the use of
pesticides in order to effectively reduce current levels of contamination
of both rivers and groundwater, making clear linkages with the
implementation of the Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.
Complete the inventory of chemical
emissions with detailed information on pressures from priority and
priority hazardous substances including small emitters and diffuse
sources. This improved inventory is expected to support the design of
relevant and more detailed measures for the reduction / phasing out of
emissions of these substances as appropriate.
Monitor mercury, hexachlorobenzene and
hexachlorobutadiene in biota for comparison with the biota standards in
the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are
derived.
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the
gap to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to
close that gap with transparent and meaningful information regarding the
scope, the timing and the funding of the measures. The high number of
exemptions applied in the first RBMPs is expected to be significantly
brought down in the second cycle.
Justify better in the 2nd RBMP
the designation of HMWB and water bodies subject to exemptions in
particular as regards the consideration of significant adverse effects and
affordability. Good ecological potential should be correctly defined for
HMWB.
Provide information on how the polluter
pays principle has been taken into account in the RBMPs.
Provide a more complete definition of
water services and a proper recovery of cost disaggregated into the
different uses to contribute to the objectives, especially when fully
accounting for environmental and resource costs for services creating a
pressure on water bodies.
Improve the reporting into the WISE to
reflect the information in the RBMPs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO LATVIA Latvia should:
Ensure that projects having an impact on
water bodies (including drainage works) assess possible better
environmental alternatives
Ensure a coherent trans-boundary
cooperation in PoM development (with Estonia and Lithuania)
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.
Establish a quantitative source
apportionment and a link between pressures/impacts and their sources for
the 2nd RBMP cycle.
Consider a revision of delineation of
size of water bodies (where justified by different conditions) to ensure a
proper assessment of pressures and design of measures by the 2nd
RBMPs.
Develop missing assessment methods for
ecological status assessment and reduce unknown chemical status.
Identify river basin specific pollutants
(RBSP) for the 2nd RBMP and include them in the assessment of
ecological status.
Consider the atmospheric deposition and
diffuse sources of chemical pollutants in determining where to monitor, to
improve knowledge on which to base the identification of measures.
Comply with article 7 and annex V
requirements for the monitoring of Drinking Water Protected Areas for the
2nd RBMP.
Define clearly gaps for individual
pressures and water bodies.
Include for the next RBMPs not only
statements that cost-effectiveness analysis has been carried out and a
methodology description, but also inform on its results and how this
assessment has influenced the selection of measures. In general Latvia
should significantly improve the justification of exemptions in the 2nd
RBMP cycle.
Separate and identify clearly the causes
of eutrophication for the 2nd RBMP cycle, in order to know
which proportion comes from agriculture. Latvia should take precautionary
measures even if agriculture is not identified as the most important
pressure.
Ensure that the eutrophication status of
the Baltic Sea is also taken into account in the designation of Nitrate
Vulnerable Zones (NVZs). This is necessary under the Nitrates Directive
(ND) and will contribute towards achievement of WFD and MSFD objectives.
Gather data to understand farmer
compliance with existing requirements (e.g. slurry storage, nutrient
planning, pesticides application). This is essential to understand if
existing measures will be sufficient (if fully complied with) or if
additional measures will be needed and should be included in the 2nd cycle
PoMs.
Assess any new or maintenance work on the
drainage of agricultural lands against Art 4.7, and execute only compliant
projects.
Include as a pressure in the 2nd RBMP the
lack of slurry storage on small farms and address the issue either through
the Nitrates Directive or through the WFD Programme of Measures. Actions
taken should be reported clearly in the 2nd RBMPs.
Establish additional (supplementary)
measures to protect water from agricultural pressures financed through the
Rural Development Programmes.
Use the inventories required by Article 5
of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive to identify measures to
tackle sources of pollution.
Provide complete information on the level
of compliance, and timing to reach compliance, by agglomerations (e.g. the
6-8 water bodies in the Daugava which require further action beyond the
UWWTD), including information on funding, in accordance with Directive
91/271/EEC (article 15 and following UWWTD).
Ensure in the 2nd RBMPs cycle
the extension and upgrade of wastewater collection networks as well as
increased connection rates.
Strengthen and significantly improve for
the 2nd RBMPs cycle the handling of hydromorphological
pressures, from assessment of pressures to monitoring, status assessment
and definition of measures including fish passes and establishment of
ecological flows which guarantee the achievement of good ecological status
(e.g. hydro power plants). Latvia should clarify how much of the gap to
the achievement of WFD objectives is expected to be covered by
implementation of hydromorphological measures.
