kom (2019) 0095 (forslag) - COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Overview - River Basin Management Plans Accompanying the document - Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans

Europaudvalget 2019
KOM (2019) 0095
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 26.2.2019

SWD(2019) 30 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

European Overview - River Basin Management Plans

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND

THE COUNCIL

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

Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans

{COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} -

{SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} -

{SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} -

{SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} -

{SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} -

{SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} -

{SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} -

{SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} -

{SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} -

{SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} -

{SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} -

{SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} -

{SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} -

{SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} -

{SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} -

{SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} -

{SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} -

{SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} -

{SWD(2019) 84 final}

kom (2019) 0095 (forslag) - COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Overview - River Basin Management Plans Accompanying the document - Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans

Table of Contents

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................... 4

Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 5

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 20

2. Main elements of the WFD ................................................................................................. 20

3. Approach to the assessment of the River Basin Management Plans ................................... 22

4. Overview Of Activities To Ensure Better Implementation ................................................. 24

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

Legal action ................................................................................................................ 24

Court rulings related to the WFD ............................................................................... 27

Better national implementation: working with Member States and stakeholders...... 29

Legal implementation of related Directives adopted in accordance with Article 16

(EQSs) and 17 (Groundwater) of the WFD ............................................................... 32

Governance ................................................................................................................ 33

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 33

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 46

Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 47

Characterisation of the River Basin District .............................................................. 48

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 48

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 64

Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 65

Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface waters ..... 66

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 66

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 99

Recommendations .................................................................................................... 102

Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface waters ..... 103

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 103

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 117

Recommendations .................................................................................................... 120

Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status in groundwater ... 121

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 121

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 129

Recommendations .................................................................................................... 130

Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater ........ 131

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 131

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 141

5. Results of the assessment at EU level and recommendations ............................................. 33

5.1.

5.1.1.

5.1.2.

5.1.3.

5.2.

5.2.1.

5.2.2.

5.2.3.

5.3.

5.3.1.

5.3.2.

5.3.3.

5.4.

5.4.1.

5.4.2.

5.4.3.

5.5.

5.5.1.

5.5.2.

5.5.3.

5.6.

5.6.1.

5.6.2.

5.6.3.

5.7.

5.7.1.

5.7.2.

5.7.3.

5.8.

5.8.1.

5.8.2.

5.8.3.

5.9.

5.9.1.

5.9.2.

5.9.3.

5.10.

Recommendations .................................................................................................... 142

Designation of HMWBs and AWBs and definition of GEP .................................... 143

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 143

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 157

Recommendations .................................................................................................... 158

Environmental Objectives and Exemptions ............................................................. 159

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 159

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 177

Recommendations .................................................................................................... 178

Programme of measures

–

general & measures related to other significant pressures180

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 180

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 220

Recommendations .................................................................................................... 220

Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity ................................................ 221

5.10.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 221

5.10.2. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 225

5.10.3. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 225

5.11.

Measures related to pollution from agriculture ........................................................ 226

5.11.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 226

5.11.2. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 232

5.11.3. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 233

5.12.

Measures related to pollution (including nutrients, organic matter and chemicals)

from sectors other than agriculture .......................................................................... 233

5.12.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 233

5.12.2. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 237

5.12.3. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 238

5.13.

Measures related to hydro-morphological alterations .............................................. 239

5.13.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 239

5.13.2. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 244

5.13.3. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 245

5.14.

Economic analysis and water pricing policies ......................................................... 246

5.14.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 246

5.14.2. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 251

5.14.3. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 252

5.15.

Protected Areas ........................................................................................................ 253

5.15.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 253

5.15.3. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 270

5.15.3. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 270

5.16.

Adaptation to climate change and drought............................................................... 271

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 271

5.16.2. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 277

5.16.3. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 277

6. International cooperation under the EU Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for

the Community action in the field of water policy ............................................................ 279

6.1.

6.1.1.

6.2.

6.2.1.

6.2.2.

6.2.3.

6.2.4.

6.2.5.

6.3.

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 279

International river basin districts and their coordination mechanisms..................... 279

Overview of International Cooperation ................................................................... 282

International coordination mechanisms ................................................................... 282

International coordination on characterisation, monitoring and status assessment . 284

International coordination on exemptions and economic analysis .......................... 290

International coordination on Programme of Measures ........................................... 291

International coordination on Climate change and droughts ................................... 293

Recommendations for international cooperation under the WFD ........................... 294

6.1.2. Selection of iRBDs for the assessment ........................................................................ 281

Acronyms

AWB

CIS

EQS

FRMP

GEP

GES

HMWB

ICPDR

iRBMP

iRBD

KTM

MSFD

PoM

QA/QC Directive

RBD

RBMP

RBSP

WFD

WISE

Artificial water body

Common Implementation Strategy

European Union

Environmental Quality Standard

Flood Risk Management Plan

Good Ecological Potential

Good Ecological Status

Heavily Modified Water Body

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube

River

International River Basin Management Plan

International River Basin District

Kilometre

Kilometre squared

Key Type of Measure

Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Programme of Measures

Quality Assurance/Quality Control Directive

River Basin District

River Basin Management Plan

River Basin Specific Pollutants

Water Framework Directive

Water Information System for Europe

Executive summary

EU water policy has delivered significant improvements to water quality over the past four

decades. Thanks to EU water law and the implementation efforts of Member States, supported

by EU funding, it is increasingly possible to reconcile life in a densely populated continent,

and a growing economy, with a progressive improvement of water quality. There are still

significant pressures on water quality and quantity, but an effective approach to mitigate or

eliminate these pressures has been chosen. Vigilance in intensification and implementation of

efforts will however be needed throughout the EU to achieve the objectives of the Water

Framework Directive (WFD).

EU Member States reported their second River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) for the

period 2015-2021 to the European Commission under the WFD as of March 2016; in some

cases with significant delays. The Commission's analysis has therefore not covered the most

delayed RBMPs, which were not adopted and reported on time to be part of this assessment,

i.e. Greece, Ireland and Lithuania

This assessment of all RBMPs covers more than 111 000 surface water bodies and more than

13 000 groundwater bodies. The Commission focused on developments compared to its

analysis of the first RBMPs (covering the period 2009-2015) in the main areas of integrated

water management. The Commission’s analysis highlights progress and identifies remaining

challenges. This assessment includes the international river basins.

Governance

Appropriate governance of water quality management at the river basin level is an essential

precondition for achieving the WFD objectives. For the second RBMPs, many Member States

have strengthened coordination among the responsible authorities. They have also made

considerable efforts to improve public consultation and strengthen the active involvement of

stakeholders. Information and views provided by stakeholders have led to changes to the draft

RBMPs across the whole EU. The majority of Member States have carried out joint

consultations of the second RBMPs with the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) but

fewer have carried out joint consultations with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

(MSFD), or incorporated MSFD objectives in their RBMPs. International cooperation has

overall further improved in the second cycle.

The Canary Islands in Spain and Gibraltar in the UK have not been part of this assessment either.

Characterisation of river basin districts

Article 5 of the WFD requires Member States to undertake an analysis of the characteristics of

each RBD or portion of an international RBD falling within their territory. This analysis had

to be reviewed by the end of 2013 as the basis for the second RBMPs. Member States had to

review the general description of the characteristics of their RBDs within the RBMPs, the

definition of all relevant categories and types of water bodies (delineation) and the

identification of the pressures and impacts on water status. For the EU overall, the delineation

of about 90% of the surface water bodies (by number of water bodies) and around 70% of the

groundwater bodies (by area) was unchanged from the first to the second RBMPs. Progress

has been made since the first RBMPs in the establishment of reference conditions, however

gaps still remain, as in most Member States, reference conditions have not been established

for all water body types (rivers, lakes, transitional and costal) and for all quality elements and

for all quality elements. A few Member States have established all reference conditions,

including Austria, Hungary and Poland. The quality elements whose type-specific reference

conditions showed the most significant gaps for surface water body types were found to be

the hydro-morphological ones, as most Member States established reference conditions only

for some water categories, and 8 Member States did not establish reference conditions for any

water category (including Denmark, Finland, France, Croatia, Italy, Latvia and Malta).

Even if there is better knowledge on the significant pressures which may put water bodies at

risk of failing the objectives, significant gaps remain, which will need to be addressed in the

current cycle, particularly in defining thresholds and criteria for significance and impact.

Further work is also required by Member States on apportioning pressures to sectors and

activities to design more targeted measures.

For the second RBMPs, almost all River Basin Districts (RBDs) have reported inventories for

at least some Priority Substances

. Some Members States have included all Priority

Substances, including Austria, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Latvia and Slovenia. In many cases,

justification was provided for not including the missing Substances in the inventories. In some

Member States, less than 10 substances have been included in the inventories, this is the case

for Bulgaria, Croatia, Malta, Sweden and Slovakia. Few Member States have complete

inventories for discharges, emissions and losses of such harmful substances. Furthermore, the

inventories are mainly based on point sources while diffuse source inputs are insufficiently

addressed.

Monitoring and assessment of ecological status of surface water bodies

The WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of

the status of surface and groundwater to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of

Under the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (Directive 2008/105/EC), Member States are required to

establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of the substances in Annex I of the Directive.

water status within each RBD. Member States have to establish a surveillance monitoring

programme and an operational monitoring programme. They may also need in some cases to

establish programmes of investigative monitoring.

In the second RBMPs, for almost all water bodies it has been possible to establish their status,

reducing much of the uncertainty found in the previous cycle. This is the case even if there

have been some significant changes, both increases and decreases, in the number of

monitoring sites and in the proportion of surface water bodies included in monitoring used for

the second RBMPs compared to the first. These changes partially relate to the revised

characterisation of water bodies between the first and second plans.

There are still significant gaps in the biological and hydro-morphological quality elements

required to be monitored in each water category. This is particularly so for the hydro-

morphological quality elements, which are not monitored at all in the Czech Republic and

Croatia, only to a limited extent in Bulgaria, Portugal and France, and show significant gaps

in practically all Member States. Significant gaps also persist in the monitoring of biological

quality elements.

Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) for RBSPs have not always been derived in

accordance with the Technical Guidance

developed under the Common Implementation

Strategy

. This is the case for the Czech Republic, Finland, Croatia, Italy, Luxembourg,

Latvia, Malta and Poland, and, to a large extent, Spain. Furthermore, the analytical methods

used for some RBSPs did not correspond to the requirements of the relevant Commission

Directive

. This is particularly the case of Malta, for which none of the analytical methods

were in line with the requirements.

Annex V of the WFD establishes the classification for ecological status (and ecological

potential, for heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies), which is an

expression of the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems associated

with surface waters. The overall ecological status/potential has not improved since the first

RBMPs. Overall, there is a much better understanding of the situation of water bodies and the

proportion of water bodies with unknown ecological status/potential has decreased

significantly since the first cycle. The overall confidence in the classification has improved in

the second RBMPs compared to the first, mainly due to better designed monitoring networks

and improved availability and quality of the information for the status assessment methods.

There has been progress in the development of biological assessment methods since the first

RBMPs. However some Member States, such as Austria, The Netherlands and Romania, have

not reported methods sensitive to chemical pollution, although chemical pollution had already

Technical Guidance For Deriving Environmental Quality Standards

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/3eaafe7c-0857-47d4-a896-8022df48d3ba

Directive laying down technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status

(2009/90/EC) for the strictest standards applied

been reported in the first cycle as having a significant impact in those Member States. Hydro-

morphological quality elements are not assessed in the Czech Republic, Denmark and The

Netherlands, while in many other cases this concerns some hydro-morphological quality

elements for some water types, particularly for coastal waters.

The ‘one-out

all-out’

principle is a key principle that reflects the integrated approach on

which the WFD is based. The overall status is only ‘good’ if all the elements comprised

are at

least considered ‘good’. This ensures that all pressures capable of degrading the water status

are addressed. All 147 RBDs with reported information except Madeira, in Portugal, indicated

that the one-out-all-out principle had been applied in the second RBMPs.

Monitoring and assessment of chemical status of surface water bodies

The WFD objective of achieving good surface water chemical status means that

concentrations of pollutants cannot exceed the environmental quality standards established in

the Environmental Quality Standards Directive

Overall, the percentage of water bodies that are of unknown chemical status has decreased

significantly since the first RBMPs from 39 % of all surface water bodies to only 16 %. This

indicates that the monitoring (spatially, substances and frequency) and status assessment

methods have improved overall. A limited number of Member states have more than 60% of

their water bodies in unknown status (Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal).

Against a background of little change overall in the proportion of water bodies achieving

good status and an increase in the proportion failing to achieve good status (most likely due to

an increase in knowledge), several cases of improvements between the first and second

RBMPs were reported for particular Priority Substances.

Grouping techniques and expert judgement have been widely used to classify water bodies.

Some RBMPs provide information on the approaches used. The use of these may also be at

least partly linked to the reduced confidence in the assessment of status. The range of

confidence levels varies widely between Member States. This may result from various factors,

including differences in the methodologies to assess the level of confidence.

Although it is not expected that all water bodies be monitored, the monitoring undertaken

should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of the chemical status of all

water bodies in the RBD, and should allow Member States to assess the effectiveness of the

measures implemented to reach good status. The WFD also requires Member States to

monitor all discharged priority substances.

Directive 2008/105/EC

Overall the extent of monitoring of Priority Substances across the EU has been very diverse,

which tends to reflect differences in population density and intensity of pressures between

Member States but also different strategies for monitoring.

Generally, the spatial extent of monitoring in water was limited in terms of the proportion of

water bodies monitored with some variation between water categories. Some Member States

(Slovenia, Malta and Belgium) however monitored at least some priority substances in more

than 80% of their surface water bodies. The majority of Member States monitor all of their

water bodies failing to achieve good status as part of their operational monitoring programmes

in at least some of their RBDs and most commonly in coastal and transitional waters.

For status assessment, all Member States monitored Priority Substances in water. Nearly three

quarters of Member States monitored mercury, hexachlorobenzene and/or

hexachlorobutadiene in biota in at least some RBDs for status assessment, even if they

generally (also) monitored in water in the same and other RBDs.

Relatively few chemical pollutants have individually a large impact on status. These include

certain metals (cadmium, nickel, lead) and several ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and

toxic substances, such as mercury

, which is involved in by far the largest number of failures

to meet good chemical status. As regards measures against mercury pollution, a new Mercury

Regulation

, applicable since 1 January 2018, seeks to limit further mercury use and

emissions by,

inter alia,

regulating trade in mercury and mercury compounds and improving

the management of mercury waste. The atmospheric deposition onto EU surface waters of

mercury from non-EU sources

–

a significant source of pollution - is expected to decrease in

the decades to come, following the entry into force, since August 2017, of the Minamata

Convention on Mercury

, already ratified by over 100 countries, including major global

players.

The majority of Member States monitored all of the Priority Substances identified as

discharged into their RBDs with the exception of a few Priority Substances and with some

variation among RBDs within Member States. Although significant efforts have been made to

establish inventories of emissions, few Member States reported complete inventories for all

their RBDs, and it is therefore unclear whether all discharged substances have been identified.

In some cases (eg Cyprus, Slovenia), all substances were included in the inventories, and all

discharged substances were monitored.

For trend assessment, around two-thirds of Member States reported that arrangements were in

place for long-term trend analysis in most, but not all, RBDs. All but two of these monitored

Other ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances causing failure to meet good chemical status

are pBDEs, tributyltin and certain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene,

indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene).

(EU)2017/852

http://www.mercuryconvention.org/

sediment and/or biota for this reason. Most Member States monitored the majority of the 14

substances though not in all RBDs and not in all water categories. Some Member States

(including Hungary, Bulgaria, Czech Republic) did not report any trend monitoring in any of

their RBDs.

According to Article 4 of the Directive 2008/105/EC Member States may designate mixing

zones adjacent to points of discharge. Concentrations of one or more substances may exceed

the relevant EQS within such mixing zones if they do not affect the compliance of the rest of

the surface water body with those standards. Just over a quarter of Member States designated

mixing zones in at least some RBDs, in a small portion of water bodies overall.

The EQSD allows Member States to take into account the natural background concentrations

and bioavailability for metals and their compounds when assessing the monitoring results

against the EQS. Most Member States have used this possibility (sometimes only in some

RBDs within a Member State).

Monitoring and assessment of groundwater quantitative status

The groundwater quantitative monitoring network has to include sufficient representative

monitoring points to estimate groundwater level in each groundwater body or group of bodies

taking into account short and long-term variations in recharge. Overall, groundwater

quantitative monitoring improved since the first RBMPs with increasing coverage of

groundwater bodies. Most Member States increased the coverage of groundwater bodies by

quantitative monitoring or at least kept the coverage at high level (decreases were observed in

Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Romania). Nevertheless, a significant number of groundwater

bodies (around 65%) are still without quantitative monitoring sites in specific Member States

and the partially reported grouping of groundwater bodies for monitoring purposes does not

fully explain the absence of monitoring.

The definition of quantitative status is set out in WFD Annex V (2.1.2). Good groundwater

quantitative status is achieved when the level of groundwater in the groundwater body is such

that the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long term annual average rate

of abstraction. The groundwater quantitative status situation improved with 92% of the

groundwater bodies representing 89% of the total groundwater body area being at good status.

Most of the changes in status are due to the significant re-delineations of groundwater bodies

better targeting the groundwater bodies at risk and improved status assessment

methodologies. Next to the improvement of status, also knowledge improved, which is

expressed in the decreased share of groundwater bodies at unknown status (3% of

groundwater bodies representing 1% of the area) and the increased confidence in the status

results which is high or medium for about 48% respectively 22% of the groundwater bodies.

The WFD requires for the characterisation of RBDs that Member States estimate and identify

the impact of significant water flow regulation, including water transfer and diversion, on

overall flow characteristics and water balances. Water balance is almost fully considered in

status assessment. Also associated surface water bodies and groundwater dependent terrestrial

ecosystems are fully considered in almost all Member States where such ecosystems exist and

where they are related to groundwater quantitative risk. This is a significant improvement

since the previous RBMPs.

Monitoring and assessment of groundwater chemical status

The surveillance monitoring of chemical status of groundwater needs to be carried out to

supplement and validate the impact assessment procedure and provide information for use in

the assessment of long-term trends, both as a result of changes in natural conditions and

through anthropogenic activity. Sufficient monitoring sites should be selected for bodies

identified as being at risk and for bodies which cross a Member State border.

The definition of chemical status is set out in WFD Annex V (2.3.2). Good groundwater

chemical status is achieved when there is no saline intrusion, monitoring data do not show

exceedance of relevant standards and groundwater concentrations do not result in status

failure of associated surface waters, nor in any significant diminution of their ecological or

chemical quality, nor in any significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which directly

depend on the groundwater body.

Most groundwater bodies have been assessed, and for only very few the chemical status is

unknown. Overall, the confidence in the status results is relatively high. As explained above,

some of the changes in the chemical status of groundwaters are also due to the reported

re-delineation of a significant number of groundwater bodies, improvements of the status

assessment methods and changed threshold values. Therefore, comparison between both

reporting cycles need to be done with caution.

About 84% of groundwater bodies (representing 74% of the total groundwater body area) in

good groundwater chemical status. The overall chemical status of groundwater bodies

improved only very little since the first cycle

. Also the reported expected achievement of

good status for most of the groundwater bodies by 2027 or beyond 2027 demonstrates the

long time-lag between the implementation of measures and their effectiveness in

groundwater.

The consideration of groundwater associated aquatic and groundwater dependent terrestrial

ecosystems improved significantly. In almost all Member States such ecosystems were

identified and commonly considered in status assessment if risk was related to them.

Overall, groundwater chemical monitoring did not improve since the first RBMPs. Six

Member States (Slovenia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Estonia and Croatia) have

About 80% of groundwater bodies, representing 72% in terms of area, were reported to be of good chemical

status in 2009

now full coverage of groundwater bodies by surveillance monitoring. On the contrary a few

Member States (e.g. Spain, the United Kingdom)reduced the coverage of groundwater bodies

by surveillance monitoring while some others have still limited coverage of groundwater

bodies (e.g. Finland, Sweden, Denmark). A significant number of groundwater bodies is still

without chemical monitoring sites and the partially reported grouping of groundwater bodies

for monitoring purposes does not fully justify the absence of monitoring. Not all groundwater

bodies which were identified at risk of failing good chemical status are subject to operational

monitoring and also not all substances causing risk are fully covered. As with surveillance

monitoring the partially reported grouping of groundwater bodies cannot completely justify

the absence of operational monitoring.

Designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological

Potential

According to the WFD Article 4(3)(a) and (b), Member States may designate a water body as

heavily modified if the changes to the hydro-morphological characteristics of that body which

would be necessary for achieving GES would have significant adverse effects on the use, and

the beneficial objectives served by modified characteristics of the water body cannot, for

reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate costs, reasonably be achieved by other

means, which are a significantly better environmental option.

At EU level, the extent of designated Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWBs) and

Artificial Water Bodies (AWBs) has remained similar to the first RBMPs: approximately 13%

of European surface water bodies are designated as HMWB and 4% as AWB. The extent of

designation varies across Member States, with some States designating more than 30% of

their water bodies as heavily modified (Hungary, Malta, Germany and the Netherlands), while

other States designate less than 5% of their water bodies as heavily modified (Finland and

Sweden).

A methodology for designating HMWB is described for the RBMPs of all Member States,

with few exceptions such as Croatia, where a consistent description of the method is missing.

In some countries (e.g. in Denmark, Sweden, Slovakia), assessments to complete the

designation of HMWB and AWB are still ongoing and further changes to the extent of

designation may take place during the second cycle.

Most Member State methodologies

address the definition of “substantial changes in

character” in order to consider a water body for designation as HMWB and report relevant

criteria. Descriptions of how to assess significant adverse effects of restoration measures on

the use or wider environment and how to assess other means which are better environmental

options were assessed in detail in about two thirds of the Member States, but not done in

particular for the Czech Republic, Germany and Croatia. Only few Member States provide

information on specific criteria used to assess significant adverse effects of restoration

measures, such as Austria, and the criteria reported are mainly of qualitative nature, similar to

the first RBMPs.

The status of HMWB and AWB needs to be assessed in terms of achieving at least Good

Ecological Potential (GEP) as this is defined in Annex V of the Directive. This refers to the

best approximation to the best status which could be achieved, given the hydro-morphological

characteristics that cannot be changed without significant adverse effects on the specified use

or the wider environment. As regards the definition of Good Ecological Potential (GEP) some

improvements have been noted in relation to the methodology, which will allow for easier

tracking of progress. In the second RBMPs, GEP is reported as defined (or partly defined) in

the majority of Member States. Methodological improvements for the establishment of GEP

are reported by a number of countries, while in some, new national methods have been

developed since the first cycle. One of the key improvements since the first RBMPs is the

inclusion of more biological quality elements in the definition of GEP. In most Member

States, the establishment of values of biological quality elements for GEP is based on

assessment methods similar to those used for good ecological status (GES) of natural water

bodies, but often using lower thresholds to distinguish between classes of “good” and

“moderate”. Mitigation measures for defining GEP are reported in most Member States.

However, the level of information provided on the ecological changes that the measures are

designed to achieve remains very limited, indicating little progress in this respect since the

first RBMPs.

Environmental objectives and exemptions

The exemptions foreseen in Article 4

of the Directive are still used extensively, with around

half of Europe’s water bodies currently under an exemption, to a greater extent for surface

waters than for groundwaters. Exemptions under Article 4(4) are still used to a significant

extent in all Member States. For surface waters, technical feasibility, natural conditions and

disproportionate costs are used as justifications. For groundwater bodies, mainly natural

conditions and technical feasibility are used to justify these exemptions, with technical

feasibility used more often than natural conditions. Article 4(5) exemptions have been applied

more often in the second cycle than in the first in several Member States.

The justifications provided in the second RBMPs for exemptions under Article 4(4) and 4(5)

are more detailed and more consistently reported on water body level compared to the first

Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater bodies, i.e. good

status or potential (for HMWBs) by 2015, and introduces the principle of preventing any further deterioration

of status. A number of exemptions to the general objectives are possible under certain conditions. Article 4(4)

allows for an extension of the deadline beyond 2015, Article 4(5) allows for the achievement of less stringent

objectives, Article 4(6) allows a temporary deterioration in the status of water bodies and Article 4(7) sets out

conditions in which deterioration of status or failure to achieve certain of the WFD objectives may be

permitted for new modifications to the physical characteristics of surface water bodies, and deterioration

from high to good status may be possible as a result of new sustainable human development activities.

cycle, when in many cases justifications were very general and it was often unclear when the

environmental objectives were expected to be reached (under Article 4(4)). However,

justifications are in many cases still very generic. Technical feasibility under Article 4(4) and

technical ‘infeasibility’ in relation to Article 4(5) needs to be substantially improved and

made more transparent in most of the RBMPs. Also, the justifications for disproportionate

costs under Article 4(4) and Article 4(5) should be better distinguished. A few Member States

have applied Article 4(6) exemptions due to prolonged droughts, such as Spain and in the

Netherlands. In Portugal a potential use of this exemption is referred to in the RBMPs.

The application of Article 4(7) has increased in the second RBMPs. It can be concluded that

more projects are in the pipeline and more cases of Article 4(7) application may occur in the

future. Some progress has been made in terms of methodologies to assess impacts on the

status of water bodies. The assessment of cumulative effects, though, remains a challenge.

Information on how to determine overriding public interest is limited and it is not clear to

which extent public consultations have taken place. The newly developed CIS guidance

document on Article 4(7) of December 2017 provides important clarifications and is expected

to further improve Article 4(7) related assessments and reporting for the next RBMPs.

The fact that exemptions are so widely used is an indicator of the significant efforts needed

from Member States to achieve good status or good potential by 2027. However, and in line

with what is required by that same Article, Member States need to better ensure that the

exemptions applied for one water body do not permanently exclude or compromise the

achievement of the environmental objectives in other water bodies (Article 4(8)), and

guarantee at least the level of protection provided for in other EU environmental law (Article

4(9)).

PROGRAMMES OF MEASURES (PoMs)

General

Whilst progress has been made in implementing the first programmes of measures (PoMs),

these PoMs have not been fully implemented. A lack of adequate finance is likely to continue

to present an obstacle also to implementing the second PoMs as no less than 64 % of RBDs

have yet to secure finance for all relevant sectors.

Most Member States have made some progress in identifying the gap to good status for each

significant pressure, and the level of implementation of measures required to achieve good

status. This is a significant improvement that will allow for better identification and

prioritisation of the measures. However, more work is needed to refine this for the third

PoMs.

Not all Member States have reported other significant pressures. It is not clear whether this is

because they are not relevant or because they have not assessed them. For those Member

States that have identified other pressures, measures are in place to address them, the gap to

good status has generally been identified, and indicators developed to identify the level of

implementation required to achieve good status.