Specify for the 2nd RBMPs in
more detail the measures related to hydromorphological pressures not only
for HMWB designation but also for monitoring, assessment and definition of
measures. Most of the hydromorphological measures are non-technical
measures and therefore the expected results are not clearly defined.
Resulting from this lack of specificity, the measures established for
HMWBs are not always related to the mitigation of the specific
hydromorphological pressure.
Ensure that the 2nd RBMPs
include fish passes as a measure to restore HMWBs to reach Good Ecological
Potential (GEP).
Identify clearly the water bodies and protected
areas needing additional measures and specify the type of measures
necessary.
Put in place for the 2nd RBMPs
cycle measures that target the objectives of Protected Areas and integrate
them in the RBMPs.
Integrate in the 2nd RBMPs as
additional objectives the water needs of water-dependent protected
habitats and species, including the requirements established in the
Management Plans for Natura 2000 sites.
Increase the rate of individual metering
and volumetric pricing in households.
Test typology against biological data and
make any required change in typology
Develop fish monitoring and assessment
methods
Include mercury, hexachlorobenzene and
hexachlorobutadiene biota data in the 2nd RBMP
Report transparently in the 2nd RBMP on
the methodology used for the assessment of groundwater status and include
GW terrestrial dependant ecosystem
Provide information on which substances
are being monitored in biota and/or sediments for the purpose of trend
assessment
Establish a methodology for assessing
trends and trend reversals. There is a need to have transparent reporting
in the 2nd RBMP on what has been done on trend assessment, the results,
and whether there is a need to establish measures for trend reversals.
Support for the 2nd RBMPs the
designation of HMWB by the development of clear criteria for
"significant hydromorphological alteration", "significant
impact on the use" and "better environmental options".
Develop GEP classification for the 2nd
RBMP
RECOMMENDATIONS TO MALTA Malta should:
Ensure good coordination between public
administration and other stakeholders to improve the planning and
implementation of PoMs and to monitor their effectiveness.
Identify clearly basic measures in the 2nd
RBMPs to allow for a clear assessment of the need for additional measures.
Malta should also ensure they are targeted for proper protection of
Protected Areas and all other water bodies.
Ensure effective coordination between WFD
and FD, especially in the elaboration of flood risk and hazard maps.
Ensure in the 2nd RBMPs that measures
adopted in the PoMs are based on a reliable status assessment of water
bodies and are linked to the relevant pressures. Malta should also specify
the impact of the planned measures.
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify
the gap to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to
close that gap. Malta should indicate in the 2nd RBMP when WFD
objectives will be achieved. Exemptions should be adequately justified at
water body level.
Ensure in the 2nd RBMPs cycle
a fully operational monitoring programme, covering at least the following
topics: groundwater chemical status (nitrate levels in the annual
recharge), groundwater quantitative status, the inland surface water
bodies (considering all WFD quality elements), the identification of river
basin-specific pollutants and derivation of EQSs, and protected areas.
Put in place in the 2nd RBMPs
cycle a fully operational monitoring programme that ensures the following
crucial steps in the WFD process: clear definition of quality elements,
Good Ecological Status (GES) and Good Ecological Potential (GEP), an
apportionment of sources with regard to the different pressures/impacts,
and a quantification of the gap to achieving objectives for all pressures
affecting all water bodies.
Develop fully the economic analysis of
water use, including the calculation of Environmental and Resource Costs.
Perform the cost-effectiveness analysis
as planned. Based on this, a clear prioritisation of measures and an
explanation of the process should be developed. The justification for
disproportionality of costs of measures should be improved. The
effectiveness of the implemented measures will have to be demonstrated by
the assessment of the status/potential of water bodies in the second
RBMPs. Available funding, in particular the EU funds (e.g. RDP funds,
Structural and Investment Funds, LIFE Integrated Projects and Horizon
2020) needs to be exploited as much as feasible in order to implement
PoMs. Consequently, appropriate priorities should be set in the
programming documents (PA, OPs and RDPs) of the new EU funding policy
2014-2020.
Delineate inland surface water bodies in
the 2nd RBMPs cycle.
Improve the implementation of the
Nitrates Directive (especially to counter illegal disposal of farm manure
on fields due to lack of adequate storage facilities). Malta should
establish a methodology for addressing the pressure from nitrates and
submit information on the enforcement, monitoring and controls.
Ensure the implementation and enforcement
of the new legislation on groundwater abstractions in order to balance
water abstraction with recharge. Malta should set as a priority for the 2nd
RBMPs cycle the control on abstractions and metering to be in place. The
water demand map should be prepared too.
Use the inventory of emissions to review
the monitoring programme and the list of RBSPs for the 2nd RBMPs, and to
identify appropriate measures against chemical pollution.
Prioritise measures and explain in more
detail in the 2nd RBMP its approach to identifying them.
Submit a plan on resolving the discharge
of animal husbandry waste in the sewage collecting system because the
Maltese WWTPs had a performance problem as regards compliance with the COD
standards. This was linked to farm manure discharges in the collecting
system
Include measures in the 2nd RBMPs that
target over-abstraction and contamination from nitrates to ensure better
protection of Drinking Water protected areas.
Assess for the 2nd RBMPs
whether the measures planned for protected areas can lead to achieving the
additional objectives of protected areas and whether they are sufficient.
Consider and prioritise the use of green
infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a
range of environmental (improvements in water quality, increase of water
infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, habitat
conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many
cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE NETHERLANDS The Netherlands should:
Provide an inventory of the different
sources of pressures in the 2nd RBMPs and define ambitious
measures based on the pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment
of water bodies. The choice of measures should reflect the significance of
the pressure.
Develop a clear link between the measures
identified in the PoMs and their contribution to the achievement of the
WFD objectives.
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify
the gap to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to
close that gap. It should be assessed, how much of the pressures (and
their corresponding sources) have to be reduced to achieve the WFD
objectives. The Netherlands should clearly define gaps for individual
pressures and water bodies. Exemptions should be adequately justified at
water body level.
Include in its 2nd RBMPs
substance-specific measures to reduce chemical pollution.
Take measures to remove pollution from N
and P at a reasonable economic level because the main source of the
diffuse pressures in the Netherlands is agriculture.
Assess the effectiveness of the existing
measures and identify which additional measures are needed to close the
gap in the implementation of the Nitrates Directive and the WFD.
Develop a clear strategy in the RBMPs for
pollution from agriculture (mainly nutrients but also pesticides) and
define the basic/mandatory measures – besides the 5th National
Action Programme – that all farmers should adhere to, and the additional
supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed in
cooperation with the farming community to ensure technical feasibility and
acceptance.
Ensure that point and diffuse sources of
pollution in the agricultural sector are controlled.
Include additional measures for protected
areas in the 2nd RBMPs.
Revise the designation of HMWBs in the 2nd
RBMPs to ensure that the restoration of water bodies is a strong driver
for the improvement of the status of water bodies.
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.
Make efforts to reduce the use of
exemptions and maintain an ambitious approach to WFD implementation. The
Netherlands should adequately justify the exemptions applied in the RBMPs
including a proper assessment of alternative solutions and all necessary
mitigation measures.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO POLAND Poland should:
Make clearer the basis for the selection
of the measures and whether a cost-effectiveness analysis of measures
(article 5 and Annex III WFD) has been carried out. There is often a lack
of information on identification of pressures and their sources, on how
measures were selected and on links between pressures/uses and measures.
It is not clear whether Poland is planning to include the
cost-effectiveness analysis in this RBMP update or how it plans to assess
whether pressures were tackled effectively.
Provide more information concerning the
identification of pressures, selection of measures and a commitment to
indicating the links between the pressures and measures in the 2nd
RBMP cycle.
Provide in the 2nd RBMP cycle
information about monitoring of progress on the implementation of the
current PoM, and the assessment of its effectiveness.
Quantitatively apportion the contribution
each pressure is making to the failure of WFD objectives at the RBD,
sub-basin and water body level so that cost-effective measures can be
developed and implemented.
Ensure that monitoring and subsequent
assessments of the status of water bodies are carried out in compliance
with the requirements prescribed by the WFD. In particular Poland should
develop a coherent and comprehensive monitoring network under Article 8
WFD which enables the correct classification of all water bodies, monitor
water bodies in line with the requirements of Annex V to the WFD and with
adequate frequencies, and set reference conditions for all quality
elements for all water bodies.
Designate artificial and HMWBs and
justify their designation; develop a system for classifying them and
establish a coherent and comprehensive monitoring network to enable their
classification; duly justify exemptions at the water-body level.
Improve methodology and transparency in
the application of exemptions for the 2nd RBMP. This should
rely on strategic planning including adequate assessment of better
environmental options, clear defined criteria for the application of
"technical unfeasibility", "disproportionate costs"
and "natural conditions".
Carry out the quantitative assessment to
assess the gap for all, not just some measures (e.g. the National
Implementation Programme). The extent of measures should be clear from the
POMs and how/by when the status of water bodies will be good.
Designate sufficient number of ZVNP
(article 3 ND) in the 2nd RBMPs cycle and adopt measures to
effectively combat nitrate pollution in these zones as required by ND and
Art 11.3a WFD.
Adopt measures to improve nutrient
balances oriented towards manure handling and recycling on farms, decrease
nutrient discharges (fertiliser and pesticide applications), perform more
controls and monitoring, etc. This should be followed by identification of
financing sources designed to fund these measures.