Measures to tackle main pressures on water bodies

A. Abstractions and water scarcity

More than 7 600 (7%) of Europe’s surface water bodies are affected by significant water

abstraction pressures and 16% of the area of groundwater bodies is affected by over-

abstraction. Basic and supplementary measures are in place in most of the RBDs concerned

with water scarcity. However, progress in reducing pressures is slow.

Some Member States still need progress in fulfilling previous recommendations to improve

water scarcity management (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta, Sweden, Slovenia). However,

relevant action in extending metering, water abstraction controls and reviewing licenses has

been found in some Member States (Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, United

Kingdom), while in others water abstraction datasets have improved. In most Member States,

small abstractions are exempted from controls and/or registering, despite the fact that water

bodies suffering from significant abstraction pressures are not achieving good status.

B. Pollution from agriculture

Agriculture is a major driver of failure of good chemical status to EU groundwater and

surface waters, mainly due to diffuse pollution by nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and

pesticides. Water abstraction for agriculture is the main significant pressure, among others,

causing failure of good quantitative status of groundwater bodies. The biggest challenges in

addressing the poor quality of water related to agricultural activities were found in Bulgaria,

the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Croatia, Hungary, Poland and the United Kingdom.

About half of the Member States, which reported on their RBMPs, have carried out a gap

assessment in relation to agricultural pressures in order to identify the efforts needed to reach

the WFD targets.

Basic measures under Article 11(3)(h)

, to tackle diffuse pollution, are reported for all

assessed Member States, but not for all RBDs and not for all diffuse pollutants. Furthermore,

Article 11(3) WFD on basic measures, which are the minimum requirements to be complied with, include in

Article11(3)(h) the measures for diffuse sources liable to cause pollution, measures to prevent or control the

input of pollutants. Controls may take the form of a requirement for prior regulation, such as a prohibition on

the entry of pollutants into water, prior authorisation or registration based on general binding rules where

such a requirement is not otherwise provided for under Community legislation. These controls shall be

periodically reviewed and, where necessary, updated.

many of the supplementary measures in the second cycle programmes of measures are

voluntary. The voluntary nature of measures could be a limiting factor if their uptake by

farmers remains low. Most Member States have defined, or are in the process of defining,

specific zones including specific water protection measures to avoid pollution to drinking

water from agriculture.

Engagement with farmers seems to have increased, as most Member States report having

consulted with farmers or farmers associations when setting up the programmes of measures.

However, few Member States report the provision of advisory support services for farmers

on measures implementation.

C. Pollution from other sectors (including nutrients, organic matter and chemicals)

Basic measures to reduce pollution from non-agricultural sources, such as an authorisation

and/or permitting regime to control wastewater point source discharges, the operation of

registers of wastewater discharges, and the prohibition or limitation of all direct discharges to

groundwater, and/or other measures to eliminate / reduce pollution from priority substances

and other substances, are in place in most of the Member States.

The number of Member States identifying substance-specific measures in their second

RBMPs is significantly higher than the number which did so in their first RBMPs, although

even where Member States have identified such measures, the coverage of substances causing

failure is not always complete.

Measures have generally been reported in relation to failure of good status, but not in relation

to phasing out the emissions of priority hazardous substances in RBDs where failure has not

been observed.

D. Hydro-morphological alterations

The majority of Member States, with few exceptions (Croatia, Malta, Romania, French

overseas RBDs), have reported operational Key Types of Measures (KTMs) to address

significant hydro-morphological pressures (fish ladders, removal of structures, etc.). In the

second RBMPs, information on the links between measures, hydro-morphological pressures

and water uses/sectors has substantially improved. In some Member States, such as in Austria

and Sweden, there will be small to medium progress in terms of closing the gap for hydro-

morphological pressures by 2021, and the main progress is expected between 2021 and 2027.

In other Member States, the information reported indicates that no or very little progress is

expected in closing the gap for significant hydro-morphological pressures between 2015 and

2021, or this information has not been reported, such as in Bulgaria, Czech Republic,

Denmark, Spain, Finland, Luxembourg, Latvia.

Establishing ecologically based flow regimes is an important hydro-morphological measure

since to have a sufficient ecological flow regime is a prerequisite to reach good ecological

status in rivers and it is crucial to maintain a flow throughout the river continuum. In most

Member States, the work on defining and implementing ecological flows is still ongoing in

the second cycle. The ecological flow has been reported as fully defined and implemented in

Hungary and the Netherlands.

E. Cross-cutting measures requiring improved implementation

Economic analysis and water pricing policies

The WFD promotes the application of sound economic principles

, methods and instruments

for supporting the achievement of its objectives in the EU, including incentive pricing, cost

recovery and the application of the polluter pays principle.

The ex-ante conditionality for water under the Common Provisions Regulation for the

European Structural and Investment Funds for the period 2014-2020 has facilitated the

preparation, timely adoption and reporting of several of the RBMPs. It also incited a number

of Member States to address shortcomings in the implementation of the WFD, including by

upgrading their water pricing policies, thereby improving the quality and legality of relevant

investments

Despite these efforts, still more progress is needed in implementing the changes to water

pricing policies. In particular, the incomplete implementation of the principle of cost recovery

and the limited use of economic instruments put a strain on the potential of promoting

efficient water management through this instrument. In many cases methodologies to

calculate costs are insufficiently documented and essential information is missing. A

significant number of Member States has widened the definition of water services to include

water use activities that have a significant impact on water bodies, such as for example

hydropower generation, navigation and flood protection, or self-abstraction for irrigation and

industrial purposes. In Latvia, for example, a broad definition of water services has been used,

and cost recovery rates are presented for all these services.

In Hungary and Slovakia, for example, pricing policies have been modified to increase cost

recovery in agriculture. At the same time the application of Article 9.4

, which provides the

possibility not to apply the principle of cost recovery to certain water services, varies across

Member States, and also across RBDs in the same Member State.

Article 9 WFD

SWD(2017) 127 final

Article 9(4) WFD: Member States shall not be in breach of this Directive if they decide in accordance with

established practices not to apply the provisions of paragraph 1, second sentence, and for that purpose the

relevant provisions of paragraph 2, for a given water-use activity, where this does not compromise the

purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive. Member States shall report the reasons for

not fully applying paragraph 1, second sentence, in the river basin management plans.

Considerable work is reported by all Member States calculating financial costs of water

services; nevertheless; the transparency of the calculation methods could be further improved.

Environmental and resource costs are treated more specifically in this second cycle. There are

evident efforts to calculate these costs and more information is available on methodologies

and approaches, next to more transparency on whether these costs have been internalized or

not. Nevertheless significant gaps remain and there is room to improve the transparency on

how these costs have been dealt with. Overall, limited changes in the water-pricing policies

have taken place in order to implement the Article 9 provisions.

Protected areas

The 'additional measures in protected areas' refer to those measures needed to achieve more

stringent objectives than good status required by Article 4 of the WFD. More stringent

objectives are those that have been set out in in relevant EU law under which the individual

protected areas have been established.

Reporting of monitoring specifically targeted towards protected areas, including for shellfish,

is very limited

–

in certain countries even missing. Especially regarding groundwater (both for

drinking water, but also for groundwater dependent habitats and species), the gap between the

actual level of reported and needed monitoring is large. Specific objectives have only been set

for a limited number of protected areas and for a considerable part of water bodies with a

specific objective, the more stringent objectives are already met, meaning that no further

effort is needed.

The evaluation of the Drinking Water Directive (DWD)

assessed the coherence with the

WFD and identified a missing link in the DWD as regards protecting drinking water

resources. Therefore, the 2018 proposal for a recast of the DWD is introducing a risk based

approach from abstraction

to tap, and improving communication between Member States’

authorities and water suppliers to ensure there is a full governance cycle for water. The

proposal aims to improve coherence between the two Directives and ensure that the polluter

pays principle and the precautionary principles both apply.

For nearly half the protected areas related to the Habitats and Birds Directives, no objectives

have been set, because the additional needs for improvement are not yet known. Furthermore,

for a significant part of the water bodies related to protected areas, GES is reported as

sufficient also to reach the more stringent objectives according to other Directives. Therefore,

the need for additional measures in protected areas can be described only for a very small

number of water bodies. The second RBMPs will not bring significant progress in the status

of protected areas, as the additional needs for setting specific water objectives for most of

them are not yet known. This leaves a significant task for the third cycle for most Member

States to live up to the requirements.

Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption

Adaptation to droughts and climate change

Only in about half of the Member States droughts were considered as a relevant feature for

water management (e.g. Cyprus, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal).

The key management measure to mitigate drought impact although not explicitly mentioned

in the Water Framework Directive, is a Drought Management Plan. However, the Drought

Management Plan has not been adopted in all relevant RBDs. A few Member States have,

however, progressed in their drought management since the first cycle by developing drought

indicators and extending the number of RBDs with Drought Management Plans (Slovenia,

United Kingdom). The adoption of elements within the RBMPs that address clearly the key

elements for drought mitigation (indicators, measures, organisational set-up) can provide a

step-wise approach.

Most Member States (e.g. Bulgaria, Germany, France, Italy, Slovakia) have reported that they

have used the Common Implementation

Guidance number 24 (“River Basin Management in a

changing climate”), have done a climate proofing of the POMs and have a national Climate

Change Strategy or Plan. However, the effectiveness of the climate proofing methodologies is

unclear, and in general, green infrastructures and water retention measures are underused.

Thus, it remains important that technical measures and planned infrastructures duly take into

account climate change predictions, especially for the occurrence of extreme phenomena and

changes in river flows.

International co-operation

Member States are obliged to coordinate their work under the WFD for each river basin that

crosses national borders of EU countries. With non-EU countries they need to make

reasonable efforts to coordinate. A large number of river basins is indeed international in the

EU, including some very large ones like the basin of the Rhine and the Danube. The degree of

cooperation differs from basin to basin. Usually, there is an international agreement in place,

often also an international coordinating body and, in a more limited number of cases, a joint

RBMP. Only a few international basins in the EU have none of these arrangements.

Overall, good progress has been made in the international coordination for shared river basins.

Governance structures have been improved and further formalised, RBMPs have increasingly

been developed and improved and comparability of findings improved as did compatibility of

approaches developed in response to pressures. Generally, the stronger the governance of the

basin and the more developed the RBMP, the better the results in terms of achieving WFD

objectives.

NTRODUCTION

EU water policy has delivered significant improvements to water quality over the past four

decades. Thanks to EU water legislation and the implementation efforts of Member States, we

are increasingly able to reconcile life in a densily populated continent, with growing

economies, with an improvement of water quality. There are still significant pressures on

water quality and quantity, but an effective approach to mitigate or even eliminate these

pressures has unmistakebly been chosen.

Vigilance in implementation, and even

intensification of efforts will however been needed throughout the EU to achieve the

objectives of the WFD.

This Commission Staff Working Document is part of the Commission’s fifth implementation

report

as required by Article 18 of the WFD and is based on the assessment of the RBMPs

for the period 2015-2021 reported by Member States. The report describes the results of the

assessment based on the information reported by Member States. The report also covers the

requirements of Article 11 of the Groundwater Directive and Article 5 of the EQSs Directive.

This document is accompanied by Staff Working Documents describing the results of the

assessment by the Commission of the RBMPs relating to each Member State that reported on

time and provided its information through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE),

as well as the international RBMPs. The report on of the European Environment Agency on

the State of Water 2018 provides a detailed overview and analysis of actual progress in

quality

of Europe’s 80,000 water bodies.

This document covers 25 EU Member States

. Lithuania, Ireland and Greece are not covered

due to late reporting to WISE. Spain and the UK are included except for the RBMPs of the

Canary Islands

and Gibratar respectively.

AIN ELEMENTS OF THE

WFD

The WFD introduced new and ambitious objectives to protect aquatic ecosystems in a more

holistic way, considering all uses and users of water, and managing water on the scale of river

basins. It introduced a number of key principles into the management and protection of

aquatic resources:

(1) The integrated planning process at the scale of river basins, from characterisation to

the definition of measures to reach the environmental objectives.

(2) A comprehensive assessment of pressures, impacts and status of the aquatic

environment, including from the ecological perspective.

Earlier WFD implementation reports are available at :

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm

By judgment of 26 December 2018, the Paris Administrative Court annulled the RBMP (SDAGE) of the

Seine-Normandy basin for the period 2016-2021.

Spain notified the Commission that the RBMP for La Gomera was endorsed on 17 September 2018, Tenerife,

La Palma on 26 November 2018, Fuerteventura, Lanzarote, El Hierro on 26 December 2018, and Gran

Canaria on 21 January 2019.

(3) The economic analysis of the measures proposed/taken and the use of economic

instruments.

(4) The integrated water resources management principle encompassing targeting

environmental objectives with water management and related policies objectives.

(5) Public participation and active involvement in water management.

The key objective of the WFD is to achieve good status for all water bodies by 2015. This

comprises the objectives of good ecological and good chemical status for surface waters and

good quantitative and good chemical status for groundwater.

The key tool for the implementation of the WFD is the RBMP and the accompanying POMs.

The planning process is a step-by-step procedure in which each step builds on the previous

one. Each step is important, starting from the transposition and the administrative

arrangements, followed by the characterisation of the RBD, the monitoring and the

assessment of status, the setting of objectives, the establishment of an appropriate POMs and

its implementation including the monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the

measures supporting the following RBMP cycle.

The PoM is the tool designed to enable the Member States to respond appropriately to the

relevant pressures identified at RBD level during the pressures and impacts analysis, with the

objective of enabling the river basin/water body to reach good status. For example, if a

significant pressure is overlooked during the pressures and impacts analysis, the monitoring

programme may not be designed to assess the pressure, and the POMs may not envisage

action to address it.

The RBMP is a comprehensive document describing the implementation of water

management and identifying all actions to be taken in the RBD.

The first RBMPs started in 2009 and ended in 2015. The plans were expected to deliver the

objectives of the WFD including non-deterioration of water status and the achievement of

good status by 2015. The preparatory process for the plans has already been subject to two

Commission implementation reports

, in 2007 and 2009. The Commission adopted its

assessment of the first RMBPs in 2012, in the third implementation report while a fourth

report, in 2015, covered the implementation of the planned Programmes of Measures that

were due in 2012

Implementation of the WFD continues to be supported by an informal network of Member

States, EEA/EFTA countries and stakeholders under the banner of the Common

Implementation Strategy (CIS), led by Water Directors of Member States and the

Commission. The CIS has successfully delivered a large number of guidance documents and

is now increasingly turning to promoting better implementation through exchange of best

practice and discussion of policy developments.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/water/implrep2007/index_en.htm#first

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm#third

PPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE

IVER

ASIN

ANAGEMENT

LANS

The RBMPs are comprehensive documents that cover many aspects of water management,

consisting of hundreds to thousands of pages of information, published in national languages.

The assessment of the RBMPs has been a very challenging and complex task that has

involved dealing with extensive information in more than 20 languages. While the RMBPs

are used as a basis for the Commission’s assessment, and the

EEA State of Water report, they

are primarily key management instruments for Member States.

In the frame of the CIS of the WFD Member States agreed that besides submitting their

RBMPs to the Commission they would report pre-defined key information of their RBMPs

electronically through the WISE;

http://water.europa.eu).

WISE is a web-portal entry to

water related information ranging from inland waters to marine that helps streamlining

reporting under different water related EU legislation and allows the different European

bodies to more easily collect and share information as well as public access to water data and

information reported by Member States. WISE has been improved over the last years and

further investments are planned to create an even more user-friendly, shared environmental

system, with amongst others better visualisation capacities.

The quality of the Commission assessments relies on the quality of the Member States'

reports. Incomplete or deficient reporting can lead to wrong and/or incomplete assessments. It

is recognised that reporting is a big effort for Member States, in particular the electronic

reporting to WISE. There are examples of very good, high quality reporting. However, there

are also cases where reporting contains gaps or contradictions.

In the context of the preparation of its assessment, the Commission maintained regular

informal contact with the Member States to validate its findings and to ensure that the

assessment reflects reality.

According to the WFD, the deadline for reporting was March 2016. Figure 4.1 presents the

state of play regarding the adoption of the RBMPs

. 25 Member States have adopted and

reported the RBMPs for their national parts of the RBDs.

Lithuania, Ireland, Greece and Gibraltar (UK) as well as Norway

have adopted their RBMPs

but have not finished the reporting in WISE yet. In Spain, the seven plans for the Canary

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/WFD/WFD_521_2016/Guidance/WFD_ReportingGuidance.pdf

Updated overview at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/map_mc/map.htm

Norway is implementing the WFD under a specific timetable agreed pursuant to the Agreement on the

European Economic Area (EEA). The RBMPs prepared in 2015 represent the first planning cycle following

the formal entry into force of the Directive in Norway. The RBMPs were adopted by County Councils before

the end of 2015, and approved by the Central Government on 1 July 2016, and are being implemented for the

period 2016-2021.

Islands have been adopted just before the publication of this document

. The reporting for

Ireland was completed only some weeks before the adoption of this report.

Figure 4.1: State of adoption of the RBMPs. GREEN - RBMPs adopted. RED - Consultation

has not started or is on-going. YELLOW - Consultation closed, adoption pending.

Overall geographical scope of the RBMPs

There are 177 RBDs designated in the EU, of which 94 are international. The number of

RBMPs adopted is 174. The geographical scope of the RBMPs does not correspond exactly to

the number of RBDs, and a number of different models can be identified:

Most Member States have prepared one RBMP for each RBD exclusively within their

territory.

Most Member States who have part of an international RBD within their territory have

produced one RBMP for the national part of the international RBD. In some cases they

Spain notified the Commission that the RBMP for La Gomera was endorsed on 17 September 2018, Tenerife,

La Palma on 26 November 2018, Fuerteventura, Lanzarote, El Hierro on 26 December 2018, and Gran

Canaria on 21 January 2019.

have also reported international RBMPs produced for the whole international RBD.

Where such international RBMPs are available, this can be seen as being a successful

result of the implementation of the WFD.

One Member State has prepared one plan covering all of their territory (but which

includes sections on each of the relevant RBDs. In these cases, they have been counted

as having prepared one RBMP per RBD.

Some Member States have prepared several RBMPs for each RBD and for sub-basins.

For instance, in Romania all of the territory falls within the Danube RBD and is

covered by the Danube International RBMP (A-level), as well as by the national

Romanian Danube RBMP (B-level). In addition, and fully in accordance with the

Directive (Article 13.5 WFD), more detailed sub-RBMPs have been prepared for each

of the 11 sub-basins. For the purpose of this assessment, the Romanian Danube RBMP

has however been considered as one RBMP.

VERVIEW

CTIVITIES

NSURE

ETTER

MPLEMENTATION

The Commission's recent Communication on "EU law: Better results through better

implementation"

("the EU law Communication") foresees that the Commission employs a

wide variety of tools at its disposal to ensure better compliance with Union legislation. In the

frame of the WFD such tools range from informal compliance promotion activities and a

focus on working together with Member States on shared implementation challenges (notably

in the context of the CIS) to more formal legal action (pilots, infringements, court cases).

1.1. Legal action

The Commission has pursued targeted legal action to enforce the WFD since the transposition

deadline of 2003.

a) Brief history and priorities

Legal action initially focused on two main priorities

Enforcement of the deadlines:

whenever a reporting deadline lapsed, the necessary legal

steps were taken against those Member States which failed to respect those deadlines. For the

WFD itself this concerned the following deadlines:

2003: transposition

2004: RBD delineation, competent authorities and administrative arrangements

2007: adoption of the monitoring programmes

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017XC0119(01)&from=EN.

A more detailed picture of enforcement during the initial stages can be found in the Commission's 3rd

Implementation report, Staff Working Document (2012) 379 final, Chapter 6. See:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/3rd_report/CWD-2012-379_EN-Vol1.pdf.

2009: adoption of RBMPs (reporting deadline 22.3.2010)

2015: adoption of updated RBMPs (reporting deadline 22.3.2016)

The Commission has prioritised these actions as they represent key milestones for the

implementation of the Directive. For example, without the adoption of RBMPs, there is no

plan for the effective implementation of the Directive on the ground, as well as the inclusion

of a POMs to achieve environmental objectives. This has necessitated the Commission going

to Court in the past (see below section on Court Cases).

Correct transposition:

The Commission also pursued actions to address issues of

non-

conformity

of the national legislation transposing the provisions related to the RBMPs with a

view to ensuring that the national legal framework correctly reflects the different EU

requirements for the WFD. Correct transposition has been highlighted as one of the key

priorities for enforcement under the Commission's recent Communication referred to above.

Infringement proceedings for the most part have been closed with the Member States.This is

not surprising given the fairly advanced stage of the WFD implementation process (update of

RBMPs). However, a number of non-conformity cases concerning the WFD are pending.

The Commission, in view of the fact that correct transposition is considered a key priority for

enforcement, will continue to stay alert for such issues as they affect the achievement of the

objectives of the Directive. It is, therefore, important that Member States systematically

communicate to the Commission changes to their national laws in the field governed by this

Directive (Article 24(2) WFD).

Non-conformity cases are also taken up in relation to the related Directives adopted in

accordance with Article 16 (EQSs) and 17 (Groundwater) of the WFD.

b) Bad application cases

A rather extensive number of so called 'bad application' infringement cases have been opened

since 2003 in relation to the implementation of the WFD. Such cases have increased as time

has progressed in the implementation of the Directive.

Bad application refers to the Commission's assessment that an infringement of EU law is not

due to deficiencies in the legislative framework but due to non-respect by the authorities of

that framework.

In general terms, bad application cases can be classed into three main categories:

failure to meet reporting requirements

In the past, reporting requirement cases have concerned the failure to report administrative

arrangements (Article 3) or to submit the report on the characterisation of the RBDs (Article

5) as explained in the first implementation report. It concerns cases for failure to report

monitoring networks (Article 8) as explained in the second implementation report.. Details in

relation to these cases can be found in the 3rd implementation report of the Directive.

The Commission has continued to follow its strict line in relation to the timely adoption and

reporting of the updated RBMPs (reporting date: 22.3.2016). Numerous enquiries with

Member State authorities and, when necessary, infringements were initiated. This has resulted

in a far quicker uptake than in the previous cycle. Finally, the Commission will ensure timely

reporting of the progress of delivering POMs under Art 15(3) WFD (by 22.12.2018). This is

to ensure that Member States continue to deliver on their proposed measures to achieve

environmental objectives.

ii.

Targeted follow-up to the assessment of RBMPs

In relation to its first RBMP assessment, the Commission has strived to identify important

gaps in implementation and to highlight them to the Member State concerned, notably by

recommendations. Such recommendations pertain normally to important issues highlighted in

a given Member State (lack of measures to address important pressures such as diffuse

pollution, issues concerning exemptions, monitoring, HMWB issues, governance).

These can be followed up with the Member State through bilateral dialogue. If action is not

forthcoming then more formal legal action may be warranted. This can involve the opening of

an investigation against the Member State or, if necessary, recourse to an infringement

procedure.

On the basis of the first RBMP, 10 investigation procedures were initiated against different

Member States of which 5 remain open. In one case, the matter was taken forward to

infringement.

The second RBMP assessment will provide an opportunity to take stock of the steps taken by

the Member States concerned and indeed whether there are other important issues that have

arisen in the meantime and require follow-up.

iii.

Cases arising from complaints

There are also bad application cases arising pursuant to complaints. Citizens, non-

governmental organisations, parliamentary questions and petitions can be a reliable source of

information in relation to implementation challenges that can arise under complex

environmental legislation such as the WFD.

The approach taken to complaints follows the Commission's recent communication on "Better

Results through Better Application".

In general terms, the Commission aims to prioritise

A more detailed picture of enforcement during the initial stages can be found in the Commission's 3rd

Implementation report, Staff Working Document (2012) 379 final, Chapter 6. See:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/3rd_report/CWD-2012-379_EN-Vol1.pdfv

cases, taking due account of the Framework nature of the Directive and that in many instances

national authorities are best placed to address the bulk of individual cases which often involve

technical in nature. It is therefore necessary to focus on important issues that can make a

difference to overall practice within that Member State.

Key complaints concern inter alia existing or future projects which may impact on water

status (such as the construction of new hydropower facilities and works related to navigation

which allegedly fail to give proper attention to the impact on the ecological and chemical

status of the water) and existing or future activities which impact water (such as discharges of

salt resulting from mining activities into fresh water negatively affecting water quality or the

over-abstraction concerning water dependent protected areas which could have an impact on

groundwater quantitative status, interpretation of key concepts such as "water services").

These complaints are all assessed individually and, where needed, the Commission enquires

with the Member State authorities as a preliminary step towards formal enforcement action. In

this context, it should be highlighted that the overall objective is to ensure better compliance

with the Directive to maintain its levels of ambition which also reflects the high levels of

ambition for the environment set in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

Complaints sometimes invoke particular deficiencies in the RBMPs, such as that the measures

proposed are not sufficient or that certain exemptions under Article 4 of the WFD are

unlawfully invoked by the authorities. Where possible, complaints related to the RBMPs as

such are pursued under the on-going assessment of the RBMPs by the Commission. Further

information on infringements

The Commission publishes all

infringement decisions

undertaken. It also has produced

press

releases

about the infringements and

statistics

for infringements in the entire environment

policy domain.

1.2. Court rulings related to the WFD

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has issued several rulings on the basis of

the WFD. Initially, these cases dealt with provisions of the WFD which may be seen as

straightforward (such as non-communication of the transposing measures, late reporting, late

adoption of monitoring programmes and RBMPs). However, in recent years there have been

numerous preliminary rulings on key concepts of the WFD as well as its interaction with

horizontal environmental measures such as the Environmental Liability Directive and access

to justice. There have also been a few enforcement cases under the WFD.

Relevant case law by the ECJ:

Commission vs. Luxembourg (Case C 32/05, The Court ruled that Luxembourg had

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/communication-commission-eu-law-better-results-through-better-

application_en

ruling of 30.11.2006)

Non Communication Transposition

Commission vs. Germany (Ref. Case C

67/05, ruling of 15.12.2005)

–

Non

Communication Transposition

Commission vs. Italy (Case C85/07, ruling of

18.12.2007) and vs. Greece (Case C264/07,

ruling of 31.1.2008)

–

Bad application - Non-

reporting

Commission vs. Spain (Case C-516/07,

ruling of 7.5.2009)

–

Administrative

arrangements

Commission vs. Malta (Case C-351/09,

ruling of 22.12.2010)

–

Bad application -

Monitoring networks

Commission vs. Greece (Case C -297/11,

ruling 19.4.2012.), vs. Belgium (Case C-

366/11, ruling 24.5.2012), vs. Portugal (Case

C-223/11, ruling 21.6.2012), and vs. Spain

(case C-403/11, ruling 4.10.2012)

–

Non

reporting

Case C-41/10 on the Acheloos in Greece - On

failed to transpose, or to notify

transposition, of the Directive to the

Commission. Luxembourg argued that

their existing legal framework was

sufficient; the Court found that this was not

the case. Luxembourg has since complied

and the case is closed.