Address agriculture's impact with basic
measures to ensure the achievement of the established objectives. If basic
measures do not suffice to achieve the environmental objectives, the
Government should establish supplementary measures (article 11.4 and part
B of Annex VI WFD).
Consider and put in place measures for
addressing hydromorphological impacts from agriculture in line with
requirement of Art 11.3 WFD. Any new or maintenance work on the drainage
of agricultural lands should be assessed against Art 4.7, and only
compliant projects should be executed.
Provide an inventory of sources of
pollution, in accordance with Directive 2008/105/EC, and use it to
identify substance-specific measures.
Put in place in the 2nd RBMPs
cycle concrete actions to reduce the number of unknowns and to increase
the percentage of WB in good chemical status.
Adopt in the 2nd RBMPs better
measures to improve the monitoring programmes, since the RBMPs have not
provided a coherent or comprehensive overview of the ecological and
chemical water status within each RBD, in breach of the obligations under
Articles 8 and 13(4) WFD for the first RBMP.
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.
Provide additional objectives for
especial protection in the RBMPs for protected areas and report
information on the status of drinking water protected areas associated
with groundwater bodies. There is a lack of conservation action plans for
Natura 2000 areas.
Clarify in the 2nd RBMPs cycle
the objectives and planned measures for protected areas (nitrate
vulnerable zones, sensitive areas, protected areas under shellfish and
fish water directives, etc.).
Provide information on drinking water
protected areas associated with groundwater bodies and on the number of
drinking water protected areas - including whether they are in good status
or not.
Provide complete information on the level
of compliance, and timing to reach compliance, by agglomerations, including
information on funding, in accordance with Directive 91/271/EEC (article
15 and following).
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO PORTUGAL Portugal should:
Make basic measures legally binding and
identify them clearly in the 2nd RBMPs to allow for a clear
assessment of the need for additional measures, e.g. on agriculture or
wastewater treatment.
Promote good coordination between public
administration and other stakeholders, in particular involving the
existing River Basin Councils, to improve the planning and implementation
of PoMs and to monitor their effectiveness.
Develop the RBMPs for international RBDs
in close cooperation with Spain, in particular for as regards the
identification of pressures and impacts, design of monitoring networks,
methodologies used to assess status and development of PoMs.
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. An adequate WFD-compliant assessment and monitoring framework
is a necessary pre-requisite to design effective PoMs and ultimately to
achieve the WFD objectives.
Include, in the 2nd RBMPs,
estimations of when WFD objectives will be achieved.
Include, in the RBMPs, justification for the
exemptions applied. Portugal should in particular improve the
justifications regarding disproportionate costs and technical
unfeasibility, as well as the cost-efficiency analysis.
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify
the gap to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to
close that gap. Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body
level (in particular, natural conditions should not be invoked when
measures are not being implemented due to other reasons, such as lack of funding).
Ensure that diffuse sources of pollution
in the agricultural sector are controlled, by including mandatory
requirements for farmers where necessary.
Deal with phosphate pollution and not
just nitrates. Portugal should ensure that measures taken will be
sufficient to address agriculture nutrient pressures to the level needed
to secure nutrient conditions consistent with good status.
Review all existing permits for
abstractions and flow regulations, including dams, and, where necessary,
amend them to ensure that they are compatible with the WFD objectives.
Improve the designation of Heavily
Modified Water Bodies and avoid the automatic designation of water bodies
downstream of big dams. A methodology to establish Good Ecological
Potential should be developed. Its application should be documented in the
RBMPs.
New hydromorphological modifications,
such as new hydropower plants, should comply with the requirements for
exemptions of Article 4(7) and should be adequately justified, in
particular as regards the assessment of alternative options, and include
all necessary mitigation measures.
Consider and prioritise the use of green
infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a
range of environmental (improvements in water quality, increase water
infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, habitat
conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many
cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure.
Develop fully the economic analysis of
water use, including the calculation of Environmental and Resource Costs
and ensure that the combination of water tariffs and the Water Resources
Tax lead to adequate recovery of the costs of water services.
Ensure that the measures foreseen are
clearly prioritized in terms of cost-effectiveness, whether measures are
voluntary or obligatory, and available funding, exploring the possibility
of using EU funds (e.g. RDP funds, Structural and Investment Funds and
LIFE Integrated Projects) to implement PoMs.
Ensure that climate change is adequately
considered in the assessment of pressures and status of water bodies and
that the objectives of the National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate
Change are properly taken into account in the design of the PoMs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO ROMANIA Romania should:
Review the pressures and impacts analysis
and status assessment in the 2nd RBMP and ensure that the
measures are based on the updated pressures and impacts analysis and
status assessment of water bodies.
Complete the development of methods for
the status assessment of water bodies and definition of reference
conditions and apply them through the implementation of robust monitoring
programmes.
Strengthen monitoring as there are not
enough monitoring data related to ecological and chemical elements and
this is one of the reasons for low confidence in the status assessment.
Indicate clearly in the 2nd
RBMPs when WFD objectives will be achieved.
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify
the gap to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to
close that gap. Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body
level.
Ensure that diffuse sources of pollution
in the agricultural sector are controlled, including mandatory
requirements for farmers where necessary.
Ensure in the 2nd RBMPs that
relevant links are established with the Common Agricultural Policy
mechanisms and with its pesticides national action plan.
Include in the 2nd RBMPs
measures related to nitrates also outside of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
(NVZs).
Identify in the 2nd RBMPs
measures that are more targeted to specific substances.
Impose stricter measures in the 2nd
RBMPs on plants treating waste water and industries discharging to the
public sewage system, if needed in order to reach good chemical status.
Provide in the 2nd RBMPs a
detailed overview of new and planned infrastructure projects that could
create hydromorphological pressures and an assessment of their impacts,
any exemptions required, and any measures to address the pressures.
Consider and prioritise the use of green
infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a
range of environmental (improvements in water quality, increase water
infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, habitat
conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many
cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure.
Justify adequately exemptions in general
and especially new modifications, such as navigation projects and new
hydropower plants, and support them by a proper assessment of alternative
solutions and include all necessary mitigation measures.
Develop further and analyse ecological
flow in the 2nd RBMPs using the information on ecological
status and the information available under the Common Implementation
Strategy (CIS).
Review the designation of HMWBs and
improve the methodology used for establishing good ecological potential
(GEP) in the 2nd RBMPs.
Pay special attention to the
implementation of basic measures (UWWTD and IED) that account for a large
number of exemptions.
Put in place the measures and allocate
the necessary funds to fulfil the requirements of UWWTD and ensure that
the discharges are in line with good ecological status / good ecological
potential in the 2nd RBMPs cycle.
Investigate cases in the 2nd
RBMPs where there are non-compliant Drinking Water Protected Areas in
relation to the requirements of WFD Articles 7 and 8, and establish
respective measures where necessary.
Set objectives and measures for the
management of water-dependent species and habitats in the 2nd
RBMPs.
Put in place measures in the 2nd
RBMPs for protecting drinking-water protected areas. Romania should
consider establishing safeguard zones for all drinking water abstractions.
Provide a presentation of the approach
and results of cost-effectiveness analysis in the 2nd RBMPs.
Develop fully the economic analysis of
water use, including the calculation of Environmental and Resource Costs
covering those generated by diffuse and point sources, and ensure that the
water tariff and the water fees lead to adequate recovery of the costs of
water services.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO SWEDEN Sweden should: ·
Provide a more comprehensive cost effectiveness
analysis of the measures in the RBMPs. ·
Establish source apportionment for at least the
polluting substances (or groups of substances, e.g. pesticides) most commonly
found and/or having the most significant impact in each RBD, and link the
impact to specific measures because the connection between source and impact is
very vague in the first RBMPs, especially at a single substance level. ·
Increase the number of basic measures in place
to address agriculture's impact on water quality and quantity. ·
Ensure it is clear in the RBMPs what the gap on
pressures from agriculture is and to what extent the gap will be filled by
basic measures and to what extent by supplementary measures.
Provide information in RBMPs on what
nutrient load reduction is necessary from agriculture to reach nutrient
conditions consistent with good status, and to what extent the measures
included in Sweden's PoM (nitrates measures, WFD basic measures, WFD
supplementary measures) will bridge this gap. Sweden should ensure such an
approach and calculations are clearly set out as the basis for
consultation on measures.
Ensure that designation of Nitrate
Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) and revision of Action Programmes (Nitrates
Directive) take into account action needed to contribute towards meeting
WFD obligations.
Put more in focus the need to reduce the
load of phosphorus in coastal areas – according to the gap analysis - and
link it directly to measures.
Ensure proper consideration of WFD in
Rural Development Programmes.
Provide in RBMPs (in relation to
exemptions under Article 4.4 - calculation of disproportionate cost and
the definition of technical unfeasibility) additional clarification and
examples of unclear sources of pollution and diffuse leakages, as well as
measures for nutrient pollution, which should be implemented as soon as
possible.
Consider additional measures needed to
achieve the WFD objectives in water bodies (in relation to Directive
91/271/CEE).