The Court ruled that Germany had failed to

transpose, or to notify such transposition of

the Directive to the Commission within the

deadline, since the law had not been

transposed into the legislation of all

Bundesländer. Germany has since complied

and the case is closed.

For failing to submit the reports required

under Article 5 of the Directive, on

Characterisation of the RBDs, review of the

environmental impacts of human activity

and economic analysis of water use. Italy

and Greece have since complied and the

cases are closed.

Spain had failed to notify all competent

authorities in accordance with Article 3. In

this case the Court also emphasised the

importance of designating the RBDs in

accordance

with

the

hydrological

boundaries rather than administrative

boundaries. Spain has since complied and

the case is closed.

For not having established a network for

monitoring of inland waters, and for failure

to submit a summary report to the

Commission. In this ruling, the court found

that even if the Maltese inland surface

water bodies are small, there is a need to

ensure monitoring.

On the failure to adopt and report RBMPs

for all of their respective RBDs.

the

interpretation

the

WFD

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-32/05.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-67/05

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=c-85/07

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=c-516/07&td=ALL

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-351/09

(C-297/11)

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-297/11&language=EN;

(C-366/11)

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-366/11&language=EN;

(C-223/11)

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-223/11&language=EN;

(C-403/11)

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-403/11

preliminary ruling was issued on 11.09.2012

Commission vs. Germany (C-525/12,

judgment of 11 September 2014)

–

bad

application

Case C-461/13 Bund für Umwelt und

Naturschutz

Deutschland

e.V.

Bundesrepublik Deutschland (the Weser

case)

Preliminary ruling of 1 July 2015.

Case C-529/15 Folk

The ruling concerned the interaction

Preliminary ruling of 15 July 2015

between the Environmental Liability

Directive and the WFD.

Commission vs. Poland (Case C-648/13, The judgment held that Poland had

judgment of 30 June 2016).

incorrectly transposed numerous provisions

of the WFD.

Case C-686/15

Vodoopskrba i odvodnja

The ruling concerned the recovery of the

d.o.o. v

�½eljka Klafurić.

costs of services connected with water use

Preliminary ruling of 7 December 2016

which included a variable component

related to actual consumption and fixed

component

independent

that

consumption.

Case C-664/15 Protect Natur-, Arten- und The ruling concerned the relationship

Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation v between the WFD and the access to justice

Bezirkshauptmannschaft

Gmünd. provisions under the Aarhus Convention.

Preliminary ruling of 20 December 2017.

2000/60/EC,

Council

Directive

85/337/EEC on the assessment of the

effects of certain public and private projects

on the environment, of Directive

2001/42/EC on the assessment of the

effects of certain plans and programmes on

the environment and of Council Directive

92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural

habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

The judgment held that Germany, in the

circumstances of the case and complaints

made, had not failed to fulfil its obligations

under Articles 2(38) and 9 of Directive

2000/60.

The ruling concerned the environmental

objectives relating to surface waters and the

concept of deterioration of the status of a

body of surface water.

1.3. Better national implementation: working with Member States and

stakeholders

Member States have primary responsibility for ensuring the correct implementation and

application of this Framework Directive. The Commission employs a number of tools to

facilitate in this regard.

a) The Common Implementation Strategy

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-43/10&language=EN

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-525/12.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-461/13&td=ALL.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-529/15

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-648/13

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-686/15.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-664/15.

In this context, it should be noted that the Commission working jointly with the Member

States and relevant stakeholders has developed a CIS

in order to facilitate a common

understanding and approach which is crucial to the successful and effective implementation of

the Directive.

This has played an important role with regard to best practice and thus better implementation

on the ground. Apart from being a good forum on diverse subjects of WFD and related

Directives' implementation, the CIS strategy has produced a substantial amount of best

practice guidance (approximately 50) which should improve application by Member State

authorities.

This assists with a strategy which is focused on prevention, rather than cure.

A recent noteworthy example was the substantial guidance produced in relation to Article 4(7)

which should assist with ensuring better practice in relation to the permitting of projects, thus

leading to improved compliance on the ground by national authorities.

The CIS also acts a forum for informed debate on various issues arising under the WFD

umbrella and carries out a dedicated work-programme every few years. Further details

concerning its work programme, key events and related documentation can be found

online.

b) Integration

–

sectoral efforts

Effective implementation of water legislation cannot possibly be undertaken without the

effective cooperation of key sectors which have major impacts on water bodies throughout the

Union. This need to integrate water considerations into sectoral policy areas at all levels

(including Commission, Member State authorities and relevant stakeholders) is a major

challenge. Examples of sectors which do impact on water include agriculture, energy

(hydropower), navigation and chemicals/pollution. The Commission also factors in water

considerations into cohesion policy funding. For the 2014-2020 funding period, ex-ante

conditionality was introduced to ensure a proper transposition and implementation of EU

water legislation for investments in the water sector. This has proved to be a very useful tool

in closing the relevant implementation gaps identified in the first River Basin Management

Plans. It has been a driver for many Member States to implement improvements in areas such

as pricing policies and to adopt the second generation of River Basin Management Plans.

c) Promoting networks

The Commission has also facilitated the development of networks composed of key

stakeholders in order to increase public awareness of water issues and thus lead to better

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/e0352ec3-9f3b-4d91-bdbb-

939185be3e89/CIS_Guidance_Article_4_7_FINAL.PDF

SWD (2017)127

implementation on the ground. Two such examples are the European Innovation Partnership

(EIP)

and the Urban Water Agenda

d) Implementation of horizontal legislation

EU environmental law also has developed numerous horizontal policies to improve uptake of

environmental matters within Member States.



Environmental Liability

- the Environmental Liability Directive establishes a

framework based on the polluter pays principle to prevent and remedy environmental

damage.

Access to Justice

- notably the Aarhus Regulation which concerns the uptake of

the Aarhus Convention in the Union and Member States. The Aarhus Regulation

addresses the "three pillars" of the Aarhus Convention - access to information, public

participation and access to justice in environmental matters - where those are of

relevance to EU institutions and bodies and lays down related requirements. Such

rules complement the existing public participation and consultation rules under the

WFD. The Commission has also developed a recent Notice on Access to Justice in

Environmental Matters

The implementation of such policies also benefits the implementation of the WFD. This has

also been reflected in recent case law involving these respective policy areas in the context of

the WFD. Reference is made to the preliminary rulings in the cases of

Folk

(Environmental

Liability) and

Protect Natur

(access to justice) - see above section on relevant ECJ case-law.

e) Environmental Implementation Review (EIR)

The Commission has developed the Environmental Implementation Review (EIR) which can

serve as a useful poltical forum to support the delivery of the objectives of existing EU

environmental policies and legislation.

In the water area, the CIS and the EIR complement

each other.

f) Compliance assurance

The Commission has recently placed greater emphasis upon the notion of compliance

assurance.

In essence this covers three notions:



http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/innovationpartnership/

https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/urban-agenda-eu/urban-water-agenda-2030

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/index.htm.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/legislation.htm

The WFD is explicitly cited in Annex II

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2017:275:FULL&from=EN

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/compliance_en.htm.



Promote means helping businesses and others to comply;

Monitor means using inspections and other checks to collect information about levels

of compliance and provide solid evidence for enforcement;

Enforce means stopping those who disregard the rules, sanctioning them and

obliging them to rectify the damage.



The foregoing notions can well complement the CIS to achieve better implementation by

Member State authorities themselves within the field of the WFD. For example, in the

Commission Action Plan on environmental compliance and governance

, targeted action is

foreseen to produce guidance on how to better ensure compliance in rural areas. This includes

guidance for farmers and Member State authorities can ensure better practice in relation to EU

water law in rural areas. This is of importance given the impact of agriculture as a pressure on

water bodies within the EU.

1.4. Legal implementation of related Directives adopted in accordance with

Article 16 (EQSs) and 17 (Groundwater) of the WFD

Two closely related Directives have been adopted since 2000, one further specifying the legal

requirements in relation to groundwater status (Directive 2006/118/EC, also known as the

Groundwater Directive) the second regarding the chemical status of surface waters (Directive

2008/105/EC, also known as the EQSs or Priority Substances Directive).

The Commission has continued with the process of conformity checks for both Directives. On

the Groundwater Directive the first steps were taken (requests for clarification sent through

investigations); there are two open infringement cases and one pilot on non-conformity.

Both Directives have been amended (Commission Directive 2014/80 amending Annex II of

the Groundwater Directive 2006/118 and Directive 2013/39/EU which amends the EQS

Directive 2008/105). Therefore, the Commission is in the process of checking the conformity

of this amending legislation. There are presently a number of non-communication cases

concerning Commission Directive 2014/80.

As implementation of these Directives goes hand in hand with that of the WFD, the variety of

tools listed for that Directive is equally applied here. To note, that there are dedicated

working groups under the CIS for both Chemicals and Groundwater.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/pdf/COM_2018_10_F1_COMMUNICATION_FROM_COMMISSION_

TO_INST_EN_V8_P1_959219.pdf

ESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT AT

LEVEL AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter includes the results of the assessment of the second RBMPs adopted and

reported by Member States.

1.5. Governance

1.5.1. Introduction

The WFD creates a framework for the integrated management of all aspects of water policy.

A robust framework and appropriate and effective multi-level governance structures are

essential pre-requisites for successful integrated river basin management. Some of the key

aspects of water governance in the context of the implementation of the WFD are to ensure an

adequate territorial approach, the clear identification of responsibilities, coordination and

cooperation across sectors, interests and borders as well as ensuring adequate human and

financial resource are allocated.

Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public

participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to deliver

sustainable water management.

Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 2nd cycle

Administrative arrangements

–

river basin districts

The criteria for successful water governance structures are inter alia clear and effective

alignment of objectives and adequate territorial approaches which take the whole catchment

as the basis for the integrated water management. The Directive defines the RBD as the main

unit for management of river basins, for which competent authorities that apply the rules of

the Directive need to be identified. There is a requirement to co-ordinate the actions

(nationally and internationally) to achieve the environmental objectives established by the

Directive through the planned Programmes of Measures.

The designation of RBDs is thus one of the core aspects of the integrated river basin

management approach setting out the geographical extent for the co-ordination of water

resources. In most cases, the RBDs have been established respecting the hydrological

boundaries of the river basins.

Administrative arrangements

–

competent authorities

The clear identification of responsibilities and roles of authorities is a pre-requisite for

successful water management. The WFD therefore requires the designation of competent

authorities for its implementation within each river basin district.

Member States have designated a range of competent authorities for the implementation of the

WFD

. Figure 1 below provides an overview of the authorities that were identified. About

one-fourth of Member States have a single authority responsible for all WFD roles. In some

cases, only a single type of authority is responsible, for example the Federal States in

Germany, but, for most Member States a range of authorities are responsible for different

tasks.

Figure 1

RBMPs

Competent authorities for the development and implementation of the

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016

Notes: * Ministry of Environment or Ministry responsible for environmental protection. **

Regions include other sub-national administrative levels (e.g. provinces)

In some Member States, specific RBD Authorities have been established for the purpose of

the WFD: Bulgaria and Italy are examples. A few Member States have a national body

responsible for water management: in Romania, for example, the National Administration for

Please note that in their RBMP reporting, Member States indicated the names of their competent authorities:

the categories and the categorisation were created for the purpose of the assessment for this report. It should

also be noted that the Member States have indicated authorities responsible for key aspects of the

development and implementation of their RBMPs: these may include authorities additional to those reported

under Article 3 of the WFD.

Romanian Waters is responsible for almost all WFD roles. Other Member States have adapted

existing water administrations to ensure better implementation of the WFD.

Environment agencies and other national bodies are competent authorities in about half of the

Member States. In some cases, these bodies play a leading role: in Portugal, for example, the

Environment Agency holds all the main roles related to RBMP and WFD implementation in

the mainland RBDs. In other cases, national bodies have specific roles, as is the case in

Poland, where the Chief Inspector of Environmental Protection (head of the national

Environmental Inspectorate) has roles for monitoring and assessment of water status,

enforcement of regulations and implementation of measures.

Regional authorities play a role in about half of Member States. This category includes the

Federal States in Germany and the provinces in the Netherlands. In France, department-level

authorities are responsible for two RBDs, Corsica and Mayotte.

In a few Member States, municipalities also play a role: in both Bulgaria and Sweden, for

example, these are among the bodies responsible for the implementation of measures.

As noted, the great majority of Member States have more than one competent authority. This

division between different authorities necessitates that co-ordination is clear and adequate to

ensure integrated water management. The WFD indeed requires coordination: Member States

should ensure that all requirements of the Directive are co-ordinated in order to achieve the

environmental objectives at the level of the RBD.

Several Member States strengthened coordination in the second cycle. In Germany, for

example, LAWA

–

the Working group on water issues, which brings together the Federal

States and the Federal Government, represented by the Ministry of Environment

–

prepared

updated guidance in several areas such as surface water monitoring as well as a catalogue of

measures for the WFD, Floods Directive and MSFD. In Italy, there was a stronger

coordination among regions within RBDs, supported by national legislation, including further

national methodologies to ensure common approaches across the RBDs.

RBMPs

–

structure (subplans)

RBMPs are the main tool for water management of all water bodies within RBDs. Clear plans

are important in order to ensure overview and accountability, including policy integration

with relevant areas affecting water resources and water management such as energy

production, agriculture, transport and industry.

Most Member States have prepared RBMPs for each RBD within their territory and in some

cases there are several river basins in each RBD. The WFD leaves the decision on the use of

sub-plans to Member States. Sub-plans may offer Member States the opportunity to provide

more details on the issues and actions impacting at different levels within the RBD. In the

second cycle, more than one-third of Member States had sub-plans for their RBMPs.

Coordination is needed to ensure that the implementation of RBMPs and sub-plans is

coherent.

The WFD includes key requirements on how the RBMPs shall be the framework for

integrating different policies and sectors. The consideration of all types of significant

anthropogenic pressures is at the core of the WFD with one of the main building blocks being

'the review of impacts of human activity on the status of water' (Article 5). All potential

policy sectors shall therefore be addressed by the RBMPs, including those not part of

traditional water management, for instance the agriculture sector, energy production and the

transport sector.

All discharges into surface waters shall be controlled in accordance with the 'combined

approach' in the WFD. This reinforces policy integration which goes beyond the

implementation of point source control measures such as the IPPC/Industrial Emissions

Directive, Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, or policies related to diffuse pollution like

the Nitrates Directive. The combined approach is often necessary in order to reach good status

and more stringent measures therefore have to be put in place for sources controlled by those

Directives and any other relevant legislation.

The assessment has shown improved co-ordination and policy coherence in Member States

due to the implementation of the WFD.

Member States can learn from each other’s

experience as well as further enhance the inclusion of other sectors in the water management.

Strategic Environmental Assessment

The Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment

integrates environmental

considerations into plans and programmes, with the goal of promoting sustainable

development. The Directive identifies, among the types of plans and programmes to be

assessed, those related to water management (Article 3).

The assessment shows that the great majority of Member States carried out a Strategic

Environmental Assessment (SEA) procedure for the RBMPs in all their RBDs. In a few

Member States, the SEA screening step did not identify a need for a full update to the SEA

carried out in the first cycle.

Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the

effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment,

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32001L0042

Public consultation and the active involvement of stakeholders

A key mechanism for sectoral and territorial integration is stakeholder involvement in the

development of RBMPs. Member States have to ensure consultation and access to

background information used for the development of RBMPs and to encourage active

involvement of all interested parties. Drafts of the RBMPs, as well as of other key documents,

such as the timetable, work programme and overview of significant water management issues

shall be published and made available for public consultation for at least six months.

Providing information on the consultation and provision of documents

RBMPs can communicate to interested parties, including the public, how water management

will be carried out. Interested parties shall be provided access to sufficient information to

enable them to express their views in a meaningful way. This is not the case if only

incomplete drafts of RBMPs are made available or background documents which are a part of

the plan are not made available.

The requirement to conduct a consultation on draft RBMPs lasting six months was respected

in almost all Member States. Moreover, the Member States have undertaken considerable

efforts in consulting stakeholders and the public and they have used a variety of different

outreach methods (see

Figure 2

below). On average, Member States used five of the ten information methods listed

in the WFD Reporting Guidance. All listed more than one method, and one-fourth of the

Member States used either eight or nine methods in at least some of their RBDs.

Figure 2

Methods used by Member States to inform the public and stakeholders of the

RBMP consultation

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016

The most common outreach methods were the Internet and direct invitations to stakeholders:

both were used in almost all Member States. Some Member States have set up dedicated web

portals on water issues that provided information on the consultation: Austria, notablyhas

developed three

–

one to provide technical information for the interested public (WISA),

another to provide general information to support public involvement in the WFD

(Wasseraktiv), and the third to engage with young people (Generation Blue). Via a LIFE+

project called WATLIFE, Slovakia developed a web site called

voda je život

(water is life),

providing information to the public on water issues. A small group of Member States used

social networking among the information methods in at least some of their RBDs.

With regard to the provision of documents, about two-thirds of the Member States made

drafts for consultation available for download in all their RBDs (see Figure 3). In terms of

other methods to provide the draft RBMPs, many Member States made paper copies available

in municipal buildings, exhibitions, direct mailing via email and some by post.

Some Member States also provided relevant supporting documents during the consultation. In

the Netherlands, for example, related plans (for example at provincial level) were provided as

well as fact sheets on the conditions of each water body.

Figure 3

Methods used by Member States to provide draft RBMP documents for

consultation

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016

Active involvement of stakeholders

The WFD

states that ‘Member States shall encourage the active involvement of all interested

parties in the implementation of this Directive’

which goes beyond consultation and implies

that stakeholders are invited to contribute actively to the process and thus play a role in

advising the competent authorities

. Active involvement can be fulfilled in various ways, for

example through advisory councils or ad-hoc meetings.

Stakeholder groups were actively involved in the preparation of the RBMPs in all Member

States assessed. On average, more than seven types of stakeholder groups listed in the WFD

Reporting Guidance were actively involved (including the category of other) in all or some of

their RBDs.

Water supply and sanitation, agriculture, local and regional authorities, non-governmental

organisations and nature protection groups were actively involved in all or some of the RBDs

(see Figure 4)

in most of the Member States. A few Member States indicated ‘other’

stakeholders, including: universities and research centres; associations of municipalities;

landowners and forest owners; health authorities; and small and medium-sized enterprises.

Water Framework Directive Article 14

European Commission, Public Participation in Relation to the Water Framework Directive, Guidance

Document No 8 (of the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive), 2003.

Available at:

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0fc804ff-5fe6-4874-8e0d-de3e47637a63/Guidance%20No%208%20-

%20Public%20participation%20%28WG%202.9%29.pdf

Figure 4

Types of stakeholder groups actively involved the preparation of RBMPs

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016

Concerning the mechanisms for active involvement, the majority of Member States

established advisory groups and involved stakeholders in the drafting (see Figure 5

Over one-third

of Member States identified ‘other’ mechanisms. These include, for example:

web-based tools, as well as social media, meetings or conferences and River Basin

Committees.

Figure 5

RBMPs

Mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders in the preparation of

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016

Several Member States strengthened the active involvement of stakeholders for the second

cycle of RBMPs, for example by ensuring the participation of stakeholders in advisory

groups.

Impact of the consultation

The purpose of stakeholder involvement is to ensure that the best and most cost-effective

measures are identified and selected, and that acceptance of the measures are built in to the

process. It should therefore be highlighted that in all 25 Member States assessed, the

consultation of the draft RBMPs has had an impact on the final RBMPs (see Figure 6

below).

In almost all Member States consultation led to the addition of new information in the

RBMPs for all or some of their RBDs and to the adjustment of measures, while changes to the

selection of measures were made in the majority of Member States. In a high share of

Member States, commitments to further work were made as a result of consultation (which

possibly would not be reflected in changes to the second RBMPs), both in terms of action in

the next cycle and in terms of further research. Finally, about one-third of Member States

made changes to the methodology as a result of consultation and a few made other types of

changes, for instance addition of new river water bodies, greater coordination of policies and

finance, integration of RBMPs into territorial contracts, and improved linkages with FRMP.

Figure 6

Impacts of the consultation on the final RBMPs

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016

Overall, extensive consultation has been one of the major achievements of the WFD and has

in general increased public awareness and provided valuable information for the further

process. The Commission has however received information which indicates that some

stakeholders still do not have the opportunity to contribute actively to the process and thus

play a role in advising the competent authorities in a sufficiently inclusive way.

Integration with the Floods Directive and the MSFD

The framework established by the WFD in order to protect inland surface waters, transitional

waters, coastal waters and groundwater contributes inter alia to the protection of territorial

and marine waters (WFD Article 1) and Member States shall take the necessary measures

including preventing and reducing pollution to the marine environment, in accordance with

the MSFD (MSFD). The first step is for Member States to ensure that the necessary actions

are taken to coordinate RBMPs with the MSFD objectives. About half of the Member States

have started to do so by undertaking joint consultation of the RBMPs with the MSFD in all or

some of their RBDs (see Figure 7

). However, there is still a lack of coordination,

especially regarding coordination of the objectives

Member States shall also take appropriate steps to coordinate actions under the Floods

Directive and the WFD, focusing on opportunities for improving efficiency, information

exchange and for achieving common synergies and benefits, including coordination of active

involvement of interested parties, as appropriate.

The great majority of Member States has carried out a joint consultation of their RBMPs and

the FRMPs, and a few Member States have also integrated the two plans into a joint plan.

Figure 7

Integration of the RBMPs with FRMPs and with the MSFD

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016

The adoption of the new GES Decision (2017/848/EU) brings closer the marine and freshwater policy

frameworks together with the identification of the same elements to be assessed and used the same

methodological standards (equivalent threshold values).

International coordination and co-operation

One of the main elements introduced by the WFD was the legal requirement for

transboundary co-operation. Indeed, 60% of EU territory is covered by international river

basins, and all Member States except Cyprus and Malta share international river basins.

A river basin covering the territory of more than one Member State shall in accordance with

the WFD be designated as an international river basin district (IRBD), and Member States

concerned shall together ensure coordination with a view of producing a single RBMP.

In some international river basins there was extensive co-operation even before the WFD,

such as the Rhine where there was important progress on pollution reduction. Most existing

international river conventions were amended to fulfil the role of co-ordination of the

implementation of the WFD.

International cooperation is taking place in the frame of international agreements, permanent

co‐ operation bodies and international RBMPs and PoMs. In six international RBDs that

cover multiple Member States, all these elements are seen (designated as category 1

cooperation

–

see chapter 7 on international cooperation for further information). In total, half

of the Member States participate in at least one international river basin with category 1

coordination. The Danube iRBD, for example, brings together nine Member States as well as

five third countries (Figure 8 below provides an overview of Member States and international

RBDs by level of coordination).

In other international RBDs, cooperation includes international agreements combined with

permanent co‐ operation mechanisms, though not the preparation of common RBMPs and

Programmes of Measures; close to half of the Member States share river basins at this level of

coordination (designated as category 2). An example are the RBDs shared between Portugal

and Spain, where cooperation takes place under the Albufeira Agreement, which created a

conference of the Parties and a commission, under which a series of working groups are

organised.

A few Member States have international agreements on water management without

permanent co-operation mechanisms (category 3). In some of these cases, co-operation has

been quite active: for example Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have exchanged information on

monitoring and on measures (moreover, after the preparation of their national RBMPs,

Estonia and Latvia produced international “roof reports” summarising common challenges

and actions in a shared RBD).

Figure 8

Member State participation in international RBDs, by level of coordination

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016

Note: Some Member States participate in several iRBDs at different levels of coordination.

The figure only shows data for the Member States assessed.

Overall, international cooperation has significantly improved with the introduction of the

WFD, and the co-ordination between Member States has continued to improve in the second

RBMPs. There is still a need though for further strengthening international cooperation both

within the EU and with neighbouring countries. Strengthening can for example be done

through increased active exchange, coordination of monitoring, harmonisation of river basin

specific pollutants and coordination on all aspects of WFD implementation for RBDs in

general

–

especially within category 3 and 4 cooperation (more information provided in

chapter 7).

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

This assessment has in general shown progress in the Member States’ implementation of the

governance requirements of the WFD since the first RBMPs. The assessment though carried

out has focused on a few key reported indicators and the approach is not directly comparable

to the assessment of the first RBMPs.

The assessment has shown improved co-ordination and policy coherence within many

Member States due to the implementation of the WFD, as seen in the example of Italy, where

coordination within RBDs was strengthened.

The assessment has also shown that most Member States undertook a range of actions to

engage the public and stakeholders in the consultation process, in many cases going further

than in the first cycle. In the second cycle, the most common methods reported were Internet

and direct contacts with stakeholders, while a few Member States used web sites and social

media to reach the public. In almost all Member States, a broad range of stakeholder groups

were actively involved, in particular non-governmental organisation/nature protection groups,

agriculture and local and regional authorities, followed by industry and water supply and

sanitation. The consultation process has had an impact on water management in all Member

States, for example via the addition of new information in the RBMPs and the selection of

measures.

The implementation of the WFD has strengthened cooperation among Member States and

with third countries on water management in shared river basins, and this process continued in

the second cycle. Examples include strengthened coordination between Bulgaria and Greece

and also among Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

1.5.2. Conclusions

In many Member States, several authorities are responsible for implementing different aspects

of the WFD. This underlines the importance of coordination between government bodies and

across administrative levels. Member States are becoming more aware of the necessity of

clarity regarding both cooperation and responsibilities; while many have made progress, there

is a need to enhance coordination in order to reach the objectives of the Directive.

Member States have undertaken considerable efforts in consulting stakeholders and the public

and have used a variety of different outreach methods. Moreover, Member States used a range

of mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders in the development of the RBMPs:

in the great majority, advisory groups were established

The extensive consultation undertaken has been one of the major achievements of the WFD

and has in general increased public awareness and provided valuable information for the

further process. In all 25 Member States assessed, consultation on the draft RBMPs had an

impact, such as the addition of new information and the adjustment of measures.

International cooperation has significantly improved with the introduction of the WFD, and

co-ordination between Member States has continued to strengthen in the second cycle of

RBMP. Specific recommendations for international cooperation under the WFD are provided

in chapter 7.

Although the assessments conducted on the first and second RBMPs are not directly

comparable due to different approaches used for the assessment, the general conclusion is that

the patterns of governance appear to be largely similar with adjustments in responsible

authorities, enhanced involvement from stakeholders, improved transparency, improved

coordination and improved international coordination.

1.5.3. Recommendations



Member States should continue to focus on improving stakeholder involvement in

order to provide them with the opportunity to contribute actively to the process.