Provide clear commitment in the RBMPs to
properly prioritised measures and the review of hydropower permits because
no specific hydromorphological measures are identified in the PoMs despite
the large number of water bodies being affected by this kind of pressure.
A clear link for the protection of biological quality elements should be
established.
Consider river restoration and prioritise
the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures
that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality,
increase water infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection,
habitat conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in
many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure.
Identify clearly in the RBMPs the
protected areas not expected to reach the more stringent objectives
according to other directives.
Ensure the link between the Bathing Water
Directive and the WFD in the 2nd RBMP cycle. Also Sweden should
ensure better justification and application of exemptions, including
linking water and nature legislation.
Clarify that all water bodies used as
drinking water abstraction sources are included in the protected areas,
and measures that ensure compliance with Article 7 are included in the
PoMs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO SLOVENIA Slovenia should: ·
Coordinate the preparation of the next RBMPs
with the preparation of the international Danube RBMP and the Sava RBMP and
ensure that cooperation with the neighbouring countries extends to all shared
catchments. ·
Determine (as a priority) which stretches
between 10 and 100 km2 deserve delineation as water bodies (to
ensure that significant impacts are not being overlooked). ·
Review the pressures and impacts analysis and
status assessment in the 2nd RBMPs and ensure that the measures are
based on the updated pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment of
water bodies. ·
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap
to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to close that
gap. Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body level. ·
Complete the development of methods for the
status assessment of water bodies and definition 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 PoMs and ultimately
to achieve the WFD objectives. ·
Include the standards related to the repealed
freshwater fish directive in the ecological status parameters in the 2nd RBMPs
and include the monitoring of fish in the monitoring of ecological status. ·
Ensure implementation of measures to address
hydromorphological pressures – if necessary by reviewing permits/concessions
and allocating the necessary resources. ·
Ensure that the study on aligning environmental
flows with good ecological status is completed and used to inform future review
of concessions/permits in the second RBMP. ·
Develop objective criteria for 2nd
RBMPs for assessing "significant adverse effects on the water use"
and "better environmental option" in the context of the HMWB
designation process. Good Ecological Potential should be developed in terms of
biology and mitigation measures at water body level and reported in the 2nd
RBMPs. ·
Make sure that new hydromorphological
modifications, such as new hydropower plants, comply with the WFD requirements
for these exemptions. They should also be adequately justified and supported by
a proper strategic assessment of cumulative effects and alternative solutions
and include all necessary mitigation measures. ·
Calculate and include transparently in the 2nd
RBMPs the contribution that the Nitrate Action Programme will deliver in
closing the nutrient gap to WFD good status. ·
Develop indicators of farmers' compliance with
the measures in the Nitrates Directive (e.g. farmers' awareness of rules,
uptake of measures, slurry storage) as this is necessary to track progress on
implementation of measures and to understand the gap to be closed through
additional measures. ·
Include clear targets/expectations in RBMPs for
the RDP measures so that it is clear how they should contribute to close the
gap to achieve good status. ·
Assess what additional measures are required to
achieve the additional objectives for protected areas (Species and Habitats,
Drinking Water, Bathing Water) and include them in the 2nd RBMPs. Slovenia
should close the gap in designating Surface Drinking Water Protected Areas. ·
Consider and prioritise the use of green
infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range of
environmental (improvements in water quality, increase water infiltration and
thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and
economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey
infrastructure. ·
Provide all the information on the level of
compliance, and timing to reach compliance, by 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 2nd RBMPs, but
also assess the pressures due to waste water from small agglomerations (less
than 2.000 PE) in the second RBMPs cycle. ·
Ensure the compliance of Article 5 UWWTD for
more stringent treatment, especially in big cities. ·
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. RECOMMENDATIONS
TO SLOVAKIA Slovakia should:
Ensure good coordination between public
administration and other stakeholders to improve the planning and
implementation of PoMs and to monitor their effectiveness, i.e. a more
detailed implementation plan for the PoMs and information about the
control mechanisms should be included in the 2nd RBMPs cycle.
Furthermore, Slovakia should ensure effective coordination between WFD and
FD.
Complete the monitoring framework, as an
adequate WFD-compliant monitoring and assessment framework is a necessary
pre-requisite to design effective PoMs and ultimately to achieve the WFD
objectives.
Ensure in the 2nd RBMPs that
measures adopted in the PoMs are based on a reliable status assessment of
water bodies and are linked to the relevant pressures. The explanation of the links between pressures and status and
respective measures should be included in the update of the RBMPs. In the
2nd RBMP cycle, Slovakia should consider supplementary measures
for RBSPs and priority substances that show exceedances.