Clarity regarding responsibilities between government bodies and across

administrative levels as well as enhanced coordination should be ensured in order to

reach the objectives of the WFD.

Institutional arrangements for international cooperation should be further

strengthened regarding relevant aspects of the WFD in the iRBDs, in particular in

those iRBDs where international coordination bodies are not in place.



International cooperation should be further strengthened in iRBDs shared with

countries which are not members of the EU, including candidate and potential

candidate countries [in support of the alignment to the EU environmental

requirements in their process to join the EU].

[more

specific recommendations for international cooperation under the WFD are

provided in chapter 7].



1.6. Characterisation of the River Basin District

1.6.1.

Introduction

Article 5 of the WFD requires Member States to undertake an analysis of the characteristics of

each RBD or portion of an international RBD falling within their territory. The first

characterisation of suface water and groundwater bodies was reported in March 2005. This

included a general description of the characteristics of their RBDs (Annex VII, A.1). Under

Article 5(2) the characterisation is required to be reviewed, and updated if necessary by 2013

and every 6 years after that. Therefore meaning the characterisation should have been

reviewed by each Member State between the first and the second RBMPs.

Characterisation should identify all relevant categories and types of water bodies within the

RBD. For surface waters, specific typologies and reference conditions have to be established.

This step is an essential foundation for a robust classification systems and ecological status

assessment.

Characterisation also involves correctly identifying water bodies at risk of failing objectives.

The results of the risk assessment inform the monitoring of water bodies and the subsequent

classification of status. These water bodies are then the subsequent focus for implementation

of necessary measures for the achievement of objectives. It is crucial that risk assessment

methodologies are fit for purpose, as objectives may be missed or measures not correctly

targeted.

For operational purposes, the

WFD defines a water body as a ‘discrete and significant’

element of water, which is the scale at which status is assessed. The size thresholds given in

Annex II for System A typology (catchments larger than 10 km

and lakes larger than 50 Ha)

have been used as a possibility for differentiating water bodies. However this approach should

not exclude smaller water bodies from the protection of the Directive. Member States have

flexibility to decide not to designate very small water bodies and can aggregate these small

water bodies into groups or include them as part of a larger contiguous water body of the

same surface water category and of the same type. The optimum size of a water body is the

size that allows the objectivies of the Directive to be most efficiently achieved.

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs

Delineation of surface water bodies

The following table presents an overview of the water categories available in each Member

State. Throughout the EU, more than 111 000 surface water bodies have been defined in the

second RBMPs (compared to around 127 000 in the first RBMPs and 70 000 reported for the

initial characterisation completed in 2004). Approximately 80% are rivers, 16% lakes, and the

remaining 4% coastal and transitional waters which is similar to results from the first RBMPs.

The average size of water bodies in Member States is variable with average river water body

lengths varying from 2.4 km in Denmark to close to the EU average (13 km) in Portugal,

Croatia, and the UK, and up to an average of 54 km in Bulgaria. Sweden and Finland have the

highest number of lake water bodies, 7 422 and 4 617, respectively. The EU average area of

water bodies increases (as might be expected) from 4.5 km2 for lakes, to 19 km2 for

transitional waters and to 102 km2 for coastal waters. This is similar to the first RBMPs with

the exception of coastal waters for which the previous EU average area was 644 km2. The

largest average coastal water body size in the second RBMPs was reported by Estonia equal

to 907 km2 (in the first RBMPs, the largest average coastal water body size was reported by

Spain with 8 700 km2).

Table 1: Number of water bodies under each water category in the Member States

Member State

River

water

bodies

8065

527

873

174

1044

8998

7776

645

4390

1913

10706

1484

Lakes water bodies

Transitional water bodies

Coastal

water

bodies

Not

relevant

Not

relevant

119

220

276

179

Territorial

water bodies

Groundwater

bodies

138

169

174

1177

402

729

3733

645

Austria (AT)

Belgium (BE)

Bulgaria (BG)

Cyprus (CY)

Czech Rep (CZ)

Germany (DE)

Denmark (DK)

Estonia (EE)

Spain (ES)

Finland (FI)

France (FR)

Croatia (HR)

730

856

326

4617

435

Not relevant

None

Not relevant

None

186

None

Hungary (HU)

Italy (IT)

Luxembourg (LU)

Latvia (LV)

Malta (MT)

The Netherlands (NL)

Poland (PL)

Portugal (PT)

Romania (RO)

Sweden (SE)

Slovenia (SI)

Slovakia (SK)

United Kingdom (UK)

963

7493

110

203

246

4586

1899

2891

15092

137

1510

7506

115

347

None

259

451

1044

130

7422

None

1068

Not relevant

172

Not relevant

None

Not relevant

190

Not

relevant

561

Not

relevant

653

Not

relevant

561

185

1052

22 (16)

178 (172)

151

143

3311

102

788

Source: WISE reporting 2016. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Member States and differ from those reported in WISE.

There are five landlocked Member States (Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg and

Slovakia) for which transitional and coastal waters are not relevant. Six other Member States

(Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Sweden and Slovenia) with a coastline have not

designated any transitional waters though coastal water bodies have been identified. Some

justifications for this were provided in the RBMPs. Sweden had defined transitional water

bodies in the first RBMPs, but these were redefined as coastal water bodies because it was not

possible to distinguish them from the nearby coastal waters. Malta had not included any rivers,

lakes or transitional water bodies in its first RBMP but has done so for the second RBMP.

Some Member States have re-delineated surface water bodies for the second RBMPs. Overall,

about 90% of surface water bodies are unchanged from the first to the second RBMPs. About

10% were reported to be deleted, markedly modified (split or aggregated) or newly created

At a Member State level, the vast majority of surface water bodies in Denmark and Croatia

were deleted and created from the first to the second RBMPs. There was also a significant

amount of splitting of surface water bodies in Bulgaria, Cyprus and Luxemburg. Very little

explanation of the consequences of these changes for the comparability of status between

cycles was found in the RBMPs. Poland was the only Member State to report no changes to

surface water bodies.

Generally Member States have included information on size thresholds that they have used to

delineate river and lake water bodies. The following table presents the minimum size criteria

used by Member States to delineate river and lake water bodies. A large majority have used the

size thresholds in typology System A of WFD Annex II (catchments larger than 10 km2 and

lakes larger than 50 Ha). Some Member States have explicitly included smaller water bodies if

they are protected under other legislation or if they are ecologically important in the basin. In

Finland and Latvia, the minimum catchment size for rivers was 100km2 which was

significantly higher than the other Member States. However, both countries reported that

smaller rivers have also been considered if they were particularly relevant for water

management or if delineation was needed to achieve specific environmental quality objectives

in protected areas.

EEA (2018). European Waters

–

Assessment of status and pressures 2018,EEA Report No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-

8449.

Further information available for the different Member States at:

https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_Evolution_Compare/SWB_Evolutio

n_Country?:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:showShareOptions=true&:display_count=no&:showVizHom

e=no

Table 2: Minimum size criteria used by Member States to delineate river and lake water

bodies

Member

State

Austria

(AT)

Belgium

(BE)

Bulgaria

(BG)

Cyprus

(CY)

Czech Rep

(CZ)

Germany

(DE)

Denmark

(DK)

Estonia (EE)

Spain (ES)

Rivers

Catchment > 10 km2

Lakes

Area > 50 Ha

Catchment > 10 km2 (Meuse and Scheldt) Area > 50 Ha (Meuse and

BEMEUSE_RW is <10 km2

Scheldt) BEMEUSE_RW is

<50 Ha

Catchment > 10 km2

Area > 50 Ha

Catchment > 10 km2

No information

Area > 50 Ha

Area < 5 Ha

Finland (FI)

France (FR)

Croatia

(HR)

Hungary

(HU)

Italy (IT)

Luxembourg

(LU)

Latvia (LV)

Malta (MT)

The

Netherlands

(NL)

Poland (PL)

Portugal

(PT)

Romania

(RO)

Sweden

(SE)

Slovenia

(SI)

Slovakia

(SK)

United

Catchment > 10 km2

Area > 50 Ha

Catchment > 10 km2 (Balearic Islands are Area > 5 Ha (Western

> 5 km2)

Cantabrian, Guadiana, Segura

all > 50 Ha)

Catchment > 100 km2

Area > 50 Ha

Catchment > 10 km2

Area > 50 Ha

Catchment > 10 km2

Area > 50 Ha

Catchment > 10 km2

No information

Catchment > 100 km2

No information

Catchment > 10 km2

Area > 50 Ha

No information

Area > 50 Ha

Catchment > 10 km2

No information

Catchment > 10 km2

Area > 50 Ha

Area >5 Ha

Area > 50 Ha

Area > 100 Ha

Area > 50 Ha

No information

Area > 50 Ha

Kingdom

(UK)

Source: WISE reporting 2016; Note: The reported minimum size criteria were reported at the

RBD level and have been summarised at Member State level in this table.

Typology for surface water bodies

As part of the characterisation, Member States have defined surface water body types

(typology) for each surface water category (i.e. rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal

waters) in each RBD, and have delineated surface and groundwater bodies in accordance with

the methodology specified in Annex II of the WFD. This also includes the identification of

HMWBs and AWBs, which is addressed in chapter 6.7. For each surface water body type,

type-specific reference conditions should have been established representing the values for that

surface water body type at high ecological status.

The division of a surface water category into types is based on abiotic descriptors such as

altitude, geology, size, etc. using System A or B (Annex II of WFD). The ecological relevance

of the different theoretical types has to be demonstrated by cross-checking against biological

data such as benthic invertebrates groups and/or species composition. Not all water categories

occur in every RBD. Many Member States have still not validated their water body typology

against biological data, or it is unclear if biological validation has taken place based on the

information in the RBMPs.

The following table presents an overview of the number of types reported per water category

and Member State. All water categories have types that have been developed in each Member

State. The typologies between the first and the second RBMPs remained largely the same,

however some individual Member States did have significant changes and these can be

examined in the respective Member State reports.

Table 3: Overview of the number of types reported per water category and Member State

Member State

River water bodies Lakes

water

bodies

20 (15)

10 (6)

12 (11)

Transitional water bodies Coastal

water

bodies

Not relevant

Not

relevant

None

Not relevant

Not

relevant

None

Austria (AT)

Belgium (BE)

Bulgaria (BG)

Cyprus (CY)

Czech Rep (CZ)

Germany (DE)

Denmark (DK)

Estonia (EE)

Member State

Transitional water bodies Coastal

water

bodies

Spain (ES)

Finland (FI)

None

France (FR)

Croatia (HR)

Hungary (HU)

Not relevant

Not

relevant

Italy (IT)

364

Luxembourg (LU)

Not relevant

Not

relevant

Latvia (LV)

Malta (MT)

The Netherlands (NL) 12

Poland (PL)

Portugal (PT)

Romania (RO)

56 (19)

14 (9)

4 (2)

Sweden (SE)

None

Slovenia (SI)

None

Slovakia (SK)

Not

Not relevant

Not

relevant

United Kingdom (UK) 57

Source: WISE reporting 2016. Note: Not relevant means there are no water bodies in this

category. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Member States and differ from

those reported in WISE.

Member States were asked to report if there is no corresponding EU intercalibration common

type for their national types. At EU level, the majority of national types for natural surface

water bodies have been intercalibrated.. However, there were often several national types that

had not been intercalibrated.

Reference conditions

Member States are required to identify the ecological status of water bodies by comparing

current status with near natural or reference conditions. The establishment of reference

conditions is a basic pre-requisite so as to allow a relative comparison of the ecological status at

one certain moment. Reference conditions have to be established for each of the surface water

types. They represent the values for that surface water body type at high ecological status.

According to WFD Annex II reference conditions can be established using different methods

(without specific ranking):



River water bodies Lakes

water

bodies

145

15 (6)

Spatially based reference conditions using data from monitoring sites if sufficiently

undisturbed or minimally disturbed sites are available.

When adequate numbers of representative reference sites are not available in a

region/type, predictive modelling, using the data available within a region/type or



borrowing data from other similar regions/types, can be used in model construction

and calibration.



A combination of the above approaches.

Where it is not possible to use these methods, reference conditions can be established

using expert judgement.

Establishing reference conditions for many quality elements may involve using more than one

of the methods described.

The establishment of reference conditions and the establishment of ecological class boundaries

(i.e. boundary between high and good) are closely interconnected. Considerations assumed and

methodologies for the establishment of reference conditions are crucial for the judgement of the

risk that individual water bodies will fail to reach the overall objective of good water status.

The figure below shows by water category for all Member states whether type-specific

reference conditions have been developed for all, some and none of the biological,

physicochemical and hydro-morphological quality elements for all surface water body type.

The proportion of Member States who established reference conditions for all types and for all

quality elements (i.e. biological, hydro-morphological or physicochemical) is, for the different

water categories, 16% for rivers and lakes, 4% for transitional water bodies and 8% for coastal

water bodies. A few Member States have established all reference conditions for all water

categories, including Austria, Hungary and Poland. Only a small proportion of Member States

have no type specific reference conditions at all for rivers (8%) and for transitional waters

(4%), and 16% of Member States have no reference conditions for lakes. A large proportion of

Member states have partly established reference conditions, which means they established them

for all types of a water category but not for each quality element (partly - all types), or only for

some types (partly - some types). It is the case for 76% of rivers, 64% of lakes, 48% of

transitional waters and 72% of coastal water bodies.

Table 4 shows the percentage of surface water body types in the EU with reference conditions

established for all, some and none of the biological, hydro-morphological and physicochemical

quality elements. It clearly highlights that the quality elements with the least type specific

reference conditions established are hydro-morphological quality elements, with 68% of types

having none established. In most of the cases, Member States established reference conditions

for some water types, but 8 Member States didn’t establish reference conditions for hydro-

morphological quality elements for any type (including Denmark, Finland, France, Croatia,

Italy, Latvia, Malta and Slovakia). Regarding the other quality elements, 77% and 76% of

biological quality elements and physicochemical quality elements (respectively) have type-

specific reference conditions established for all or some types.

Overall the situation is similar to the first RBMPs with little improvement shown at the EU

level. Some Member States have shown improvements and this information can be obtained in

the individual Member State reports.

Figure 2 Type-specific reference conditions for each surface water type by water category

Source: WISE reporting 2016;

Notes: Yes = when reference conditions have been established for all types for each

quality element (i.e. biological, hydro-morphological or physicochemical)

Partly (all types) = when reference conditions have been established for all types but

not for each quality element (i.e. biological, hydro-morphological or physicochemical)

Partly (some types) = when reference conditions have been established for some types

but not for each quality element (i.e. biological, hydro-morphological or

physicochemical)

No = when reference conditions have not been established

Not relevant = water category not delineated

The situation may be different between RBDs but the data is summarised at a national level.

Table 4: Percentage of surface water body types in the EU with reference conditions

established for all, some and none of the biological, hydro-morphological and

physicochemical quality elements.

Water

types

All

Some

None

Biological

elements

37%

40%

23%

quality Hydro-morphological

quality elements

12%

22%

68%

Source: WISE reporting 2016.

Physicochemical quality

elements

33%

41%

26%

Delineation and further characterisation of groundwater bodies

Approximately 13 380 groundwater bodies have been delineated in the EU with the highest

number being reported by Finland (3 773) and the lowest by Luxembourg (6). The average size

of groundwater bodies in the EU is around 320 km

with the smallest by far on average being in

Finland (2.6 km

), and the largest in Latvia (3 460 km

). Around 70% of the groundwater

bodies (by area) have not changed from the first to the second RBMPs, while 29% of those

from the first RBMPs have been deleted and replaced by new ones

In the assessment of the first RBMPs, it was recommended that the delineation of groundwater

bodies should be better harmonised and that related guidance documents should be improved.

The CIS Guidance Document no.

26 on the “Risk Assessment and the Use of Conceptual

Models for Groundwater” provided more guidance on the refinement of water body

delineation. Since the first RBMPs, most Member States have further characterised their

groundwater bodies by providing information on their geological formation and whether they

are layered or not. In addition, the majority of Member States have provided an inventory of

associated surface systems, including terrestrial ecosystems and bodies of surface water with

which the groundwater body is dynamically linked.

Pressures and impacts on surface and groundwater bodies

The WFD requires identification of significant pressures from point sources of pollution,

diffuse sources of pollution, modifications of flow regimes through abstractions or regulation

and morphological alterations, as well as any other pressures. ‘Significant’ is interpreted as

meaning that the pressure contributes to an impact that may result in the failing of

environmental objectives.

For the second RBMPs, Member States have reported on significance of pressures at a

disaggregated level, i.e. for different types of pressure-driver combinations, which helped to

better identify the link between pressures, sectoral drivers and measures. The identification of

significant pressures can involve different approaches: numerical tools (e.g. modelling); expert

judgement or a combination of both tools. The magnitude of the pressure is compared with

thresholds or criteria, relevant to the water body type to assess its significance. Figure 3 shows

the types of tools reported to be used to assess the significance of the main types of pressures.

For most pressure types, most Member States use a combination of numerical tools and expert

judgement (see Figure 3).

In addition, the criteria used to define significance of pressures have been further developed by

some Member States. The significance of pressures has been defined using thresholds for 61%

of surface water bodies and 68% of groundwater bodies. The significance of pressures has also

been linked to the failure of environmental objectives for 82% of surface water bodies and 80%

EEA (2018). European Waters

–

Assessment of status and pressures 2018,EEA Report No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-

8449.

of groundwater bodies. Whilst there have been advancements since the first RBMPs, there is

room for improvement and the criteria could be made more explicit in the RBMPs and

supporting documents.

Member States also reported which significant pressures were not assessed, however it was

often unclear from the RBMPs and supporting documents what the rationale for excluding

these pressures were. Moreover, no justification has been provided to discard certain pressures

that had been reported in the first RBMPs.

The EEA State of Water Report 2018 provides a wide overview of the identification of

significant pressures and impacts at EU level. As shown in Figure 4, the main significant

pressures affecting surface water bodies are hydro-morphological pressures (40% of surface

water bodies affected), diffuse source pollution (38%) and point source pollution (18%)

. Most

countries report diffuse sources of pollution as being a pressure for groundwater (24 out of 25

Member States), while 20 Member states report point sources as a pressure. The main pressures

affecting groundwater bodies are : diffuse pollution from agriculture which is identified as the

major pressure causing failure of good chemical status affecting 20% of groundwater bodies

(by area), and water abstraction and change in groundwater level with over-abstraction

affecting 16% of the total groundwater area. In particular, water abstraction for public water

supply, agriculture and industry is the main significant pressures causing failure of good

quantitative status.

Pressures and impacts should be apportioned to the responsible drivers, sectors and activities to

give a clear picture of the most important sources for a given impact so that specific measures

can be set within their POMs to address particular pressures. The main drivers for point source

pollution pressures were urban wastewater, followed by industrial plants and storm overflows.

For diffuse source pollution, the main driver was agriculture, followed by atmospheric

deposition and discharges not connected to sewerage plants

EEA (2018). European Waters

–

Assessment of status and pressures 2018,EEA Report No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-

8449.

EEA (2018). European Waters

–

Assessment of status and pressures 2018,EEA Report No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-

8449.

Figure 3 The types of tools reported to be used to assess the significance of the main types

of pressures in surface water and groundwater

Source: WISE reporting 2016

The main impacts on surface water bodies are nutrient enrichment, chemical pollution and

altered habitats due to morphological changes, reflecting the key pressures

. It is highlighted

that a higher proportion of transitional and coastal water bodies are affected by pollution

pressures compared with rivers and lakes.

Unknown impacts of anthropogenic origin were also reported for a large proportion of water

bodies in several Member States, which would indicate that the pressures and impacts have not

EEA (2018). European Waters

–

Assessment of status and pressures 2018,EEA Report No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-

8449.

been fully apportioned to activities or sectors. Also in the case of hydro-morphological

pressures, many Member States have not clearly apportioned these to specific sectors,

according to the WISE reporting (see further information in chapter 6.13).

Figure 4 Proportion of surface water bodies affected by main pressures and sources of

pressures

Notes: Proportion of water bodies with specific pressures; for example, point sources affect 18

% of water bodies, and the main point source pressure is discharges from urban waste water

treatment plants, which affect 12 % of all surface water bodies. A water body may be affected

by more than one pressure; therefore, the sum of percentages is greater than 100 %. IED plants

are industrial emissions covered by the Industrial Emissions Directive (EC, 2018e).

Source: EEA (2018). European Waters

–

Assessment of status and pressures 2018, EEA Report

No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-8449.

Establishment and use of inventories of discharges, emissions and losses of chemical

substances

Article 5 of the EQSD (2008/105/EC) requires Member States to establish, on the basis of the

information collected in accordance with Articles 5 and 8 of the WFD and other available data

such as that collected under Regulation (EC) No 166/2006, an inventory of emissions,

discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the 8 other pollutants listed in Part A of

Annex I EQSD for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. These inventories

should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority

substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the

assessment of progress made in reducing (resp. suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses

for priority substances (resp. priority hazardous substances).

The transposition deadline for the EQSD was July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs.

This meant an inventory precisely according to Article 5 of the EQSD did not have to be

established by the time of submission of the first RBMPs. However, the obligations for

gathering data under Articles 5 and 8 of the WFD were effectively in place by the end of 2006,

as the list of substances was already known and emissions data on some substances have been

gathered. In 35% of the RBMPs assessed for the first cycle, no clear information was found

relating to inventories.

The CIS Guidance Document No. 28 “Technical Guidance on the Preparation of an Inventory

of Emissions, Discharges and Losses of Priority and Priority Hazardous Substances”

published in 2012 addresses the preparation of the inventories at national RBD scale.

For the second RBMPs, each Member State reported for the first time which Priority

Substances had been included in an inventory of discharges, emissions and losses and all RBDs

reported an inventory for at least some Priority Substances. Only a few countries have complete

inventories, including Austria, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Latvia and Slovenia. For the remaining

Member States, the inventories are not complete. In some cases, justification for not including

the missing Substances in the inventory was provided but not always. Some Member States

included less than 10 substances in their inventories, it is particularly the case for Bulgaria,

Croatia, Malta, Sweden and Slovakia.

The CIS Guidance Document no. 28 recommends a two-step approach for compiling

inventories. In the first step, substances considered to be less important are subject to only a

basic estimation of significant inputs, whereas for the remaining substances, a more in-depth

analysis should be performed. Two-thirds of the Member States reported that the two-step

approach was applied, very few reported that it was not used and the remaining Member States

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm

used this approach for some, but not all Priority Substances. Analysis of inputs of Priority

Substances was almost entirely based on assessment of point sources with diffuse source inputs

not being given due consideration.

As required by Article 5 of the EQS Directive, the Commission will assess progress in reducing

(respectively suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances (respectively

priority hazardous substances). This will be done after Member States have reported their

second inventories as part of their third RBMPs.

Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs

Overall at an EU level about 90% of surface water bodies remained unchanged in terms of

delineation since the first RBMPs. However, in certain Member States, it can be seen that a

large proportion of surface water bodies did change (splitting, creation and deletion) since the

first RBMPs. Around 70% of the groundwater bodies (by area) had not changed. Since the first

RBMPs most Member States have further characterised their groundwater bodies by providing

information on their geological formation and whether they are layered or not. In addition, the

majority of Member States have provided an inventory of associated surface systems, including

terrestrial ecosystems and bodies of surface water with which the groundwater body is

dynamically linked.

Overall since the first RBMPs there have been no significant improvements in the development

of typologies and reference conditions for surface waters. In particular many gaps in terms of

type-specific reference conditions still remain.

For most pressure types, most Member States use a combination of numerical tools and expert

judgement to identify significant pressures. This is similar to the first RBMPs, although many

Member States have shown improvements in the methodologies for individual pressure types.

In addition, the criteria used to define significance of pressures have been further developed by

some Member States. The significance of pressures has been defined using thresholds for 61%

of surface waters and 68% of groundwaters. The significance of pressures has also been linked

to the failure of environmental objectives for 82% of surface water bodies and 80% of

groundwater bodies.

As to changes in reporting of inventories, the transposition deadline was July 2010, meaning an

inventory precisely according to Article 5 of the EQSD did not have to be established by the

time of submission of the first RBMPs. Therefore, 35% of the first RBMPs assessed had no

clear information relating to inventories. For the second RBMPs, each Member State reported

which Priority Substances had been included in an inventory of discharges, emissions and

losses for each RBD, however only a few countries have complete inventories.

1.6.2.

Conclusions

Overall at an EU level about 90% of surface water bodies have remained unchanged in terms of

delineation since the first RBMPs although in certain Member States, a large proportion of

surface water bodies did change since the first RBMPs. Around 70% of the groundwater bodies

(by area) have not changed. Nevertheless, little explanation of the consequences of these

changes for the comparability of status between cycles was found in the RBMPs.

Reference conditions have not been established for all water body types in a number of

Member States for all water categories. The situation is similar to the first RBMPs with little

improvement shown at the EU level. Hydro-morphological quality elements were found to be

the quality elements whose type-specific reference conditions show the most significant gaps

for surface water body types.

The identification of significant pressures by Member States involves different approaches such

as numerical tools (e.g. modelling), expert judgment or a combination of both. For most

pressure types, most Member States use a combination of numerical tools and expert

judgement. The criteria used to define significance of pressures have been further developed by

some Member States since the first RBMPs. However, there remain significant gaps that will

need to be addressed in the current cycle, particularly in defining thresholds; in addition, the

criteria used could be made more explicit in the RBMPs or in supportive documents. Member

States reported which significant pressures were not assessed, however it was often unclear

from the RBMPs and supporting documents what the rationale for excluding these pressures

were. Further work is required by Member States on the apportionment of pressures to sectors

and activites to better inform the targeting of measures. For the second RBMPs, Member States

have reported on significance of pressures at a disaggregated level, i.e. for different types of

pressure-driver combinations, which helped to better identify the link between pressures,

sectoral drivers and measures. However, unknown impacts of anthropogenic origin and

pressures of unknown drivers (especially hydro-morphological pressures) were reported for a

large proportion of water bodies in some Member States, which would indicate that the

pressures and impacts have not been fully apportioned to activities or sectors.

For the second RBMPs, each Member State reported which Priority Substances had been

included in an inventory of discharges, emissions and losses, however only a few countries

have complete inventories, with the reasons for incomplete inventories generally not being

reported. Two-thirds of the Member States reported that the two-step approach for compiling

inventories, as recommended in the CIS Guidance Document no. 28, was applied although

analysis of inputs of Priority Substances. However, it was almost entirely based on assessment

of point sources with diffuse source inputs not being given due consideration.

1.6.3. Recommendations



Member States should address the existing gaps in the definition of reference conditions

for surface waters. Reference conditions should be established for all water body types

and for all relevant quality elements, in order to improve the reliability of status

assessment. A particular effort has to be done for hydro-morphological quality

elements.

Improvements are further needed in the evaluation of significance of pressures and in

the apportionment of those pressures to sectors and activities, in order to better inform

the targeting of measures. In particular, all pressures should be assessed with

methodologies that enable a reliable quantitative assessment.



Member States should complete their inventories of discharges, emissions and losses of

Priority Substances from point and diffuse sources, in order to cover all Priority

Substances, and provide clear information on the reasons for not including certain

substances when that is the case.

1.7. Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface

waters

1.7.1.

Introduction

The main objectives of the WFD include the achievement of GES/potential by 2015. Member

States had to establish surface water monitoring networks to provide a coherent and

comprehensive overview of ecological (and chemical) status within each river basin that allows

for the classification of water bodies into five classes consistent with the normative definitions

given in Annex V of the WFD. The quality elements used for the classification of ecological

status comprise biological elements, hydro-morphological elements supporting the biological

elements; general physicochemical elements and RBSPs supporting the biological elements.

The WFD specifies the types and objectives of monitoring to be undertaken, including

surveillance monitoring which should be carried out in sufficient surface water bodies to

provide an assessment of the overall ecological status/potential within each catchment or

subcatchments within the river basin district. Surveillance monitoring should be able to detect

the impact of all potential anthropogenic pressures and natural long-term changes. This requires

a range of different quality elements to be monitored. Operational monitoring should. establish

the status of those bodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental

objectives, and. assess any changes in the status of such bodies resulting from the programmes

of measures. Operational monitoring generally focuses on the quality elements most sensitive

to the specific pressures and impacts on water bodies.

Annex V of the WFD provides guideline monitoring frequencies for the different quality

elements. In any case, frequencies should be chosen so as to achieve an acceptable level of

confidence and precision in the results of monitoring, and in the subsequent assessment and

classification of ecological status/potential of water bodies. Estimates of the confidence and

precision attained by the monitoring system used should be stated in the RBMPs. The level of

confidence and precision achieved in the classification of water bodies should enable the

measures needed to achieve WFD objectives to be effectively targeted.

Before the implementation of the WFD many Member States had developed their own systems

for monitoring and assessing the quality of water bodies. However, these were generally

developed for specific stressors or types of impact, such as organic pollution and acidification.

Considerable efforts have subsequently been made by Member States to develop assessment

methods for the biological quality elements, and the supporting hydro-morphological and

physicochemical quality elements that meet the requirements of the WFD. This includes the

establishment of type‐ specific reference conditions for all water body types for all relevant

quality elements: this aspect has been assessed in this document in the chapter on

characterisation.

The WFD provides for a process to ensure the comparability between the biological monitoring

results of Member States and their monitoring system classifications. These are compared

through an intercalibration network comprised of monitoring sites in each Member State and in

each ecoregion of the Union. Member States should apply the results of the intercalibration

exercise to their national classification systems, in order to set the boundaries between high and

good status and between good and moderate status for all their national types. There have been

three phases of the intercalibration exercise, each resulting in a Commission Decision. It is

expected that the results of the first two exercises would have been used in the development of

the second RBMPs, while the results of the third exercise should be used in the next river basin

planning cycle.

According to the one-out-all-out principle, that the status of a water body should be classified

according to the biological quality element with the lowest status class and the status class

should be downgraded to moderate if the worst biological quality element is good and one or

more of the supporting quality elements are less than good. When combining with the

supporting quality elements, an aggregated level can be used for the supporting quality

elements belonging to the same impact (e.g. phosphorus, nitrogen, Secchi depth), based on

averaging the class for single quality elements within each impact category, before applying the

one-out-all-out principle.

Monitoring of ecological status/potential in surface waters

Monitoring programmes

Table 3.1 gives the number of monitoring programmes reported by Member States for each of

their relevant water categories. Monitoring programmes may include more than one water

category and hence the numbers in the surface water column are not necessarily the sum of the

programmes for each water category. Territorial waters are not a water body category under the

WFD. However, it should be noted that under Article 2(1) of the WFD, territorial waters are

included for the assessment and reporting of chemical status.

Table 3.1: Number of surface water monitoring programmes reported by Member States.

Note: NR = water category not relevant to land-locked Member State.

Number of monitoring programmes

Surface

Coastal

Lakes

waters

Member

State

Rivers

Transitional

waters

Territorial

waters

Member

State

EU 25

Number of monitoring programmes

Surface

Coastal

Lakes

Rivers

waters

185

159

551

152

216

400

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Transitional Territorial

waters

115

In total 551 monitoring programmes were reported by EU Member States including 12 for

territorial waters reported by 5 Member States. There are many differences in how Member

States have designed and reported their monitoring programmes. There are examples where

there are separate programmes for surveillance and operational purposes and/or separate

programmes for each relevant water category. Several Member State-specific gaps have been

identified in the reported programmes, especially the lack of operational or surveillance

monitoring programmes for lakes, transitional or coastal waters in some Member States.

Some Member States also reported monitoring programmes that are not explicitly related to the

WFD (e.g. Bathing Water Directive and Nitrates Directive programmes for surface waters).

Some programmes were also time limited and in one Member State it appears that no

monitoring programmes are planned for the duration of the second cycle.

Monitoring sites

Second RBMPs

Tables 3.2 and 3.3 present the number of surveillance and operational monitoring sites reported

by Member States in the second RBMPs. It is apparent that Member States have interpreted

differently what is meant in the reporting guidance by ecological monitoring and chemical

monitoring: i.e. are river basin specific pollutants included in chemical monitoring and/or in

ecological monitoring. Also no explicit differentiation had been made between chemical and

ecological monitoring in the data reported for the first RBMPs. For these reasons the data in the

tables below make no allowance for whether sites are used for chemical or ecological

monitoring.

Table 3.2: Number of sites used for surveillance monitoring for the second RBMPs.

Memb

State

(25)

TeW

781

128

543

133

304

118

1144

677

162

818

360

156

1126

201

166

322

116

3379

463

122

492

306

790

315

2 355

481

1 699

118

1 647

338

334

1234

5 512

875

2 634

299

114

513

1 211

4 102

7 485

19 637

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Notes for table: CW: coastal waters; LW: lakes; RW: rivers; TeW: territorial waters; TW:

transitional waters. NR = water category not relevant to land-locked Member States. No

allowance has been made as to whether the sites are for ecological or chemical monitoring.

This is because this makes the data more comparable with the data from the first RBMPs.

Table 3.3

RBMPs.

Table: Number of sites used for operational monitoring for the second

Memb

State

(25)

2 025

664

285

997

13 106

12 464

2 312

591

3 085

135

1 078

1 494

218

186

344

1 813

495

422

4 030

248

277

21 316

TeW

781

293

227

439

714

325

716

262

627

222

102

170

218

465

373

1524

448

428

462

1 123

3 082

5 502

67 691

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note for table: CW: coastal waters; LW: lakes; RW: rivers; TeW: territorial waters; TW:

transitional waters. NR = water category not relevant to land-locked Member States. No

allowance has been made as to whether the sites are for ecological or chemical monitoring.

This is because this makes the data more comparable with the data from the first RBMPs.

At the EU level (25 Member States assessed for this report), more sites were used for the

monitoring of rivers than for the other water categories with more being used for operational

purposes (67 691) than for surveillance (19 637). The reverse was the case for lakes (7 485 for

surveillance monitoring and 5 502 for operational), while similar numbers were used for both

purposes in transitional and coastal waters.

b) Changes since the first RBMPs

Table 3.4 summarises the changes in the numbers of surveillance and operational monitoring

sites between the first and second RBMPs. The assessment is made at the Member State level

and summarises the changes in terms of small, medium and large differences in numbers.

Table 3.4

Number of Member States with changes in the numbers of surveillance and

operational monitoring sites between the first and second RBMPs.

Surveillance

Large increase (>50%)

Medium increase (10% to

50%)

Small increase (up to 10%)

No change

Small decrease (up to 10%)

Operational

Medium decrease (10% to

50%)

Large decrease (>50%)

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note to Table: CW: coastal waters; LW: lakes; RW: rivers; TW: transitional waters. No

allowance has been made as to whether the sites are for ecological or chemical monitoring.

The cells show the number of Member States where there have been increases, decreases or no

changes between the first and second RBMPs. Only the RBDs with reported information for

both cycles were used in the analysis.

Only for one Member State was there no change between the first and second RBMPs, in the

case of surveillance monitoring of lakes. In many Member States there were large increases or

decreases in the numbers of sites used for either purpose in all water categories. For example,

for six Member States there was at least a 50 % increase in lake surveillance sites and in five

others at least a 50 % decrease.

Member State’s RBMPs were examined to look for the reasons behind these changes. For

instance, in one Member State, the reasons for the changes included the abolishment of a

number of measuring stations that were deemed to be not necessary (e.g. stations used to

determine reference conditions), some stations have been changed for reasons of safety (safe

access) or for a more rational planning of the network. In general, it would have been expected

there would be changes because of filling of methodological and monitoring gaps identified in

the first RBMPs. For example, some Member States have adopted a series of national

methodological and guidance documents on different topics of water management since the

first RBMPs, to ensure a common approach across the RBDs. In other Member States, changes

to the monitoring programme were due to the experience gained during the first planning cycle

and also reflect the Commission’s recommendations on the first RBMPs. For instance,

in one

Member State, the river network was expanded to cover rivers with non-permanent flow and to

ensure the monitoring in water bodies that were identified as not being in good status in the

first RBMP.

The number of monitoring sites may also have changed because of the new delineation of water

bodies (e.g. by merging old water bodies or creating new water bodies). In some cases, there

was an extension of the monitoring network in order to increase representativeness or a

reduction of the network due to a risk-based approach determining the extent of the monitoring.

Further details on changes to the monitoring programmes are given in the Member State-

specific reports. Monitoring of quality elements excluding RBSPs

The WFD requires that parameters indicative of all biological quality elements, all hydro-

morphological quality elements, all general physicochemical quality elements, those priority

list pollutants (described in Chapter 6.4) which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin

and those other pollutants discharged in significant quantities in the river basin or sub-basin

(described here as river basin specific pollutants) are monitored in water bodies included in

surveillance monitoring.

For operational monitoring, Member States are required to monitor for those biological and

hydro-morphological quality elements which are most sensitive to the pressures to which the

water bodies are subjected (Annex V, 1.3.2 Selection of quality elements).

Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality

elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of

one year during the six-year period covered by a RBMP. For phytoplankton this should be done

twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements once during the

year. As a guideline, operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once

every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six-year cycle for the

other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be used if they are justified on the basis

of technical knowledge and expert judgement.

Figure 3.1 shows, at the EU level, the average proportion of sites used for the operational and

surveillance monitoring of biological quality elements in each water category where at least the

minimum recommended frequency is applied. There are only two cases where biological

quality elements are monitored at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all

monitoring sites at which they are monitored: these are for macroalgae and angiosperms in

transitional waters for surveillance purposes. The monitoring of fish in rivers and lakes for

operational purposes had the smallest proportion on sites that were sampled with at least the

minimum recommended frequency: 38 % and 41 % of sites, respectively.

Figure 3.1

Average proportions of sites meeting the minimum recommended

frequency for the monitoring of biological quality elements in different water categories.

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: Average calculated from the proportion of sites meeting the recommended frequencies in

each Member State that reported the element. The numbers in parenthesis are the number of

Member States reporting the quality element to be monitored for surveillance and operational

purposes, respectively.

Annex V of the WFD indicates which quality elements are expected to be monitored in each

water category: a full range of quality elements is required so that the effects of all pressures

and impacts can be detected.

There are still significant gaps in the quality elements monitored in each water category. This is

particularly so for the hydro-morphological quality elements but there are still significant gaps

also in the monitoring of biological quality elements. For example, more than half of the

Member States with coastal waters that have reported do not monitor morphological conditions,

and half of the Member States with coastal waters do not monitor tidal regime. In terms of

biological quality elements, approximately a quarter of the the Member States with coastal

waters do not monitor angiosperms and macroalgae in coastal waters.

Table 3.5 summarises at the aggregated level the percentage of water bodies included in

surveillance monitoring where all required quality elements are monitored.

Table 3.5: Number of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring and percentages

where all required quality elements are monitored.

Water bodies included in surveillance monitoring

Numb %

with all %

with

all %

with

all

required

required hydro- general

biological

morphological

physicochemical

quality elements quality elements quality elements

(17)

(20)

(23)

(11)

1081

4991

12739

337

23%

33%

10%

35%

33%

34%

53%

10%

11%

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: The number in brackets next to EU is the number of Member States with reported

information. The analysis includes water bodies where ecological monitoring is reported to be

undertaken for surveillance purposes.

It is clear from Table 3.5 that nowhere near all water bodies included in surveillance

monitoring are monitored for all required quality elements. The hydro-morphological quality

elements have the lowest proportion (2 % to 11 %) of water bodies where all required elements

are included, followed by the biological quality elements (7 % to 33 %) and general

physicochemical quality elements (33 % to 53 %).

Table 3.6 further summarises this issue by presenting the number of Member States where all

and none of the required biological, hydro-morphological and physiochemical quality elements

are monitored in water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. Very few Member States

monitor all required hydro-morphological quality elements in all water bodies, and a significant

number monitor none.

Table 3.6:

Number of Member States where all or no water bodies included in

surveillance monitoring are monitored for all required biological, hydro-morphological

and general physicochemical quality elements.

Category Biological

quality elements

Hydro-

morphological

quality elements

All

None

General

physicochemical

quality elements

All

None

Number

Member States

included in the

analysis

All

None

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: The analysis includes water bodies where ecological monitoring is reported to be

undertaken for surveillance purposes.

Monitoring of RBSPs

Member States were asked to report the chemical substances monitored at each site. The

reporting did

not explicitly differentiate between Priority Substances, RBSPs and “other”

substances. According to the reporting guidance, chemical substances monitored in surface

water that were not Priority Substances should be RBSPs. It is clear that some Member States

may have misreported which chemical substances should be considered as RBSPs. Substances

reported as “other chemical substances” were not included in this analysis because their

inclusion would make the assessment unreliable for some Member States as many

“other

chemical substances” are, on close examination, the same substance with slightly different

reporting formats (e.g. use of underscore or hyphen) or were inappropriate (e.g.

phytoplankton).

All of the 25 Member States assessed reported that RBSPs were monitored in water in at least

one water category. At the EU level 402 different RBSPs were reported to be monitored in

water, 173 in sediment and 81 in biota.

The RBSPs monitored by most Member States in water, sediment and biota are shown in

Figure 3.2. Metals such as chromium, copper and zinc are monitored by most Member States in

all three matrices. Water is monitored by most Member States followed by sediment and biota.

Figure 3.2:

biota.

The RBSPs monitored by most Member States in water, sediment and

Data from 25 Member States for water, 13

Member States for sediment and 12 Member

States for biota. Sediment equates to

sediment (unspecified), suspended sediment

or settled sediment. Biota equates to biota

(unspecified), fish or biota other than fish.

Substances reported as “other chemical

substances” were excluded from the

analysis. Source: WISE electronic reports.

Annex V, section 1.3.4 of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the

different quality elements: once every

three months is recommended for “other pollutants” in

water, which are taken here to equate to RBSPs. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out

for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the six-year period covered by a

RBMP. For RBSPs this should be done four times for the year when surveillance monitoring

was undertaken, and for operational monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle.

Figure 3.3 shows that a significant proportion of the substances monitored in water at the EU

level are not monitored at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all the sites where

they are monitored. For around 20 % and 35 % of the substances monitored for surveillance

and operational monitoring, respectively, there are no sites where they are sampled at least at

the minimum frequency.

Annex V, section 1.3.4 of the WFD does not explicitly define the matrices to which the

minimum recommended frequency of monitoring of RBSPs (“Other Pollutants”) applies.

Required monitoring frequencies are specified for Priority Substances in biota and sediment in

Article 3(2)(c) of the EQS Directive

: this is once per year for operational and surveillance

monitoring purposes. For consistency, this required frequency of once per year has been

applied to the monitoring of RBSPs in biota/sediment.

Of the 173 different chemical substances (assumed to be RBSPs) monitored at the EU (13

Member States) level in sediment, 13 % were sampled at least at the required frequency at all

of the sites where they were monitored and 34 % at none of the sites. Of the 81 different

chemical substances (assumed to be RBSPs) monitored in biota, 29 % (in 12 Member States)

were sampled at least at the required frequency at all of the sites where they were monitored

and 4 % at none of the sites.

Figure 3.3:

Proportion of RBSPs where different proportions of sites are sampled at

least at the WFD recommended minimum monitoring frequency for surveillance and

operational purposes.

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: Numbers in brackets are the sums of the number of river basin specific pollutants

monitored in the 25 Member States that reported information. Substances reported as other

chemical substances were not included in the analysis because their inclusion would skew the

results as many are the same substance with slightly different reporting formats (e.g.

underscore or hyphen) or were inappropriate (e.g. phytoplankton).

67 Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on EQSs in the

field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC,

84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and

of the Council

Surveillance and operational monitoring of surface water bodies

Annex V.1.3.1 of the WFD

indicates that ‘surveillance monitoring shall be carried out of

sufficient surface water bodies to provide an assessment of the overall surface water status

within each catchment or sub-catchments

within the river basin district’. To that end, it might

be expected that surveillance monitoring includes water bodies covering the range of statuses

within the RBD and Member State. It is not expected that all water bodies will be included in

surveillance monitoring. Representative monitoring sites should be selected to provide an

overall picture of the status of water bodies in the basin.

Table 3.7

Comparison of proportion of water bodies included in surveillance and

operational monitoring between the first and second RBMPs.

Surveillance

CW LW RW TW

Large increase (>50%)

Operational

CW LW RW TW

Medium increase (10% to

50%)

Small increase (up to 10%)

No change

Small decrease (up to 10%)

Medium decrease (10% to

50%)

Large decrease (>50%)

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: CW: coastal waters; LW: lakes; RW: rivers; TW: transitional waters. No allowance has

been made as to whether the sites are for ecological or chemical monitoring. The cells show

the number of Member States where there have been increases, decreases or no changes

between the first and second RBMPs. Only the RBDs with reported information for both cycles

were used in the analysis.

In the EU (24 Member States reporting information) a larger proportion of surface water bodies

were included in operational monitoring than in surveillance monitoring for the first and second

RBMPs. There was an increase in the proportion included in both surveillance and operational

between the first and second RBMPs.

Some Member States reported an increase in the proportion of water bodies used for

surveillance monitoring in all their water categories, while some reported a decrease also in all

water categories.

Only very few Member States showed a decrease in the proportion of water bodies used for

operational monitoring in all four water categories. In contrast, in several Member States, there

were increases in the proportion of water bodies included in operational monitoring.

Assessment and classification of ecological status for surface waters

Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies

Overall, around 40 % of the surface water bodies are in good or better ecological status, while

60 % did not achieve good status (EEA 2018

) (Figure 3.4). Lakes and coastal waters are in

better status than rivers and transitional waters. The ecological status of natural water bodies is

generally better than the ecological potential of heavily modified and AWBs.

European Environment Agency (2018) European waters

–

assessment of status and pressures 2018.

EEA Report

No 7/2018

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

Figure 3.4: Ecological status/potential of rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters

for the second RBMPs

Change in ecological status/potential between the first and second RBMPs

The overall ecological status/potential has not improved since the first RBMPs (Figure 3.5). In

fact, the results show a slight reduction in the proportion of water bodies in good or better

ecological status or potential for all the water body categories. Nonetheless, around 20 % (16

000 surface water bodies) have improved in ecological status/potential class since the first

RBMPs, generally by one class but sometimes by 2-3 classes (EEA 2018)

European Environment Agency (2018) European waters

–

assessment of status and pressures 2018.

EEA Report

No 7/2018

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

Figure 3.5: Ecological Status or potential of all surface waters, rivers, lakes,

transitional and coastal waters in the two RBMPs

Confidence in ecological status assessment

Member States were asked to report the confidence on their ecological status or potential

classification. The criteria used by Member States to assess confidence vary considerably, but

in general low confidence may equate to no monitoring data; medium confidence to supporting

quality element data and/or limited data on one biological quality element; and high confidence

to good data for at least one biological quality element and the most relevant supporting quality

element.

Overall, the proportion of water bodies with unknown ecological status has decreased from 16

% to 4 %, and the confidence in the classification has improved from one third of water bodies

with high or medium confidence in the first RBMPs to 58 % of the water bodies in the second

RBMPs (EEA 2018

Classification of ecological status at the quality element level

a) Second RBMPs

Although a large proportion of water bodies is not classified for each single quality element

(grey bars in Figure 3.6), more than two-thirds of all water bodies are classified with at least

one biological quality element (EEA 2018

). The most frequently classified biological quality

elements are: for rivers, benthic invertebrates, phytobenthos/other aquatic flora/macrophytes

and fish; for lakes, phytoplankton; and for transitional and coastal waters, phytoplankton and

benthic invertebrates.

The ecological status for individual quality elements is much better than the overall ecological

status classification. For rivers, for example, 50-70 % of the classified water bodies have high

or good status for several biological quality elements, while the overall ecological status is only

high or good for less than 40 % of the river water bodies. For the general physicochemical and

hydro-morphological quality elements, more than two-thirds of the water bodies have at least

GES.

European Environment Agency (2018) European waters

–

assessment of status and pressures 2018.

EEA Report

No 7/2018

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

European Environment Agency (2018) European waters

–

assessment of status and pressures 2018.

EEA Report

No 7/2018

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

Figure 3.6

Ecological status/potential of biological quality and supporting elements in

rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters

b) Changes since the first RBMPs

It is difficult to make general comparisons of the ecological status/potential of surface waters

between the first and second RBMPs because of, for example, re-delineation of water bodies

and changes in monitoring programmes and assessment methods between the cycles.

Recognising this difficulty, Member States were asked to report information on changes in

ecological status/potential between the cycles for each water body and quality element, if the

information was available.

Figure 3.7 summarises the information reported by Member States at an aggregated level for

biological quality elements for each water category. For 81 % of surface water bodies there was

no available information, or status or potential was unknown for the first RBMPs. Information

was reported on changed status or no change in status for 31 % of coastal water, 8 % of lake, 20

% of river and 16 % of transitional water bodies.

Figure 3.7

Aggregated information of the changes between the first and second

RBMPs reported for each relevant biological quality elements in each water category.

Coastal waters

Changed status

Lakes

No change in status

Rivers

No information available

Status or potential was

unknown in 2010

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% of water bodies

Transiional waters

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: The biological quality elements relevant to each water category (as described in the

WFD) were selected. As Member States had to report all quality elements irrespective of their

relevance to a category, the non-relevant quality elements were removed before analysis: e.g.

macroalgae in rivers. These were reported as "no information". In terms of “other aquatic

flora”, it was included for a Member State where changes in status had also been reported, as

more Member States classified the component

elements rather than using the generic “other

aquatic flora”. % of water bodies equates to the sum of water bodies that had been reported for

each water category. For example if four biological quality elements had been reported for 100

water bodies, there were 400 water bodies summed in the calculation.

A total of 7 % of surface water bodies were reported to have a change in status/potential in

terms of the biological quality elements between the first and second RBMPs. Member States

were also asked to report the comparability and consistency of any changes in status between

the two cycles, again at the quality element and water body level. Figure 3.8 summarises the

reported information at the EU level. According to this information, 37 % of the improvements

and 34 % of the deterioration in the status/potential of the biological quality elements in surface

water bodies were reported to be consistent (as percentages of the water bodies for which there

was information on changed status/potential, which was 7 % of the total). Improvements and

deteriorations of status/potential that were reported to be inconsistent are due to changes to

assessment methods, changes to monitoring, or both.

Figure 3.8: Consistency of changes in ecological status/potential of the biological

quality elements since the first RBMP in each water category.

Coastal waters

Deterioration (464)

Improvement (437)

Lakes

Deterioration (1537)

Improvement (1348)

Rivers

Deterioration (11930)

Improvement(16257)

Transitional waters

Deterioration (112)

Improvement (105)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% of changes in BQEs

Consistent change

Inconsistent due to

changes to assessment

methods

Inconsistent due to

changes to monitoring

Inconsistent due to

changes to monitoring

and assessment methods

No information or

unknown

Note: The biological quality elements analysed were those relevant to each water category.

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Assessment methods for the biological quality elements

Each Member State is required to develop methods to assess ecological status for all biological

quality elements. Assessment methods for the supporting quality elements must be linked to the

biological quality elements, according to the normative definitions given in Annex V of the

WFD. Methods should be developed for the full range of quality elements to allow detection of

all pressures on surface water bodies and together provide a holistic picture of the ecological

status of the aquatic environment.

In most Member States, WFD-consistent assessment methods for the classification of

ecological status were not fully developed for all biological quality elements in time for the

first RBMPs. The most common biological methods developed were phytoplankton

(chlorophyll a) in lakes and benthic fauna in rivers. The biological quality elements that were

least developed in rivers were phytoplankton and macrophytes, and in lakes phytobenthos,

benthic invertebrates and fish. Assessment methods showed the most gaps for transitional

waters (all biological quality elements) and for coastal waters, where particularly assessment

methods for macroalgae and angiosperms were fully developed only in a few Member States.

In the second RBMPs, all Member States reported methods for nutrient pollution, organic

pollution and altered habitats due to morphological changes. However, almost half of the

Member States that reported chemical pollution as a significant impact do not have a biological

assessment method that is sensitive to chemical pollution.

Table 3.8 summarises which biological quality elements are used to assess significant impacts.

It is clear that a range of elements is used to assess the various impacts. Fish and benthic

invertebrates are the most commonly used to assess hydro-morphological changes and

phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos for nutrient pollution.

Table 3.8

Number of Member States that reported biological assessment methods in

relation to significant impacts.

Significant impact type

Biological

Element

Phytoplankton

Other aquatic flora

Macroalgae

Angiosperms

Macrophytes

Phytobenthos

Benthic invertebrates

Fish

Other species

Key:

Nutrient

pollution

Organic

pollution

Chemical

pollution

Saline pollution

Quality

Acidification

Elevated temperature

Altered habitats due to hydrological

changes

Altered habitats due to morphological

change

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Intercalibration of biological quality element methods

To ensure comparable definitions of GES across Europe, Member States are also required to

intercalibrate the GES class boundaries of their methods, for each biological quality element in

each water category, with other Member States having common types of water bodies.

Intercalibration is a distinct obligation at EU level in addition to the obligation to develop

national ecological status methods, i.e. the lack of success of intercalibration does not exempt

Member States from the obligation of developing assessment methods for all biological quality

elements.