Ensure that the quantitative assessment
of how much the pressures have to be reduced to achieve the WFD objectives
is clearly identified in RBMPs. The gap that needs to be closed for the
achievement of WFD objectives by 2015 (or later) has to be clearly
quantified in terms of the reductions needed in the pressures causing
water bodies to fail, or be at risk of failing, the environmental
objectives. The applied Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) should be
specified in the 2nd RBMPs. The identified impacts have to be
clearly apportioned between the sources and sectors/drivers responsible
for the pressures for all significant water management issues.
Indicate in the 2nd RBMPs when
WFD objectives will be achieved. Exemptions should be adequately justified
at water body level, and in particular Slovakia needs to ensure compliance
with Article 4.7 of the WFD in the 2nd RBMP cycle.
Provide a coherent strategy to address
agriculture's pressure on water in the 2nd RBMPs cycle (how the
gaps on basic measures will be closed, what supplementary measures,
including under the RDP, will be included in the 2nd RBMP, an
assessment of the extent to which the basic and supplementary measures in
the second cycle will be sufficient to address agricultural pressures to
allow the achievement of good status, etc.). Agriculture is considered as
a key source of pollution by nutrients, organic substances and pesticides.
The major release of pollutants from agriculture occurs through diffuse
sources. Slovakia should implement through national law and include in the
2nd RBMPs basic measures, consistent with article 11.3, to
address nutrients, sediment, hydromorphology and pesticides. Slovakia
should ensure a better control of abstractions in the 2nd RBMP
cycle (e.g. information to be provided on how metering of water
consumption in agriculture is ensured).
Provide information on future and current
actions to address hydromorphological pressures deriving from water
management, hydropower, private users and other related sectors, and to
put in place adequate measures to address these hydromorphological
pressures in the 2nd RBMPs.
Make sure that new hydromorphological
modifications (e.g. new hydropower plants, new or reconstructed drainage,
etc.) comply with the requirements of the WFD for these exemptions, and
are adequately justified and supported by a proper assessment of
alternative solutions and include all necessary mitigation measures.
Consider and prioritise the use of green
infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a
range of environmental (improvements in water quality, increase water
infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, habitat
conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many
cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure.
Identify clearly basic measures in the 2nd
RBMPs to allow for a clear assessment of the need for additional measures,
e.g. Slovakia should provide all information on the level of compliance
and timing to reach full compliance with Directive 91/271/EEC (article 15
and following).
Develop fully the economic analysis of
water use, including the calculation of Environmental and Resource Costs.
Slovakia should ensure water pricing in agriculture. Slovakia should
elaborate on this issue in the 2nd RBMPs.
Carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis
of potential measures (voluntary or obligatory), for achieving the
environmental objectives. The effectiveness of the implemented measures
will have to be demonstrated by the assessment of the status/potential of
water bodies in the second RBMPs. Available funding, in particular the EU
funds (e.g. RDP funds, Structural and Investment Funds, LIFE Integrated
Projects and Horizon 2020) needs to be exploited as much as feasible in
order to implement PoMs. Consequently, appropriate priorities should be
set in the programming documents (PA, OPs and RDPs) of the new EU funding
policy 2014-2020.
Ensure that climate change is adequately
considered in the assessment of pressures and status of water bodies and
that the objectives of the Slovakian Strategy for Adaptation to Climate
Change are properly taken into account in the design of the PoMs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE UNITED KINGDOM The United Kingdom should:
Address the large uncertainties reported
in the 1st RBMPs in relation to the assessment of the status,
the pressures and the effect of potential measures.
Improve the monitoring of impacts in the
2nd RBMPs. Further investigations in that regard need to be
translated into increased confidence in the impact of pressures and status
assessment.
Increase the focus on verifying the
effectiveness in the 2nd RBMPs cycle of current basic measures
(checking whether they are properly enforced).
Be more transparent in the next cycle in
the decision process in terms of the point (ratio) where measures become
disproportionately expensive and how this relates to the level of
confidence required before decisions to take measures are made.
Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify
the gap to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to
close that gap (this is particularly relevant to assess the effectiveness
of the existing measures in relation to significant pressures such as
agriculture and hydromorphology and which additional measures are needed
to close the gap).
Ensure that basic (mandatory) measures
required under the WFD are implemented. The United Kingdom should also set
out clearly the contribution that supplementary measures are expected to
make towards the achievement of WFD objectives in the 2nd RBMP.
There should be a re-focus to “harder regulation” and more enforceable
supplementary measures that might make these measures more effective.
Provide a more transparent approach where
there is a quantitative apportionment of pressures between all the
contributory sources with the respective contributions they are expected
to make to the achievement of WFD objectives.