After completion of the intercalibration exercise, it is the obligation of Member States to

translate the results of the intercalibration exercise into their national classification systems, in

order to set the boundaries between high and good status and between good and moderate

status for their national types. Ideally, the class boundaries for the national types that differ

from the intercalibrated types should be set in a way that ensures a level of anthropogenic

disturbance comparable to that used for the same biological quality element for the

intercalibrated types. For some types that are either very specific (e.g. volcanic lakes), very rare

(e.g. some large lake type that occurs only once within some Member States), or even unique in

Europe, it may not be possible to translate the intercalibration results to that type. In such cases,

an explanation should be given for each type about why this is not possible.

Table 3.9

Percentage of surface water bodies that were reported to have no

equivalent intercalibration type.

57% 52%

70% 51%

56% 37%

35% 90%

37% 45%

51% 89%

46%

39%

50% 22%

41% 97%

65% 100%

54%

39%

16%

47% 69%

20%

30% 21%

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Notes for table: CW: coastal waters; LW: lakes; RW: rivers; TW: transitional waters.

In most Member States and for most water categories, there are significant proportions of

national water bodies that are of types that do not have a common intercalibration type (Table

3.9). It is, therefore, very important that the results of the intercalibration exercise are correctly

44% 67%

75% 59%

40% 75%

17%

37%

58% 100% 33%

50%

67%

22%

13%

19%

14%

67%

100%

74%

16%

100%

100% 100% 100%

38%

100% 6%

100% 53%

translated to national types without an equivalent intercalibration type if a comparable

assessment of ecological status/potential within Member States and across the EU is to be

obtained. However, there was little relevant information on this issue in the examined RBMPs.

In several RBMPs there was no information on specific methods, but a general statement that

the results of the intercalibration must be translated so that the national types obtain the same

level of protection as the intercalibrated types.

Assessment of hydro-morphological quality elements

The values of the hydro-morphological quality elements must be taken into account when

assigning water bodies to the high ecological status class and the maximum ecological potential

class (i.e. when deciding between high ecological status or maximum ecological potential and

GES/potential). For the other status/potential classes, the hydro-morphological elements are

required to have “conditions consistent with the achievement

of the values specified

for the

biological quality elements.”

The ranges and levels (standards) established for the hydro-morphological quality elements

must support the achievement of the values required for the biological quality elements at high

status or maximum potential, as relevant. Since the values for the biological quality elements at

high status will be type-specific, it is reasonable to assume that the ranges and levels

established for the hydro-morphological quality elements should also be type-specific. Several

types may share the same ranges or levels for some or all of the hydro-morphological quality

elements.

The assessment of the second RBMPs showed that standards have been set for some supporting

hydro-morphological quality elements in some Member States and also that hydro-

morphological standards were less well developed than those for general physico-chemical

quality elements such as nutrients.

Hydrological/tidal regime was not assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in all of the

RBDs where the water category is relevant (Figure 3.9). This was also the case for

morphological conditions and river continuity. The water category where they were assessed in

the smallest proportion of relevant RBDs was coastal waters. Also the classification boundaries

of these elements were related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality

elements in only 36 % of RBDs for hydrological/tidal regime, 42 % for river continuity and 47

% for morphological conditions.

WFD, Annex V Tables 1.2.1 - 1.2.5

Figure 3.9: Proportion of RBDs where hydro-morphological quality elements are

assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and where their classification boundaries

are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: The numbers of RBDs where the water category is relevant are given in parentheses next

to the water category. The relevance of the classification to the sensitive biological quality

elements is reported only once for each QE and is therefore not water category specific.

Assessment of general physicochemical quality elements

The ranges and levels established for the general physicochemical quality elements must

support the achievement of the values required for the biological quality elements at good

status or good potential, as relevant. Since the values for the biological quality elements at good

status will be type-specific, it is reasonable to assume that the ranges and levels established for

the general physicochemical quality elements should also be type-specific.

Several types may share the same ranges or levels for some or all of the general

physicochemical quality elements. If the monitoring results for the biological quality elements,

the general physicochemical quality elements and RBSPs in a water body meet the conditions

required for GES/potential, the overall ecological status/potential of the water body will be

good. However, if one or more of the general physicochemical quality elements or river basin

specific pollutants do not meet the conditions required for GES/potential but the biological

quality elements do, the overall ecological status/potential will be moderate.

The assessment of the second RBMPs showed that standards have been set by some Member

States for some supporting general physicochemical quality elements. However, most of the

general physicochemical standards related to nutrients and organic matter are, in most cases,

not clearly linked to the good/moderate class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality

elements.

Figure 3.10 shows the proportion of RBDs where the general physicochemical quality elements

are reported to be assessed in terms of ecological status/potential. Also shown is the proportion

of RBDs where the classification boundaries of these elements are related to the class

boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements.

Figure 3.10: Proportion of RBDs where general physicochemical quality elements are

assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and where their classification boundaries

are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: The numbers of RBDs where the water category is relevant are given in parentheses next

to the water category. The relevance of the classification to the sensitive biological quality

elements is reported only once for each quality element and is therefore not water category

specific.

Oxygenation and nutrient conditions are assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in most

RBDs in most water categories. The classification boundaries of these elements are also

reported to be related to the classification of sensitive biological quality elements in the most

RBDs. However, there are gaps for the other general physicochemical quality elements, as they

are not assessed in relation to ecological status/potential in over half of the RBDs (e.g. thermal

conditions in all water categories).

Overall, 20 Member States (112 RBDs) reported standards for acidification, 23 Member States

(137 RBDs) for nutrient conditions, 22 Member States (129 RBDs) for oxygenation conditions,

17 Member States (77 RBDs) for salinity conditions, 14 Member States (60 RBDs) for thermal

conditions and 17 Member States (84 RBDs) for transparency conditions. Most standards at the

RBD level (1599) were reported for nutrient conditions. Figure 3.11 shows the percentage of

these that are consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive

biological quality element. A large proportion (~80%) of the standards in each type of general

physicochemical quality elements are consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the

relevant sensitive biological quality elements.

Figure 3.11 Percentage of reported general physicochemical standards that are

consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological

quality elements.

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: The numbers in the brackets are the number of standards reported at the RBD level. Note

that where the same standard is reported for more than one RBD in a Member State it is

counted more than once.

Selection of RBSPs and use of EQSs

Information on how RBSPs were selected is available in the RBMPs of two-thirds of the 25

Member States assessed. Several Member States reported that this selection was based on some

or all of the following: the inventories of emissions, information on the use of substances, the

results of monitoring, or an analysis of pressures and impacts. In some cases, the Member

States mentioned the RBSP selection took into account the list from Annex VIII of the WFD or

other EU legislation such as the repealed Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EC).

The obligation to identify RBSPs and set EQSs for them was not equally observed in the

second RBMPs, with some Member States identifying many more than others, and some

standards being much less stringent than others for the same substances. This has implications

for the comparability of conclusions drawn regarding ecological status/potential.

The WFD (Annex V, section 1.2.6) establishes the principles to be applied by the Member

States to develop EQSs for Specific Pollutants that are

‘discharged in significant quantities into

the body of water’. These are also known as RBSPs. Compliance with EQSs for RBSPs forms

part of the assessment of ecological status/potential. EQSs are, therefore, key tools in assessing

and classifying ecological status and can therefore affect the overall ecological status/potential

classification of a water body. In addition, EQSs will be used to set discharge permits to water

bodies, so that chemical emissions do not lead to EQSs exceedances within the receiving water.

Technical Guidance (the 2011 Technical Guidance Document n. 27

) has been developed to

support the derivation of EQSs for priority substances and for RBSPs that need to be regulated

by Member States according to the provisions of the WFD. The guidance focuses on the steps

required to derive EQSs that comply with the requirements of Annex V of the WFD.

Tables 3.10 to 3.12 show the standards reported by Member States for RBSPs in water, biota

and sediment. Standards were reported for 229 different RBSPs in water at the EU level.

Standards for metals (zinc, chromium and arsenic) in water are reported by 20 of the 24

Member States that have reported information on this issue. Standards for organic substances

such as toluene and xylene are reported by several Member States.

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS%20CIS-

WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf

Table 3.10 Top-ten substances for which most Member States have reported EQSs for

RBSPs in water

River Basin Specific Pollutant code

CAS_7440-66-6 - Zinc and its compounds

CAS_7440-47-3 - Chromium and its compounds

CAS_7440-38-2 - Arsenic and its compounds

CAS_7440-50-8 - Copper and its compounds

CAS_108-88-3 - Toluene

CAS_1330-20-7 - Xylene

CAS_25057-89-0 - Bentazone

CAS_7782-49-2 - Selenium and its compounds

CAS_100-41-4 - Ethylbenzene

CAS_94-74-6 - MCPA

Number

Member States

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: 24 Member States reported information on standards in water. Substances reported as

“Other chemical parameter" were excluded from the analysis.

EQSs were reported by three Member States for nine RBSPs in biota (Table 3.11).

Table 3.11

RBSPs for which Member States have reported EQSs in biota

Matrix

Biota -

fish

Biota -

fish

River Basin Specific Pollutant code

CAS_1333-82-0 - Cr(VI)O3

CAS_143-50-0 - Chlordecone (Kepone)

CAS_1763-23-1 - Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)

and its derivatives

Biota

CAS_7440-38-2 - Arsenic and its compounds

fish

Biota

CAS_7440-47-3 - Chromium and its compounds

fish

Biota

CAS_7440-50-8 - Copper and its compounds

fish

Biota

CAS_7440-66-6 - Zinc and its compounds

fish

Biota

CAS_7782-49-2 - Selenium and its compounds

fish

EEA_33-58-9 - Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds (7

Biota

PCDDs + 10 PCDFs + 12 PCB-DLs)

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: Substances reported as “Other chemical parameter" were excluded from the analysis.

EQSs were reported by six Member States for 36 RBSPs in sediment (Table 3.11). Standards

for zinc, copper and chromium in sediment were reported by four Member States. Standards

were also reported for different polychlorinated biphenyl congeners by several Member States.

Table 3.12

RBSPs for which most Member States have reported EQSs for sediment

Number

PCB

180

(2,2’,3,4,4’,5,5’-

118

(2,3’,4,4’,5-

PCB

101

(2,2’,4,5,5’-

River Basin Specific Pollutant code

CAS_7440-66-6 - Zinc and its compounds

CAS_7440-50-8 - Copper and its compounds

CAS_7440-47-3 - Chromium and its compounds

CAS_7012-37-5 -

PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl)

CAS_35693-99-3

tetrachlorobiphenyl)

CAS_7440-38-2 - Arsenic and its compounds

CAS_37680-73-2

pentachlorobiphenyl)

CAS_35065-29-3 -

heptachlorobiphenyl)

CAS_31508-00-6

pentachlorobiphenyl)

PCB

(2,2’,5,5’-

Member States

EEA_33-56-7 - Total PAHs (Benzo(a)pyrene,

Benzo(b)fluoranthene,

Benzo(k)fluoranthene,

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene)

CAS_1333-82-0 - Cr(VI)O3

CAS_35065-28-2 -

hexachlorobiphenyl)

CAS_35065-27-1 -

hexachlorobiphenyl)

PCB

138

153

(2,2’,3,4,4’,5’-

(2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: Sediment (unspecified), settled sediment and/or suspended sediment are included. The

table shows the RBSPs reported by two or more Member States. Substances reported as “Other

chemical parameter" were excluded from the analysis.

A total of 64 % of the EQSs at the EU level were derived in accordance with Technical

Guidance Document n. 27 (Table 3.13).

Up to 73 % of the derived standards for RBSPs in water, biota and sediment at the EU level had

analytical methods that meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the

Commission Directive laying down technical specifications for chemical analysis and

monitoring of water status (2009/90/EC)

for the strictest standard applied (Table 3.13). Of the

remaining 167 EQSs 89 % have analytical methods which are in line with Article 4(2) of the

same Directive (Table 3.14).

Table 3.13: Number of standards for RBSPs for which the analytical method used

meets the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the Commission

Directive laying down technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of

water status (2009/90/EC) for the strictest standard applied.

Member Matrix

State

Water

Sediment

Water

Sediment

suspended

sediment

Water

Biota

Water

Biota

fish

Sediment

- settled

sediment

Water

Sediment

Water

Yes No

Not

reported

Member Matrix

State

Biota -

fish

Water

Sediment

Water

Yes No

Not

reported

114

Water

Sediment

Water

107

100

Water

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: Substances reported as “Other chemical parameter" were excluded from the analysis.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:201:0036:0038:EN:PDF

Table 3.14: Number of standards for RBSPs where the analytical method corresponds

to the requirements laid down in Article 4(2) of the Commission Directive laying down

technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status (2009/90/EC)

for the strictest standard applied.

Member

State

Matrix

Water

- settled

sediment

Water

Yes No

Member

State

Matrix

Water

Sediment

Yes No

Sediment 3

Sediment 6

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: Substances reported as “Other chemical parameter" were excluded from the analysis.

The

European Environment Agency’s 2018

assessment of status and pressures of European

waters indicates that 5 % of surface water bodies did not achieve GES/potential owing to

RBSPs. Another 40 % were reported as in good or high ecological status/potential for RBSPs,

while the status of RBSPs was unknown in a significant proportion of surface water bodies (55

%). About 150 RBSPs were reported as causing failure to achieve GES/potential in at least one

water body. Those most frequently reported as causing failure

were the metals zinc, with 1 503

waterbodies failing to achieve GES, and copper (845). As individual substances, most RBSPs

caused fewer than 100 waterbodies to fail GES.

Use of monitoring results for classification

Member States were asked to report the classification results in terms of each of the biological

quality elements monitored in each water body. Status in terms of a particular biological quality

element in a monitored water body might also be extrapolated to non-monitored water bodies in

the same group. Not all biological quality elements are appropriate or will be monitored for all

water categories and some are considered to be not applicable in some water body types.

European Environment Agency (2018) European waters

–

assessment of status and pressures 2018.

EEA Report

No 7/2018

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

In cases where the number of monitored water bodies is greater than the number of classified

water bodies for any particular quality element there may be a lack of confidence in the

monitoring results, and only the monitoring results/assessments with high and perhaps medium

confidence are used in classification. Where the number of monitored water bodies is the same

as the number of classified water bodies for any particular quality element the classification is

based on monitored water bodies. There may also be examples of where the number of

monitored water bodies is less than the number of classified water bodies for any particular

quality element. This indicates that there has been extrapolation of status from monitored water

bodies to non-monitored water bodies, through grouping or expert judgment.

Figure 3.12 summarises the means of classification of the different types of quality elements

and river basin specific pollutants in the different water categories. The results of monitoring

are predominantly used for the classification of the biological and general physicochemical

quality elements. Expert judgement plays a significant role in the classification of the hydro-

morphological quality elements and river basin specific pollutants in some Member States and

water categories. Grouping is not used to a great extent, except for the biological and general

physicochemical quality elements in rivers, for which around a fifth of water bodies are

classified by this means.

Figure 3.12: Means of classification of biological, hydro-morphological and general

physicochemical quality elements, and of river basin specific pollutants in the four water

categories.

Source: WISE electronic reports

Note: “>50% MS”: at least 50% of water bodies classified by this means in the Member State.

“All Member States”: all water bodies classified by this means in the Member State.

In many cases, Member States have reported more water bodies to be classified at the quality

element level using the results of monitoring than are directly monitored for the quality

element. This was the case for the biological quality elements in surface water bodies

(approximately two-thirds of the 24 Member States which reported on this issue), for the

hydro-morphological quality elements (one third of 21 Member States) and for the general

physicochemical quality elements (approximately half of 23 Member States). This may be due

to reporting errors, in that the monitoring data have not been completely reported or there has

been an under-reporting or misreporting of the water bodies classified by grouping.

Overall classification of ecological status

According to the one-out-all-out principle, that the status of a water body should be classified

according to the biological quality element with the lowest status class and the status class

should be downgraded to moderate if the worst biological quality element is good and one or

more of the supporting quality elements are less than good. When combining with the

supporting quality elements, an aggregated level can be used for the supporting quality

elements related to the same impact (e.g. phosphorus, nitrogen, Secchi depth), based on

averaging the class for single quality elements within each impact category, before applying the

one-out-all-out principle.

The one-out-all-out principle is at the heart of an integrated river basin management that

addresses all pressures and impacts on aquatic environment. It ensures that the negative impact

of the most dominant pressure on the most sensitive quality element is not averaged out and

obscured by minor impacts of less severe pressures or by less sensitive quality elements

responding to the same pressure.

Only the Madeira RBD, in Portugal (out of 147), reported that the one-out-all-out principle had

not been applied.

1.7.2.

Conclusions

In spite of the progress done since the first RBMPs, there are several gaps in the reported

monitoring programmes in terms of some water categories in a few Member States not being

monitored for surveillance and/or operational purposes.

There is no clear pattern in terms of increases and decreases in the numbers of sites used for

surveillance and operational monitoring for the second RBMPs compared to the first. There

are examples where there have been over 50% increases in numbers, and others where there

have been over 50 % decreases. This is also the case in terms of increases and decreases in

the proportion of surface water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring

between the first and second RBMPs.

The changes in monitoring sites and monitored water bodies are partially related to the re-

delineation of water bodies for the second RBMPs. Monitoring programmes may have also

been revised using the experience from the first RBMPs, taking into account national

legislation related to the implementation of the WFD, or in response to Commission

recommendations based on the first RBMPs.

Almost all the biological quality elements are not monitored at the WFD minimum

recommended frequency at all of the sites at which they are monitored.

There are still significant gaps in the quality elements required to be monitored in each water

category. This is particularly so for the hydro-morphological quality elements, which are not

monitored at all in the Czech Republic and Croatia, only to a limited extent in Bulgaria,

Portugal and France, and show significant gaps in practically all Member States, but there

are also still significant gaps in the monitoring of biological quality elements. Only 8 %, 25

% and 34 % of surface water bodies included in surveillance monitoring are monitored for

all required hydro-morphological, biological and general physicochemical quality elements,

respectively.

A total of 402 different RBSPs were reported to be monitored in water; 173 in sediment and

81 in biota. A significant proportion of the substances are not monitored at least at the

minimum recommended frequency at all the sites where they are monitored.

EQSs were reported for 229 different RBSPs in water, 9 in biota and 36 in sediment. Of these

standards, 64 % were derived in accordance with Technical Guidance n. 27. This is not the case

for the Czech Republic, Finland, Croatia, Italy, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta and Poland, and to

a large extent also Spain. Concerning the analytical methods, 73% of the standards had

analytical methods that consistent with Article 4(1) and 24 % with Article 4(2) of the

Commission Directive laying down technical specifications for chemical analysis and

monitoring of water status (2009/90/EC) for the strictest standards applied. About 5 % of

surface water bodies did not achieve GES/potential due to RBSPs. For Malta, however, none of

the analytical methods were in line with the requirements.

Overall, around 40 % of the surface water bodies are in good or better ecological status.

Lakes and coastal waters are in better status than rivers and transitional waters. The

ecological status of natural water bodies is generally better than the ecological potential of

heavily modified and AWBs.

The overall ecological status/potential has not improved since the first RBMPs. In fact, the

results show a slight reduction in the proportion of water bodies in good or better ecological

100

status or potential for all the water body categories. Nonetheless, around 20 % of surface

water bodies have improved in ecological status/potential class since the first RBMPs,

generally by one class but sometimes by 2-3 classes.

Overall, the proportion of water bodies with unknown ecological status has decreased from

16 % to 4 %, and the confidence in the classification has improved from one third of water

bodies with high or medium confidence in the first RBMPs to 58 % in the second.

A total of 7 % of surface water bodies were reported to have a change in status/potential in

terms of the biological quality elements between the first and second RBMPs. About a third

of those changes were reported to be consistent, while the others were reported to be due to

changes to assessment methods, changes to monitoring or both.

All Member States reported biological assessment methods for nutrient pollution, organic

pollution and altered habitats due to morphological changes. However, Austria, The

Netherlands and Romania reported chemical pollution as a significant impact but do not

have a biological assessment method that is sensitive to chemical pollution.

In most Member States and for most water categories, there are significant proportions of

national water bodies that are of types that do not have an equivalent common

intercalibration type. It is, therefore, very important that the results of the intercalibration

exercise are correctly translated to national types without an equivalent intercalibration type.

If not, a comparable assessment of ecological status/potential within a Member State and

across the EU may not be obtained.

The hydro-morphological quality elements are not assessed in terms of ecological

status/potential in many RBDs in the Czech Republic, Denmark and The Netherlands, while

in many other cases this concerns some hydro-morphological quality elements for some

water types, particularly for coastal waters. Furthermore, in more than half of RBDs the

classification boundaries of these elements were not related to the class boundaries for the

sensitive biological quality elements.

Oxygenation and nutrient conditions are assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in

most RBDs in most water categories. The classification boundaries of these quality elements

are also reported to be related to the classification of sensitive biological quality elements in

most RBDs. However, there are gaps for the other general physicochemical quality

elements, as they are not assessed in relation to ecological status/potential in over half of the

RBDs (e.g. thermal conditions in all water categories). A large proportion (~80 %) of the

standards for the general physicochemical quality elements are consistent with the good-

moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements.

101

The results of monitoring are predominantly used for the classification of the biological and

general physicochemical quality elements. Expert judgement plays a significant role in the

classification of the hydro-morphological quality elements and RBSPs in some Member

States and water categories. Grouping is not used to a great extent, except for the biological

and general physicochemical quality elements in rivers, for which around a fifth of water

bodies are classified by this means.

146 of the 147 RBDs reported that the one-out-all-out principle had been applied in the

second RBMPs.

1.7.3.



Recommendations

Members States should continue to strengthen the monitoring of surface waters by

covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories in adequate frequencies, in

order to increase the level of confidence in the assessment of water body status.

Member States should complete the development of assessment methods for ecological

status for all relevant quality elements in all water body categories, and ensure that the

methods correspond to WFD requirements and are intercalibrated.

Member States should have clear and transparent methods for the selection of RBSPs,

and ensure that the corresponding EQSs meet the minimum requirements for the

protection of freshwater and marine ecosystems from possible adverse effects, as well

as for human health.



102

1.8. Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface

waters

1.8.1. Introduction

Good chemical status of surface waters means the chemical status required to meet the

environmental objectives for surface waters established in Article 4(1)(a) of the WFD. It is the

chemical status achieved by a body of surface water in which concentrations of priority

substances do not exceed the EQSs established in Annex I of Directive 2008/105/EC (as

amended). Action to achieve compliance with the EQSs may reduce the costs of treating

surface waters used for drinking water production, and should reduce the risks to organisms

living in these waters and other animals and humans that eat them.

Decision 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2001

established the initial list of 33 priority substances, selected among those identified as posing a

significant risk to or via the aquatic environment at EU-level. Directive 2008/105/EC (also

called the EQSs Directive) then set quality standards for these substances and eight other

pollutants previously regulated by Directive 76/464/EEC. In addition to reaching good

chemical status for all priority substances and the eight other pollutants, Member States are also

required to assess long-term trends for some of these substances and to establish an inventory

of emissions, discharges and losses of all substances identified in the Directive, for each

national river basin district.

Directive 2013/39/EU (amending the EQSs Directive) identified a further twelve priority

substances, set EQSs for them, and updated the EQSs for seven of the existing priority

substances in line with the latest scientific and technical knowledge concerning the properties

of the substances. Good status should be reached by 2021 for the seven substances with

updated standards, and by 2027 for the twelve new substances.

Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Directive 2009/90/EC (QA/QC Directive) on the quality

and comparability of chemical monitoring provides the minimum performance criteria to

ensure the quality of the analytical results and specifies the approach to dealing with

measurements lower than the level of quantification. The requirements of this Directive should

be fully reflected in the second RBMPs.

103

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle

Chemical monitoring sites and water bodies monitored for Priority Substances

Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the

assessment of the status of surface water in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive

overview of water status within each RBD. The results of monitoring play a key role in

determining whether water bodies are in good chemical status or at risk of failing to meet their

environmental objectives, what measures need to be included in the RBMP in order to reach

good status, and whether the implemented measures are leading to the expected outcome.

Precise and reliable monitoring results are therefore a prerequisite for sound planning of

investments in the POMs.

The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers

of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of the chemical status of

all water bodies in the RBD. Insufficient monitoring leads to a low confidence in the

classification of water bodies, and as a result the sometimes expensive measures required to

achieve objectives may be incorrectly targeted, and objectives such as restoration of water

bodies to good status may not be achieved.

Annex V of the WFD presents the objectives of the surveillance and operational monitoring

programmes and the modalities for monitoring (selection of sites, substances and frequencies).

Surveillance monitoring aims at validating the pressure and impact assessment, at improving

the design of future monitoring programmes and at assessing long term changes in natural

conditions including those resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity. Member States

are also required to undertake operational monitoring to assess the status of water bodies at risk

of not reaching good status, and to assess the changes in the status of such water bodies

resulting from the implementation of measures. In addition, investigative monitoring can be

undertaken where the reason for any exceedances is unknown or to establish the causes of

water bodies failing to achieve the environmental objectives in the absence of operational

monitoring. Figures 1 and 2 show the proportion of sites and the proportion of water bodies

where priority substances are monitored. Both surveillance and operational monitoring are

covered, and no distinction is made in these figures between sites used for trend assessment,

status assessment or both. Monitoring of protected areas in not included in the numbers given

below. Direct comparisons cannot be reliably made with the first RBMPs because of changes to

the reporting requirements to WISE. A wide variety of changes to monitoring programmes for

chemical status were reported by Member States including both increases and decreases in the

numbers of monitoring sites used and water bodies monitored and a redistribution of sites

between surveillance and operational monitoring programmes and between water categories.

Several Member States reported extensions of monitoring programmes into previously

unmonitored water categories.

104

Overall the extent of monitoring of Priority Substances across the EU has been very diverse,

ranging from 1 to 98 % of surface water bodies being monitored for Priority Substances, with

an average of about one-third. Only few Member States monitor more than 50 % of their

surface water bodies for Priority Substances (Figure 1). Just under half of the Member States

have chemical monitoring sites which account for greater than 50 % of their total monitoring

sites with proportions ranging from 10 to 80 % of the total monitoring sites (Figure 2).

The majority of Member States monitor all of their water bodies failing to achieve good status

as part of their operational monitoring programmes in at least some of their RBDs and most

commonly in coastal and transitional waters.

105

Figure 1: Proportion of the total surface water bodies that

are monitored for Priority Substances

Figure 2: Proportion of the total monitoring sites that are

chemical monitoring sites

Source: WISE electronic reports

106

Monitoring of Priority Substances discharged

Annex V of the WFD states, in Section 1.3.1 (Design of surveillance monitoring), that

“Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring

site for a period of one year

during the period covered by a RBMP for [inter alia]: priority list pollutants which are

discharged into the river basin or sub-basin.”

Section 1.3.2 (Design of operational monitoring)

of the Directive states that “In order to

assess the magnitude of the pressure to which bodies of

surface water are subject Member States shall monitor for those quality elements which are

indicative of the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. In order to assess the impact

of these pressures, Member States shall monitor as relevant [inter alia]: all priority substances

discharged, and other pollutants discharged in significant quantities.”