Consider and prioritise the use of green
infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a
range of environmental (improvements in water quality, increase water
infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, habitat
conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many
cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure.
Provide a clear strategy that defines the
basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should adhere to and the
additional supplementary measures that can be financed because the United
Kingdom is a country where agriculture is indicated as exerting a
significant pressure on the water resource in all RBDs. This strategy
should aim at solving the problem of pollution from N, P, organic
pollution, sediment, and pesticides. It should involve the implementation
of WFD basic measures (including the Nitrates Directive) and supplementary
measures at a level that will ensure the achievement of WFD good status.
Take measures on the incentive function
of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an
efficient use of water (for example, in Northern Ireland, there is no
metering or volumetric charging of domestic customers). Information on how
the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided
in the 2nd RBMPs.
[1] COM(2012) 673
final. [2] See "Report
from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the
Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) River Basin
Management Plans" COM(2012)670 and accompanying Commission Staff Working
Document SWD(2012)379, available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/map_mc/map.htm [3] During
2013-2014 the Commission held bilateral meetings with all Member States except
Denmark. The Commission also supported the EFTA Surveillance Authority in a
bilateral meeting with Norway. [4] A separate
Commission Staff Working Document covers the Floods Directive. [5] See https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/3d4e17e7-0fdb-4466-b962-229b2284441a [6] A
collaborative platform created by the Commission and Member States in 2001 to
support WFD implementation, see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm. [7] Extracted from
the reporting template agreed by the Commission and Member States, cf. footnote
5. [8] Water
Information System for Europe, http://water.europa.eu.
The raw Member States' reports are available in the Central Data Repository of
the European Environment Agency http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/.
[9] Some unsolved
technical problems with the electronic files sent by Slovenia prevented their
full use. Therefore, not all EU-wide statistics in this report include
Slovenian data. [10] The importance
of the preparatory planning steps in the WFD implementation was already
highlighted in the 3rd implementation report COM(2012)670 and
accompanying SWD(2012)379. [11] See CIS
guidance Number 31 on ecological flows in the implementation of the WFD,
available at https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/847bd875-5ccb-46f5-965d-311a99ddc0ac
[12] Based on the
information in the Commission 3rd Implementation report (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm#third)
and bilateral meetings. [13] GEP means Good
Ecological Potential, the WFD objective for heavily modified and artificial
water bodies. [14] An assessment
of the first Danish RBMPs was published by the Commission in 2012 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/CWD-2012-379_EN-Vol3_DK.pdf).
However, these plans were later on cancelled by a national Court. The
definitive Danish RBMPs for the first cycle were only adopted and reported to
the Commission on 30 October 2014. The electronic reporting of the RBMPs is
expected in March 2015 according to the indications by the Danish authorities.
The Commission services have not yet assessed these plans and no bilateral
meeting took place yet. Therefore, this is reported as not assessed in this
table. [15] References to
good status in this section should be construed as references to good potential
for heavily modified and artificial water bodies. [16] The
development of the classification framework which makes operational the
quantification of the objectives of good status is done through a combination
of EU wide measures (such as the Commission Decision on Intercalibration
2013/480/EU for ecological status of surface waters, the Directive 2008/105/EC
for chemical status of surface waters and the Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC
for EU-wide standards to be considered as part of the assessment of groundwater
chemical status) and national measures (setting biological standards for
surface waters for those types and pressures not covered by the intercalibration
exercise, setting standards for physico-chemical, hydromorphological and river
basin specific pollutants for surface water ecological status, setting
threshold values for chemicals to be assessed as part of groundwater chemical
status and setting standards for groundwater bodies to assess quantitative
status). [17] See CIS
guidance number 1: Economics and the environment, the implementation challenge
of the WFD and CIS guidance number 11: Planning process, available at https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a
[18] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/water/implrep2007/pdf/EU%20pressures%20and%20measures_Task_4b_Final%20report.pdf
[19] BG, DK, EL,
HR, SI not included. [20] Directive
96/61/EC, re-casted as Directive 2008/1/EC and superseded by the Industrial Emissions
Directive (2010/75/EU) on 7 January 2014 [21] COM Staff
Working Document 2012. [22] COM Staff
Working Document 2012 [23] Ibid [24] Ibid [25] Pressures & Measures study, section on Hydromorphology. [26] Preliminary
assessment report PoM. [27] Council of the
European Union, Improving environmental policy instruments: Council
conclusions, 3061st Environment Council meeting, Brussels, 20
December 2010. [28] COM (2012)95
final, 7 March 2012. [29] Task 1 –
Governance; Final Report 28 November 2012 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/water/implrep2007/background.htm [30] CIS: Common
Implementation Strategy of the Water Framework Directive