Member States are therefore required to monitor all Priority Substances which are discharged

into the river basin or sub-basin.

The completeness of inventories of emissions of Priority Substances is discussed in Chapter 5.2

of this report, according to which only very few Member States completed their inventories of

emissions of all Priority Substances. The majority of Member States monitored all of the

Priority Substances identified as discharged into their RBDs with the exception of a few

Priority Substances and with some variation among RBDs within Member States. As

mentioned above, it is however unclear whether all substances discharged in the RBDs have

been properly identified in all cases.

Monitoring of chemical substances in water, sediment and biota, for status assessment

and trend assessment.

Status assessment

EQSs for each Priority Substance in water, and biota where appropriate, are set in the EQSs

Directive. According to the Directive (version in force in 2009), mercury, hexachlorobenzene

and hexachlorobutadiene have to be monitored in biota for status assessment, unless Member

States derived a standard for another matrix which is at least as protective as the biota standard.

All Member States monitored Priority Substances in water for status assessment. In almost all

Member States, the majority of Priority Substances were monitored but with some variation

among RBDs within Member States and among water categories. Some RBDs within Member

States were monitored for significantly fewer Priority Substances and in some of those cases

Member States indicated intentions to enhance monitoring in the second cycle for reporting in

the third RBMPs. Most Member States monitored less than 30% of their water bodies with

some variation between water categories. This sometimes led to some water bodies not being

classified, or being classified with a low confidence in the assessment. Territorial waters were

monitored in a few Member States with a coastline. Coastal and transitional water bodies

tended to be monitored in a greater proportion than lakes and rivers; though many more water

bodies were delineated in these latter categories.

107

Nearly three quarters of Member States monitored mercury, hexachlorobenzene and/or

hexachlorobutadiene in biota in at least some RBDs for status assessment, even if they

generally (also) monitored in water in the same and other RBDs. In a few cases, these

substances were assessed in water against alternative standards rather than the “direct toxicity”

water standards in the Directive. In general, the spatial extent of biota monitoring in terms of

the proportion of monitoring sites was very limited, and it did not always cover all water

categories.

The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances

in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the RBMP

cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment

should take place at least once every year according to the EQSs Directive. Member States can

choose to monitor less frequently for any matrix, provided they can justify greater intervals on

the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement.

Monitoring frequencies in water at the site level varied widely within RBDs in most member

States with some sites meeting the recommended minimum frequencies in the Directive and

some not. The recommended minimum frequencies for surveillance monitoring were met more

often than those for operational monitoring. In some cases, the reasons for reduced frequencies

were justified in the RBMP. In some Member States, less frequent monitoring occurred in

individual RBDs and in some of these cases Member States indicated intentions to enhance

monitoring in the second cycle. Monitoring frequencies in biota were consistent with the

recommended minimum frequency in the Directive for just over three quarters of Member

States though not in all RBDs. In some cases, reduced frequencies were justified in the RBMP.

Trend assessment

Article 3.3 of the EQSs Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor

14 that tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota, for the purpose of long-term trend

assessment. Monitoring should take place at least once every three years, unless technical

knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval.

Around two-thirds of Member States reported monitoring in sediment and/or biota for trend

assessment. A few Member States reported trend assessment in alternative matrices -

suspended sediment or water. In most cases, the majority of the fourteen substances were

monitored though not in all RBDs and not in all water categories. Generally the proportion of

sites monitored appeared to be very limited. The recommended minimum frequency of

monitoring was met in almost all Member States that monitored for trends. Where reduced

frequencies were reported, these were justified in very few cases.

108

Performance of analytical methods used

For the majority of Priority Substances, the analytical methods meet the minimum performance

criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/90/EC, in the majority of Member States

and RBDs. For the remaining substances, the analytical methods complied with the

requirements laid down in Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/90/EC in all Member States and

RBDs with very few exceptions.

Assessment and classification of chemical status for surface waters

Chemical status of surface water bodies by category

Figure 3 shows the comparison of chemical status of surface water bodies between the first and

second RBMPs by water category.

At the European level, the proportion of surface water

bodies at good status has remained largely the same since the first cycle. There were slight

improvements in chemical status for rivers, transitional and coastal water bodies, but not for

lake water bodies. These apparent changes need to be treated with some caution due to the fact

that some Member States have re-delineated some of their water bodies for the second RBMPs,

including splitting, aggregation, creation and deletion of surface water bodies (see further

details in Chapter 5.2 on Characterisation).

The proportion of water bodies of unknown chemical status has decreased significantly from

39% to 16 % which indicates that there have been improvements in monitoring and assessment

methodologies. The reduction of water bodies with unknown status was seen for all water body

categories, but in particular transitional water bodies. The proportion of water bodies classified

as failing to achieve good chemical status has increased however from 25 % to 46 % overall;

this occurred for all water categories and it seems to result mainly from the increased

knowledge gained during the first cycle.

Territorial waters are not a water body category under WFD. However, Article 2.1 of the WFD

indicates that chemical status applies to territorial waters as well. For the second RBMP,

Member States were able to report any relevant information for the part of territorial waters

which extend beyond coastal waters. Territorial waters are therefore relevant to this question

for all twenty Member States with a coastline (of which seven only reported to monitor and

classify territorial waters). The unknown chemical status of territorial waters has decreased

from 86 % to 39 %.

Changes by Member State are available in the WISE WFD Database:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/water-assessments/chemical-status-of-surface-water-bodies

109

Figure 3: Comparison of chemical status of surface water bodies between the first and

second RBMPs by water body category

Source: WISE electronic reports; figure available online at:

https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_SWB_Status_Compa

re/SWB_ChemicalStatus_Category?:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:showShareOptions=t

rue&:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no

Note: The term (*) means all Member States and surface water categories. Under Article 2(1)

of the WFD, territorial waters are included for the assessment and reporting of chemical

status.

At the Member State level there have been some more significant changes in the chemical

status between RBMPs. A few Member States have changed from having most of their surface

water bodies at good chemical status to failing to achieve good status. Once again, this seemed

to reflect changes in the monitoring programmes and assessment methodologies. Some other

Member States have actually increased the numbers of surface water bodies with unknown

status since the first cycle.

As highlighted by the EEA (2018), some variation in the chemical status among Member States

is to be expected due to differences in population densities, present and past industrial activities

and geography. However, such large differences are better explained by the methods used to

assess chemical status. While some extrapolated failure of a standard in monitored water bodies

(most commonly for mercury in biota) to all water bodies, others only reported failure where it

was confirmed. A few Member States applied the revised, stricter 2013 EQSs while most

110

countries used the 2008 standards. More details on the approaches adopted by Member States

are provided in Table 3.1 of the EEA report (2018).

Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status

Member States were expected to report exceedances for individual substances on the basis of

the more stringent 2013 EQSs when they existed The most frequently reported “top 15” priority

substances found in surface water bodies are shown in Table 1. Mercury and brominated

diphenylethers are responsible for failure to achieve good chemical status in the highest number

of water bodies.

Table 1: Priority substances where failure to achieve good chemical status occurs in over

100 water bodies (out of a total of 111062 surface water bodies)

Type / use of Number of Number of

Priority substance

chemical

water

Member

contributed

bodies not States with

by one

achieving water bodies Member

good

not achieving State if that

chemical

good

dominates

status

chemical

(% of WBs

status for the not

listed

achieving

substance

good

chemical

status)

Mercury *

Metal

45973

50%

Brominated diphenylethers *

Flame

23331

99%

retardant

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene +

PAH

3091

47%

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene *

Benzo(a)pyrene *

PAH

1630

65%

Fluoranthene

PAH

1390

40%

Cadmium

Metal

1014

Tributyltin *

Biocide

663

Nickel

Metal

654

Lead

Metal

462

Benzo(b)fluor-anthene+

PAH

460

41%

Benzo(k)fluor-anthene *

Isoproturon

Pesticide

199

45%

4-nonylphenol

Surfactant

188

52%

Anthracene

PAH

123

59%

Hexachlorocyclohexane

Pesticide

120

DEHP

Plasticiser

102

Note * shows where substance is an ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority

Substances (uPBT) and

denotes a more stringent 2013 Environmental Quality Standard.

Source: EEA (2018).

111

The impact of ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances on the

classification of chemical status

According to Article 8(a) of the EQSs Directive, eight priority substances and groups of

priority substances are behaving like ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic

substances. These substances are generally expected to cause widespread exceedances, and

their emissions can be challenging to tackle (e.g. due to long-range atmospheric transport and

deposition). In order to show the progress made in tackling other priority substances, Member

States have the possibility to present the information related to chemical status separately for

these substances.

The ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances (uPBTs) are also

shown in Table 3 and it can be seen that all of them are in the top 10. Figure 4 displays the

chemical status of surface water bodies, with and without uPBTs. There is a significant

difference with only 3 % of surface water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status when

uPBTs are excluded. This indicates a very significant impact of uPBTs. Some Member States

are more affected by the uPBTs than others

. However, the true extent of the impact of uPBTs

is more than likely masked by the different approaches Member States have taken to

accounting for the pressures leading to impacts from these substances and to the use of

extrapolation of monitoring results from monitored to unmonitored water bodies. This is

commonly the case for mercury where exceedance of the environmental quality standard in

biota extrapolated to similar water bodies leads to widespread occurrence of failure to meet

good status.

Figure 4: Chemical status of surface water bodies, with and without and uPBTs

For details see WISE WFD Database:

https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_SWB_SWPrioritySubstanceWithout

UPBT/Country?:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:showShareOptions=true&:display_count=no&:showViz

Home=no

112

Progress made in tackling individual substances

The EEA report (2018)

provides a more detailed overview of which Priority Substances are

being tackled at the Member State level. Against a background of little change overall in the

proportion of water bodies achieving good status and an increase in the proportion failing to

achieve good status, several cases of improvements between the first and second RBMPs were

reported for particular Priority Substances. For example, 943 water bodies improved in status

during the first RBMP cycle due to cadmium, nickel and lead meeting their EQSs. For

pesticides (isoproturon, endosulfan, chlorpyrifos, diuron, DDT, total DDT, cyclodiene,

trifluralin, atrazine, alachlor), 571 water bodies improved from failing to achieve good

chemical status in the first RBMP as a result of these substances meeting the relevant standards.

A further 621 water bodies are still failing to achieve good chemical status in the second

RBMPs due to these substances failing their standards.

Dealing with measurements lower than the limit of quantification

Article 5 of Directive 2009/90/EC on QA/QC specifies a method for dealing with

measurements lower than the limit of quantification. Almost all Member States reported the use

of methods consistent with these requirements.

Expected date for achievement of good chemical status

For surface water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status by 2015, Member States were

requested to report the date by which good chemical status would be achieved. Member States

were also asked to report water bodies achieving good status in 2015 and those where less

stringent objectives (exemption under Article 4(5)) have already been achieved.

As previously mentioned, good status should be reached by 2021 for substances with revised,

more stringent 2013 standards, and by 2027 for the new priority substances. Member States

may also apply exemptions under WFD article 4(4) to explain the extension of deadlines,

provided they can prove that the necessary conditions are fulfilled.

51% of surface water bodies have already achieved good chemical status in 2015 and 20% have

achieved the less stringent objectives set by Member States under article 4(5) of the WFD.

About 2 % of water bodies are expected to achieve good status by 2021 and 23 % by 2027

(Figure 5). For only less than 1 % the target will be achieved beyond 2027. For about 4 % of

surface water bodies the date of achievement is unknown.

EEA (2018). European Waters

–

Assessment of status and pressures 2018,EEA Report No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-

8449.

113

Figure 5: Expected date for achievement of good chemical status of surface water bodies

by water category.

Source: WISE electronic reports

Methodologies to assess the status of non-monitored water bodies

Figure 6 shows the number of Member States where monitoring, grouping and expert

judgement is used either predominantly or entirely as the means of classification for each water

category relevant for surface water chemical status. 'Monitoring' indicates that there is

monitoring data available for the water body and this is used as the basis for classification.

‘Grouping’ indicates that there is no monitoring data available from the water body and

therefore monitoring from other similar water bodies was used as a basis for classification.

Assessing water bodies by grouping without any monitoring data can increase the uncertainty

but it may be justified in areas where several water bodies are of the same type and are subject

to the same level of pressures and hence can be assumed to present the same chemical status.

'Expert judgement' means there is some, none or insufficiently reliable monitoring data

available in this surface water body, no other similar water bodies were used and the status is

mainly based on expert judgement.

Monitoring is used as the basis of classification most commonly in transitional, coastal and

territorial waters (Figure 9). There are generally fewer water bodies in these water categories

than in surface freshwaters. Expert judgement is used more commonly in lakes and rivers (in

approximately one-third of Member States). Member States appear to have generally reported

as expert judgment the extrapolation of exceedances found for mercury in monitored water

bodies to all unmonitored water bodies within a Member State. This extrapolation was carried

out in a few Member States. The use of grouping as the means of classification occurs least

frequently but is more common in surface fresh waters than in transitional, coastal and

territorial waters.

114

Figure 6: Means of classification of surface water chemical status in the relevant water

categories

Source: WISE electronic reports

Notes to Figure: “>50% MS”: Predominantly used: at least 50% of water bodies classified by

this means in the Member States. “All Member States”: Exclusively

used: all water bodies

classified by this means in the Member State.

Overall, grouping techniques and expert judgement are widely used for the classification. Some

RBMPs provide information on the approaches used but in some cases greater transparency

would be beneficial. The grouping techniques and expert judgement also need to utilise sound

monitoring results.

Confidence in classification of chemical status

The WFD stipulates that estimates of the confidence and precision attained by the monitoring

system used shall be stated in the RBMP. Member States were requested to report the level of

confidence according to 4 categories (low, medium, high and no information). In the first

RBMPs, confidence in the chemical status assessment was not explicitly reported.

Figure 7 shows the surface water chemical status assessment confidence for the second

RBMPs. At EU level, only 15 % of the chemical status classifications were assigned high

confidence, 25 % of medium, 41 % of low confidence and 19 % had no information on the

level of confidence. (No information on the level of confidence was generally associated with

water bodies with unknown chemical status.) The range of confidence levels varies widely

between the Member States. High confidence was generally associated with classifications

based on reliable monitoring results and low confidence with those based on few or no

monitoring results but on, for example, the extrapolation of results from monitored water

bodies or expert judgment.

115

Figure 7: Confidence in the assessment of surface water chemical status

Source: WISE electronic reports

Use of mixing zones

Directive 2008/105/EC also allows Member States to establish mixing zones, where the EQSs

Directive may be exceeded provided that the rest of the surface water body complies with those

standards. These areas must be clearly identified in the RBMPs. Mixing zones were not

commonly defined in the second RBMPs with only just over a quarter of Member States

defining them in at least some RBDs, representing a small portion of water bodies overall.

Use of background concentrations and bioavailability for metals

Directive 2008/105/EU stipulates that Member States may, when assessing the monitoring

results against the EQS, take into account the natural background concentrations for metals and

their compounds and the bioavailability of metals.

In the second RBMPs, most Member States have considered natural background concentrations

when assessing monitoring results against the EQS, however this was not the case in all RBDs

in these Member States.

Most Member States have considered bioavailability when assessing monitoring results against

the EQS, however this was not the case in all RBDs in these Member States.

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

Changes in surveillance and operational monitoring

A wide variety of changes to monitoring programmes for chemical status were reported by

Member States including both increases and decreases in the numbers of monitoring sites used

and water bodies monitored and a redistribution of sites between surveillance and operational

116

monitoring programmes and between water categories. Several Member States reported

extensions of monitoring programmes into previously unmonitored water categories.

Changes in monitoring of Priority Substances

Monitoring of Priority Substances in the first RBMPs was very diverse with few Member Sates

monitoring all substances.

In the second RBMPs, all Member States monitored Priority

Substances in water for status assessment. In almost all Member States, the majority of Priority

Substances were monitored but with some variation among RBDs within Member States and

among water categories.

Since the first RBMPs, biota standards have been used in the assessment of chemical status and

trend monitoring was performed in sediment and biota to a greater extent. For status

assessment, nearly three quarters of Member States monitored mercury, hexachlorobenzene and

hexachlorobutadiene in biota compared to just a few Member States in the first RBMPs. For

trend assessment, a similar proportion of Member States reported monitoring of at least some

of the 14 Priority Substances in sediment and/or biota which is a considerable improvement

from the proportion using these matrices in the first RBMPs.

Changes in status

At the European level, the proportion of surface water bodies at good status has remained

largely the same since the first cycle; though small increases were observed in rivers,

transitional, coastal and territorial water categories. However, as a result of significant efforts

invested by Member States in improving the understanding of pressures and monitoring and

assessment methodologies, the number of water bodies of unknown status has decreased from

39 % to 16 %. The number of water bodies classified as failing to achieve good chemical status

has increased from 25 % to 46 % overall, which seems to be largely due to the increase in

knowledge.

Confidence in the classification of chemical status was reported explicitly for the first time in

the second RBMP; 15 % of classified water bodies were assigned high and 25 % medium

confidence. This is related to the extent to which monitoring, grouping and expert judgement

(and extrapolation) is used as the basis for classification. While the classifications of chemical

status reported in the first RBMPs were based largely on limited monitoring programmes, those

reported in the second RBMPs are based on improved monitoring programmes and more

systematic use of grouping and expert judgement.

1.8.2. Conclusions

Overall, the percentage of water bodies that are of unknown chemical status has decreased

significantly since the first RBMPs from 39 % of all surface water bodies to only 16 %. This

See 2012 Commission Staff Working Document

framework/pdf/3rd_report/CWD-2012-379_EN-Vol2.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-

117

indicates that the monitoring (spatially, substances and frequency) and status assessment

methods have improved overall. A limited number of Member states have more than 60% of

their water bodies in unknown status (Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal).

Against a background of little change overall in the proportion of water bodies achieving good

status and an increase in the proportion failing to achieve good status (most likely due to an

increase in knowledge), several cases of improvements between the first and second RBMPs

were reported for particular Priority Substances.

Only 3 % of surface water bodies are failing to achieve good chemical status when ubiquitous

persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances (uPBTs) are excluded from the

assessment of chemical status (compared to 46% when all substances are considered). This

indicates a significant impact of uPBTs. In particular, mercury and brominated diphenylethers

are responsible for failure to achieve good chemical status in the highest number of water

bodies.

A relatively high proportion of surface water bodies were reported to be failing to achieve good

status for the second RBMPs

–

46 % overall. However, looking at the target for the expected

date of achieving good status, less than 1 % extends beyond 2027 and most water bodies are

expected to achieve good chemical status by 2027, though more stringent standards and

additional substances are required to be monitored for the third RBMP. For about 4 % of

surface water bodies, the date of achievement is unknown.

Grouping techniques and expert judgement have been widely used to classify water bodies.

Some RBMPs provide information on the approaches used but in some cases greater

transparency would be beneficial. The use of these may also be at least partly linked to the

reduced confidence in the assessment of status : at EU level, only 15 % of the chemical status

classifications were assigned high confidence, 25 % medium, 41 % low confidence and 19 %

had no information on the level of confidence. The range of confidence levels varies widely

between Member States.

Although it is not expected that all water bodies be monitored, overall the extent of monitoring

of Priority Substances across the EU has been very diverse, ranging from 1 to 98 % of surface

water bodies being monitored for Priority Substances and an average of about one third. The

majority of Member States monitor all of their water bodies failing to achieve good status as

part of their operational monitoring programmes in at least some of their RBDs and most

commonly in coastal and transitional waters.

For efficient monitoring programmes the information on pressures and emissions is very

important. Significant efforts have been made to establish inventories of emissions (see Chapter

5.2), although few Member States reported complete inventories for all their RBDs, and it is

therefore unclear whether all discharged substances have been identified. The majority of

118

Member States monitored all of the Priority Substances identified as discharged into their

RBDs with the exception of a few Priority Substances and with some variation among RBDs

within Member States. For status assessment, all Member States monitored Priority Substances

in water. In almost all Member States, the majority of Priority Substances were monitored but

with some variation among RBDs within Member States and among water categories.

Generally the spatial extent of monitoring in water was limited in terms of the proportion of

water bodies monitored with some variation between water categories. Territorial waters were

monitored in a few Member States with a coastline. Monitoring frequencies in water at the site

level varied widely within RBDs in most member States with some sites meeting the

recommended minimum frequencies in the Directive and some not.

Nearly three quarters of Member States monitored mercury, hexachlorobenzene and

hexachlorobutadiene in biota for status assessment. In general, the spatial extent of monitoring

in terms of the proportion of monitoring sites was very limited. Monitoring frequencies in biota

were consistent with the recommended minimum frequencies in the Directive for just over

three quarters of Member States though not in all RBDs. Explanations for the reduced

frequencies were sometimes provided in the RBMPs.

For trend assessment, around two-thirds of Member States reported to WISE that arrangements

were in place for long-term trend analysis in most, but not all, RBDs. All but two of these

monitored sediment and/or biota for this reason. Most Member States monitored the majority of

the 14 substances though not in all RBDs and not in all water categories. In almost all cases the

spatial extent of monitoring was very limited in terms of the proportion of sites monitored. The

recommended minimum frequency of monitoring was met in almost all Member States. Where

reduced frequencies were reported, these were justified in very few cases.

For the majority of Priority Substances, the analytical methods meet the minimum performance

criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the QA/QC Directive, in the majority of Member States and

RBDs. For the remaining substances, the analytical methods complied with the requirements

laid down in Article 4(2) in all Member States and RBDs with very few exceptions.

Article 5 of the QA/QC Directive specifies a method for dealing with measurements lower than

the limit of quantification. Almost all Member States reported the use of methods consistent

with these requirements.

Member States did not often use the option of deriving mixing zones in the second RBMPs

with only just over a quarter of Member States defining them in at least some RBDs, in a small

portion of water bodies overall.

Most Member States have used the possibility offered by the Directive to consider natural

background concentrations and bioavailability when assessing monitoring results against the

119

EQS. However this was not the case in all RBDs in these Member States (in some RBDs

because metals were not causing exceedances).

1.8.3. Recommendations



Member States should continue improving the confidence in the assessment of status for

all water categories (including territorial waters), and further reduce the proportion in

unknown status. In particular, monitoring should be performed in a way that provides

sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage to classify all water bodies (in

combination if necessary with robust grouping /extrapolation methods). All discharged

Priority Substances should be monitored, and all Priority Substances should be

considered in the assessment of status, in the relevant matrix. If reduced frequencies or

a different matrix/EQS are used, they should be explained, as required by the

Directives.



Trend monitoring in sediment and/or biota should be performed or further improved to

ensure that all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored

in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage and fully

reflects the concern that these substances may be accumulating in the environment.

120

1.9.

Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status in

groundwater

1.9.1. Introduction

Monitoring

Article 8 of the WFD requires the establishment of programmes for the monitoring of

groundwater quantitative status. The directive sets out the requirements for these programmes

in Annex V 2.2 and Annex II 2.3.

WFD groundwater monitoring is primarily focussed on the groundwater body as a management

unit, but it also supports the overall management of the RBD. The principal purpose of WFD

quantitative monitoring is to facilitate quantitative status assessment to determine whether the

relevant Article 4 environmental objectives for groundwater bodies are met. Moreover, the

monitoring results must be used:

to supplement and validate the Article 5 characterisation and risk assessment procedure

with respect to risks of failing to achieve good groundwater quantitative status,

to demonstrate compliance with the objectives for drinking water protected area and other

protected area objectives,

to assist in designing the programmes of measures necessary to achieve the environmental

objectives and in evaluating their effectiveness, and

to estimate the direction and rate of flow in groundwater bodies that cross Member State

boundaries.

The groundwater quantitative monitoring network shall include sufficient representative

monitoring points and monitoring shall be carried out with a sufficient frequency of

observations. Such monitoring design is particularly necessary to estimate the balance between

groundwater abstraction and recharge in each groundwater body or group of bodies, taking into

account short and long-term variations in recharge. It is also necessary so that the impacts of

anthropogenically induced level changes or of alterations of groundwater flow on groundwater

associated aquatic and dependent terrestrial ecosystems as well as on saline or other intrusion

can be assessed.

Although the WFD identifies groundwater level as the metric for determining quantitative

status, in practice the requirements of status assessment and the specific characteristics of

groundwater bodies mean that additional supporting information will be required to assess

quantitative status. Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document No. 15 recommends

considering spring flows, flow characteristics and/or stage levels of surface water courses

during drought periods or stage levels in significant groundwater dependent wetlands and lakes

for the purposes of quantitative groundwater status assessment, too. Moreover, to adequately

121

assess the quantitative status also information on abstractions, recharge, ecological flow needs

of ecosystems and changes of intrusion parameters would be needed.

Classification

The definition of groundwater quantitative status is set out in Annex V 2.1 of the WFD and

discussed in Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document No. 18. Good quantitative

status is met when the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long term annual

average rate of abstraction, when the groundwater levels are not subject to such anthropogenic

alterations which would result in failure to achieve the environmental objectives for associated

surface waters or any significant diminution of their status or any significant damage to

groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. Moreover, in good quantitative status

anthropogenic flow alterations or level changes do not cause any saline or other intrusion.

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2

cycle

Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater

The coverage of groundwater bodies by quantitative monitoring is in most of the Member

States generally high, but with a significant number of groundwater bodies without quantitative

monitoring in specific Member States (see figure 1). In total 4 600 of the 13 376 groundwater

bodies are subject to quantitative monitoring. Eleven Member States (Austria, Belgium,

Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Hungary, Luxembourg, Latvia, Netherlands,

Poland) monitor more than 80% of their groundwater bodies, and of these, two monitor all their

groundwater bodies (Cyprus, the Netherlands).

Figure 1: Percentage of groundwater bodies with quantitative monitoring (bars) and average

number of monitoring sites per monitored groundwater.

Source: WISE reporting 2016

Note: * grouping has been applied, at least partially, in Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Germany,

Finland, Malta, Spain and Sweden. Austria confirmed that there is surveillance monitoring for

groundwater, but the reported information is shown in this figure.

122

Consistency with the quantitative monitoring requirement of the WFD needs to be assessed in a

differentiated way because the WFD allows grouping groundwater bodies - inter alia for the

purpose of monitoring - and therefore not each groundwater body which is subject to such

grouping is in need of a separate monitoring network. Some Member States reported that

groundwater bodies had been grouped for the purpose of monitoring (see figure 1) (Austria,

Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Malta, Spain and Sweden) but for the majority of

Member States with unmonitored groundwater bodies there is no such information about

grouping and hence there is a clear gap and inconsistency with the monitoring requirements of

the WFD. Even in cases where grouping has been reported, this often does not allow

determining whether grouping covers all groundwater bodies without monitoring or only a

subset.

In average on the EU level, each monitored groundwater body is monitored in 2.7 monitoring

sites. Figure 1 shows the number of monitoring sites per monitored groundwater body in each

Member State. The number of sites varies between 1.1 sites in Finland up to 40.7 sites in the

Netherlands. Of course, the number of monitoring sites per groundwater body is highly

influenced by its size and is not an adequate measure of comparison. In addition to that, the

density of sites is influenced by the variability of characteristics and pressures within

groundwater bodies and the intensity and type of groundwater use, leading to significant

variations even within Member States. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, it should be

considered that some Member States group their groundwater bodies for monitoring purposes

and therefore did not establish monitoring sites in each groundwater body.

Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater

About 92% of groundwater bodies in the EU (12 299 of the 13 367 groundwater bodies) are in

good quantitative status. Around 5% (693 groundwater bodies) are failing good status and 3%

(385 groundwater bodies) have unknown status. Considering the area of groundwater bodies,

about 89% (3.9 million km²) of the total area of groundwater bodies (4.3 million km²) is in

good quantitative status, around 9 % of the total area has failed to achieve good quantitative

status, while around 1 % of the groundwater body area (about 59 000 km²) has unknown

status.

Member States that have reported all groundwater bodies in good quantitative stauts are

Asutria, Luxembourg, Latvia, The Netherlands, Romania and Slovenia. The main reason for

failing good quantitative status is attributed to the ‘water balance / lowering of water table’.

Around 61% of the groundwater body area failing good quantitative status (544 groundwater

The total area of GWBs in Europe is 4.34 million km². While this figure might seem extremely large (the

whole EU surface is about 4,3 km²), it is correct as the different layers of delineated and reported groundwater

bodies have been considered for calculating the total.

123

bodies in the other 19 Member States) is affected by this reason. Further reasons for failing

good status are the diminution of associated surface water bodies (22% of the failing

groundwater body area; 217 groundwater bodies in Germany, Spain, Finland, France, Italy,

UK), damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (17% of the groundwater body

area in poor status; 100 groundwater bodies in Bulgaria, Germany, France, Hungary, Poland,

UK) and saline or other intrusions (8% of the groundwater body area in poor status; 104

groundwater bodies in Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Spain, Finland, France, Croatia,

Italy, Poland, UK).

The overall confidence in the assessment of groundwater quantitative status is relatively high,

with high confidence being reported for 48% of the groundwater body area and medium

confidence for about 23%. Low confidence in status assessment was reported for 22% of the

area and unknown confidence or no information for about 7% (about 276 000 km²). As it can

be seen in Figure 4, there is quite a difference when comparing the level of confidence for

groundwater bodies or for the related groundwater body area. The range of confidence varies

widely between the Member States.

As stated above, approximately 9% of the total groundwater body area is not achieving good

quantitative status. Looking at the expected date of finally achieving good quantitative status,

only about 40% of the groundwater body area which is currently at poor status is expected to

achieve good status at the end of the second cycle planning period in 2021. About 38% is

expected to achieve good status by 2027. For 8% the target will only be achieved beyond 2027.

For about 7% of the groundwater body area which is currently at poor status, the date of

achievement is either unknown and for 7% less stringent objectives have already been

achieved.

124

Table 1 Outlook on the area of groundwater bodies failing to achieve good quantitative

status in future RBMPs

Groundwater quantitative status

Total groundwater body

Expected achievement of good status area

Groundwater body

area failing good

million

in %

status

km²

Good status 2015

3.86

89 %

Less stringent objectives already

0.03

achieved

2016--2021

0.18

40%

2022--2027

0.17

38%

Beyond 2027

Unknown

0.04

0.03

Source: EEA SoW 2016. The table shows preliminary results based on the WISE reporting of

data from 25 Member States (EU28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania).

Groundwater bodies at risk:

About 13% of the total groundwater body area is assigned at risk

of failing good quantitative status objectives at the end of the second cycle planning period in

the year 2021. This percentage is slightly higher than the area currently failing good status

(9%). About 87% of the total groundwater body area is not at risk and supposed to achieve

good status at the end of the second cycle planning period.

The main reason for risk is linked with water balance (931 groundwater bodies) followed by

adverse effects to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (305 groundwater bodies),

associated aquatic ecosystems (236) and saline or other intrusion (154). For 1 011 groundwater

bodies uses or functions of groundwater are affected and for 449 groundwater bodies associated

aquatic and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems.

Brief summary of methodology

The assessment of groundwater quantitative status needs to consider the degree of

direct/indirect groundwater abstractions and of anthropogenically induced alterations of

groundwater levels and flow directions in comparison with the available groundwater resource.

The evaluation of consistency for the ‘water balance’ of a groundwater body as a whole is

based on an assessment of whether the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the

long-term annual average rate of abstraction. Furthermore, it needs to be checked whether the

environmental objectives of associated surface water bodies and groundwater dependent

terrestrial ecosystems are met and whether there is no saline or other intrusion.

125

Elements considered:

All Member States reported on the considered elements in the

quantitative status assessment. Water balance was considered by all Member States and for

most of the RBDs. Further elements like diminution of the status of associated surface water

bodies and damage to groundwater body dependent terrestrial ecosystems were reported to be

considered by many of the Member States

, even if no such ecosystem is related to any

groundwater quantitative risk. The remaining Member States did not consider the ecosystems

in status assessment but there is no risk related. Finally, also saline and other intrusions have

been frequently taken into consideration in status assessment.

The needs of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been taken into account in

status assessment by the majority of Member States (but not Czech Republic, Denmark, France,

Latvia, Romania, Sweden and Slovakia), and the majority of the RBDs (e.g. not in all RBDs in

Italy). 16 Member States reported its consideration in 86 RBDs (60% of all 143 RBDs), even in

6 RBDs where no such ecosystems exist. But in 33 RBDs (23%) of 10 Member States the

needs have not been taken into account although such ecosystems exist. In 25 RBDs of 9

Member States, no groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems exist and thus, their needs

have not been considered.

For 98 RBDs (69%) in most Member States, the term ‘available groundwater resource’ has

been applied in accordance with the definition laid down in WFD Article 2(27)

. For 21 RBDs

of 6 Member States, this was considered partly (Spain, Italy, Latvia, Romania, Sweden,

Slovakia) and for the remaining 24 RBD, this definition was not applied (Czech Republic,

Denmark, France, Luxembourg).

In assessing water balance, 101 (70%) RBDs (7 311 groundwater bodies in the majority of

Member States previously mentioned) reported having compared the annual average

groundwater abstractions against the available groundwater resource for every groundwater

body and in 11 (8%) RBDs (853 groundwater bodies) of 5 Member States the comparison for a

subset of groundwater bodies has been calculated (Spain, Italy, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia).

For 30 (21%) RBDs in 7 Member States (5 123 groundwater bodies),

the failure of achieving

good status was established by considering sustained long-term decline in water levels caused

by long-term groundwater abstraction, based on reliable information on groundwater levels

across the groundwater body.

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Malta,

Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, UK

Austria, in some RBDs of Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Croatia, UK, Hungary, Malta,

Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and UK

126

Table 2 Assessment of water balance within the assessment of groundwater quantitative

status

Method

Membe

r States

River

Basin

Districts

101

(70%)

Groundwat

er bodies

Comparison of the annual average groundwater

abstractions against the available groundwater

resource in the groundwater body

for every

groundwater body

Comparison of the annual average groundwater

abstractions against the available groundwater

resource in the groundwater body

for a subset

groundwater bodies

Consideration of the sustained long-term decline in

water levels caused by long-term groundwater

abstraction, based on reliable information on 7

groundwater levels across the groundwater body

7311

11 (8%)

853

30 (21%)

5123

No consideration of water balance in status

assessment

Note: Some Member States applied different approaches for different RBDs.

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

In most of the Member States, groundwater quantitative monitoring improved since the first

RBMPs

. In many Member States, the coverage of groundwater bodies by quantitative

monitoring increased (including Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Denamark, France,

Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Slovenia) and in five Member States the coverage

more or less remained the same, commonly at high level (Austria, Cyprus, Croatia, Malta,

Netherlands). Some Member States reduced the percentage of groundwater bodies with

quantitative monitoring but they did not report reasons for that (Bulgaria, Estonia

–with

reporting data gaps-, Finland, Romania). In two Member States the reduction could be a result

of the re-delineation of groundwater bodies (Bulgaria, Romania).

Overall, the quantitative status of groundwater bodies in the EU improved. The groundwater

body area achieving good quantitative status increased by 5% from 84% to 89% of the total

groundwater body area and the area failing good status decreased from 13% to 9%. Also the

knowledge on groundwater quantitative status has substantially increased as the area at

unknown status decreased from 3% to around 1 % of the total groundwater body area, located

in four Member States. In parallel to the knowledge, also the level of confidence in the status

results increased. Now around 70 % of quantitative status results have been reported of high or

medium confidence.

Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg,

Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, UK

127

Figure 2: Groundwater quantitative status by area in the first and second RBMPs

Note: The numbers in parenthesis show total area (in million km2) of groundwater bodies.

Source: EEA SoW 2018. Data from 25 Member States (except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania)

Very often, changes in the status results were reported as a result of the re-delineation of

groundwater bodies and the improvement of the status assessment methodologies, which is also

reflected in the increased level of confidence in the status assessment. To a lesser extent,

changes of the pressure situation and the effectiveness of measures were mentioned as reasons

for changes in status results.

128

Changes in elements considered in status assessment:

The consideration of the water balance in quantitative status assessment increased significantly.

Compared to the first RBMPs, where only half of the Plans reported about this consideration,

now almost 80% of the second RBMPs reported having considered the balance between

recharge and abstraction for every groundwater body (70%) or for a subset of groundwater

bodies (8%). Only 1 of 143 RBMPs did not consider water balance in the status assessment.

Also the consideration of ecosystems in the quantitative status assessment increased

significantly. In the first RBMPs, their consideration was quite limited, but in the 2

cycle,

most Member States reported having considered the ecosystems in status assessment, even if no

such ecosystem is related to any groundwater quantitative risk. The remaining Member States

did not consider ecosystems in quantitative status assessment (Czech Republic, Denmark,

France, Latvia, Romania, Sweden and Slovakia).

1.9.2. Conclusions

Overall, groundwater quantitative monitoring improved since the first cycle RBMPs with

increasing coverage of groundwater bodies. Most Member States increased the coverage of

groundwater bodies by quantitative monitoring or at least kept the coverage at high level

(decreases were observed in Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Romania). Nevertheless, a significant

number of groundwater bodies is still without quantitative monitoring sites in specific Member

States and the partially reported grouping of groundwater bodies for monitoring purposes does

not fully explain the absence of monitoring. Therefore, there is still inconsistency with the

WFD requirement on groundwater quantitative monitoring.

The groundwater quantitative status situation improved with 92% of the groundwater bodies

representing 89% of the total groundwater body area being at good status. Most of the changes

in status are owing to the partially significant re-delineations of groundwater bodies and the

improvements of the status assessment methodologies.

In parallel to the improvement of status also knowledge improved which is expressed in the

decreased share of groundwater bodies at unknown status (3% of groundwater bodies

representing 1% of the area) and the increased confidence in the status results which is high or

medium for about 48% respectively 22% of the groundwater bodies.

Water balance is almost fully considered in status assessment and also associated surface water

bodies and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems are fully considered in almost all

Member States where such ecosystems exist and where they are related to groundwater

quantitative risk.This is a significant improvement since the previous RBMP.

129

1.9.3. Recommendations



While there have been important improvements, many Member States need to continue

improving quantitative monitoring programmes, and work toward completing

quantitative status assessment for all groundwater bodies.



In some Member States additional efforts are required for harmonisation of status

assessment methodologies (across regions and RBDs).

Grouping methodologies for monitoring purposes are not always clear and should be

better described in RBMPs.



130

1.10.Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in

groundwater

1.10.1.

Introduction

In this area, the requirements of the WFD are complemented by those of the Groundwater

Directive (GW). The two Directives work in conjunction and, in addition, together with other

EU legislation, such as the Drinking Water Directive and the Nitrates Directive.

Monitoring

Article 8 of the WFD requires the establishment of programmes for the monitoring of

groundwater chemical status. The directive sets out the requirements for these programmes in

Annex V 2.4 and Annex II 2.3.

WFD groundwater chemical monitoring is primarily focused on the groundwater body as a

management unit, but it also supports the overall management of the RBD. The principal

purpose of WFD chemical monitoring is to facilitate chemical status assessment to determine

whether the relevant Article 4 environmental objectives for groundwater bodies are met.

Moreover, the monitoring results must be used to supplement and validate the Article 5

characterisation and risk assessment procedure with respect to risks of failing to achieve good

groundwater chemical status, to demonstrate compliance with the objectives for drinking water

protected area (DWPA) and other protected area objectives, to provide information on natural

and anthropogenically induced long-term trends in pollutants concentrations and to assist in

designing the programmes of measures and in evaluating their effectiveness.

Monitoring of groundwater chemical status consists of surveillance and operational monitoring,

as defined in WFD Annex V 2.4. The Directive specifies that surveillance monitoring shall be

carried out for groundwater bodies at risk or which cross a boundary between Member States.

However, to adequately supplement and validate the Annex II risk assessment procedure,

additional surveillance monitoring is also needed for groundwater bodies, or groups of bodies,

not identified as being at risk (see CIS Technical Report 3 on Groundwater monitoring

Surveillance monitoring must include the core parameters defined in Annex V (oxygen content,

pH value, conductivity, nitrate and ammonium), and the selection of additional parameters to

be monitored should enable the detection of all potential impacts of all pressures on

groundwater bodies, and of all long-term natural and anthropogenically induced changes in

pollutants concentrations (trends). If entire groundwater bodies or certain parameters indicating

impacts of anthropogenic pressures are not included in surveillance monitoring, then this

omission could lead to the non-detection of significant pressures, the incorrect classification of

The analysis in this chapter also responds to the requirement of Article 11 of the Groundwater Directive.

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/729b38fe-4141-48e8-b808-

04c3ecc91975/Groundwater%20monitoring%20Report.pdf

131

water status and inappropriate targeting of measures. This is particularly important where the

pressures and impacts assessment may not have been adequate enough to identify all potential

pressures and impacts in the RBD, including perhaps because of a lack of information or of

methods or because of unexpected anthropogenic activities within the RBD.

Operational monitoring is to be performed in the periods between surveillance monitoring. In

contrast to surveillance monitoring, operational monitoring is highly focused on assessing the

specific identified risks to the achievement of the directive’s objectives. It is needed to establish

the status for all groundwater bodies identified at risk, and to establish the presence of any

significant long-term anthropogenically induced upward trend in the concentration of any

pollutant.

Classification

The definition of groundwater chemical status is set out in Annex V 2.3 of the WFD. The

procedure of assessing status is further specified in Article 4 and Annex III of the Groundwater

Directive 2006/118/EC (GWD). Good chemical status is met when the chemical composition

of the groundwater body does not indicate saline or other intrusion, does not exceed relevant

standards, does not result in failure to achieve the environmental objectives for associated

surface waters or any significant diminution of their status or any significant damage to

groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems and does not impair the ability of a groundwater

body to support human uses such as drinking water abstraction. For groundwater bodies

identified as Drinking Water Protected Areas, the requirements of WFD Article 7 must be met

as well, in order for a groundwater body to be in good chemical status.

Regarding the provision of not exceeding relevant standards, the GWD provides EU-wide

groundwater quality standards for nitrates and pesticides (individual and total) and requests

Member States to establish further national groundwater quality standards (referred to as

‘threshold values’) for all substances

causing risk of failing to meet good chemical status

objectives at the most appropriate level (e.g. Member State, RBD, groundwater body). The

establishment of threshold values shall consider the indicative minimum list of substances

given in Annex II part B of the GWD

, the natural occurrence and variability of substances in

groundwater (natural background levels), the needs of the receptors of the groundwater

(including where groundwater is or is planned to be used as drinking water), pollutant pathways

and interactions with different environmental compartments such as associated aquatic

ecosystems or dependent terrestrial ecosystems.

Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead, Mercury, Ammonium, Chloride, Sulphate, Nitrites, Phosphorus (total)/Phosphates,

Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Conductivity.

132

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle

Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater

Surveillance monitoring

The coverage of groundwater bodies by surveillance monitoring is in many Member States

high, but a significant number of groundwater bodies is not covered by such monitoring in

specific Member States (see figure 1). In total

5 050 of the 13 376 groundwater bodies are

subject to surveillance monitoring and 8 326 are not. Fourteen Member States monitor more

than 80% of their groundwater bodies, whereby 6 Member States Croatia, Estonia,

Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands and Slovenia) cover all their groundwater bodies.

Coverage is very low in Finland, Sweden and Denmark while two Member States reduced the

coverage (the United Kingdom and Spain). As mentioned, Finland and Sweden host more than

half (7 084) of the in total 13 376

groundwater bodies in the EU.

Figure 1: Percentage of groundwater bodies with surveillance monitoring (bars) and

average number of surveillance monitoring sites per monitored groundwater.

Source: WISE reporting 2016.

Note: * grouping has been applied, at least partially, in Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland,

Germany, Spain and Sweden.

As with quantitative monitoring, consistency with the chemical monitoring requirement of the

WFD needs to be assessed in a differentiated way because the WFD allows grouping of

groundwater bodies,

inter alia

for the purpose of monitoring. Therefore, not each groundwater

body which is subject to such grouping is in need of a separate monitoring network. Almost

one third of the Member States reported that groundwater bodies had been grouped for the

purpose of monitoring but for the majority of Member States with unmonitored groundwater

bodies, there is no information reported on grouping and hence there is a clear gap and

potential inconsistency with the requirements of the WFD. Even in cases where grouping has

been reported, this often does not allow determining whether grouping covers all groundwater

bodies without monitoring or only a subset.

133

According to WISE, the surveillance monitoring of the core parameters defined in Annex V of

the WFD (oxygen content, pH value, conductivity, nitrate and ammonium) reported is rather

poor. All parameters are monitored in 17 Member States

and, in 42 RBDs, at least 4

parameters were considered. No WFD core parameter was monitored in 21 RBDs located in

eight Member States. The core parameters most often considered were nitrate (115 RBDs) and

electrical conductivity (101 RBDs), while the least considered were ammonium and dissolved

oxygen (71 RBDs)

Figure 2: Percentage of RBDs where a number of WFD core parameters were monitored.

Source: WISE reporting 2016.

Groundwater bodies at risk of failing environmental objectives

In total 3 222 (24%) groundwater bodies representing about 31% of the total groundwater body

area are assessed as being at risk of failing good chemical status objectives. This is slightly

higher than the area of 25% which is covered by the 2 021 groundwater bodies currently failing

to achieve good chemical status objectives (see Figure 4). For 1 431 groundwater bodies

the

risk is due to nitrate, which is by far the most frequent reason causing risk. The second most

frequent reasons causing risk are pesticides followed by chloride, sulphate, lead, ammonium,

nickel and arsenic. These substances are causing risk in at least 10 Member States.

Operational monitoring

All groundwater bodies at risk should be subject to operational monitoring for those substances

which are causing the risk. Overall, 3 222 groundwater bodies are at risk and 2 922 are covered

by operational monitoring. About half of the Member States implemented operational

monitoring in at least the same number of groundwater bodies at risk, whereas 12 Member

States monitor fewer groundwater bodies than those being at risk. As mentioned for

surveillance monitoring, only seven Member States reported on grouping of groundwater

bodies for monitoring purposes. For the majority of the groundwater bodies without operational

monitoring, there is no such explanation and hence there is a gap and inconsistency with the

requirements of the WFD.

Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands,

Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia and Slovakia.

Several Member States consequently clarified that while core parameters are monitored they have not been

reported.

134

Figure 3: Percentage of groundwater bodies with operational monitoring (bars) and

percentage of groundwater bodies at chemical risk.

Source: WISE reporting 2016.

On average, each monitored groundwater body is monitored by 5.3 surveillance monitoring

sites (ranging from 1.1 to 81.6 sites) and by 5.9 operational monitoring sites (ranging from 1.1

to 14.5 sites). The number of monitoring sites per groundwater body is highly influenced by its

size and is not an adequate measure of comparison. In addition to that, the density of sites is

influenced by the variability of characteristics and pressures within groundwater bodies and the

intensity and type of groundwater use. Furthermore, it should be considered that some Member

States group their groundwater bodies for monitoring purposes and therefore did not establish

monitoring networks in each groundwater body. As operational monitoring is to be

implemented for groundwater bodies at risk, comparisons at the Member State or RBD level

are not meaningful.

Confidence and precision of monitoring results

The Member States had to indicate the confidence in the status results which is very much

dependant on the level of monitoring and the availability of sufficient and representative

monitoring data, the applied status assessment methods and whether all environmental

objectives had been considered or only some of them. The overall confidence in the assessment

of groundwater chemical status is relatively high, with high confidence being reported for 59%

of the groundwater body area (3 667 groundwater bodies) and

medium confidence for about

22% (5 292 groundwater bodies). Low confidence in status assessment was reported for 16% of

the area (1 403 groundwater bodies) and unknown confidence or no information for about 4%

(3 014 groundwater bodies). As it can be seen

in Figure 4 there is quite a difference when

comparing the level of confidence for groundwater bodies or for the related groundwater body

area. The range of confidence levels varies widely between Member States.

135

Figure 4: Confidence in the results of the groundwater chemical status assessment.

Source: WISE reporting 2016.

Assessment and classification of chemical status for groundwater

In total 10 867 (81%) groundwater bodies representing 74% (3.2 million km²) of the total

groundwater body area in the EU (total area being about 4.3 million km²) is at good chemical

status; 2 021 (15%) groundwater bodies covering 25% of the total groundwater body area are

failing to reach good chemical status (see Figure 4). For 489 (4%) groundwater bodies

representing

about 1% of the groundwater body area (about 41 000 km²) the chemical status is

unknown. At the Member State level, the proportion varies widely from only 3% of the

groundwater body area reaching good chemical status, up to 100%, where all groundwater

bodies are at good status.

In total, about 160 different synthetic and naturally occurring substances cause poor chemical

status in EU Member States. One third of these substances are pesticides. Indicators like

turbidity, pH, or water temperature were also reported. The main pollutant causing poor

chemical status in 24 Member States is nitrate, which affects 1 179 (9%) groundwater bodies

representing 18% of the total groundwater body area. The group of pesticides is the second

most reported reason but the number of groundwater bodies and the groundwater body area

affected cannot be given precisely, as for some RBDs ‘pesticides’ as such were reported, while

for others each individual active substance was reported. Further frequently reported substances

are ammonium, sulphate and chloride, nickel, arsenic and electrical conductivity which were

reported by at least 10 Member States.

The main reason for failing good status is attributed to ‘general water quality’, which is linked

to an exceedance of groundwater quality standards or threshold values. In 24 Member States in

total 1 400 groundwater bodies representing about 19% of the total groundwater body area

(75% of the area in poor status) are affected by this reason. This requirement considers

significant impairment of human uses and significant environmental risk from pollutants across

the whole groundwater body. The second most frequent reason for failing good status is an

136

impairment of the objectives for drinking water protected areas, reported from 12 Member

States for 375 groundwater bodies representing about 7% of the total groundwater body area.

Diminution of associated surface water bodies (223 groundwater bodies, 3% in terms of area),

damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (92 groundwater bodies, 2% in terms

of area) and saline or other intrusions (128 groundwater bodies, 1% in terms of area) are less

significant.

Expected achievement of good status:

Only about 7% of the groundwater body area which is

at poor status by the year 2015 is expected to achieve good status at the end of the second

planning cycle in 2021. About 67% is expected to achieve good status by 2027. For 15%, the

target will only be achieved after 2027. For about 12% of the groundwater body area which is

currently at poor status the date of achievement is either unknown or less stringent objectives

have already been achieved. This long timeframe needed for the achievement of good status

reflects the specific properties of many groundwater bodies in reacting very slowly to changes

in anthropogenic pressures at the surface. Once measures are implemented it can take many

years or even decades until their effects show in groundwater.

Table 1. Outlook for the groundwater bodies (and the represented area) failing to achieve

good chemical status in future RBMPs

Groundwater

chemical Groundwater

status,

expected bodies

Number in %

achievement date

Good status 2015

Less stringent

already achieved

2016--2021

2022--2027

Beyond 2027

Unknown

objectives

11 239

347

1 254

321

121

84 %

Groundwater

area

in million km²

body Groundwater

in %

3.2

0.07

0.11

0.73

0.16

0.06

74 %

17 %

body

failing

status

67 %

15 %

area

good

Source: Preliminary results based on WISE reporting 2016, including data from 25 Member

States (EU28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania).

Methodology for status assessment

Groundwater chemical status assessment needs to consider a number of quality objectives,

depending on the identified risk. The evaluation of

consistency for the ‘general water quality’

of a groundwater body as a whole is based on a comparison of monitoring data with quality

standards and threshold values. Member States established different national approaches for the

extent of acceptable exceedance of such values. Below the defined extent of acceptable

137

exceedance, the groundwater body is still in good status. Approaches include the number of

monitoring sites (10 Member States) and the affected (weighted) area (12 Member States). No

Member State

calculated the affected groundwater body by volume. Expert judgment or ‘other

methods’ were also reported by 5 Member States without further specifying the underlying

criteria. Some Member States applied different methods in their RBDs and in some RBDs this

calculation was not necessary as no monitoring site exceeded any quality standard or threshold

value.

Associated surface water bodies and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems need to be

considered when posing a risk of not achieving good chemical status in the groundwater body.

In total 3 204 groundwater bodies of 22 Member States are linked with associated aquatic

ecosystems. Diminution of the status of associated surface water bodies was reported to be

considered by 17 Member States, even if no such ecosystem is related to any groundwater

chemical risk. Some Member States did not consider the ecosystems in status assessment but

there is also no risk related and, for a few Member States, where risk is evident, consideration

of surface waters in chemical status assessment is missing.

In total 3 226 groundwater bodies of 22 Member States are linked with groundwater dependent

terrestrial ecosystems. Damage to groundwater body dependent terrestrial ecosystems was

reported to be considered by 15 Member States, even if no such ecosystem is related to any

groundwater chemical risk. Several Member States did not consider these ecosystems in status

assessment but there is also no risk related and, for a few Member States, where risk is evident,

consideration of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems in chemical status assessment is

missing.

Methodology for threshold value establishment

The establishment of groundwater threshold values needs to consider all substances posing risk,

all substances listed in Annex II of the Groundwater Directive, the natural chemical

composition of groundwater (natural background level) and the needs of the relevant receptors

of the groundwater (e.g. human use, ecosystems).

In total, about 170 substances/indicators were reported as posing risk and many of these are

pesticide substances. Up to nine Member States did not establish groundwater threshold values

for all these substances causing risk within their territory. This is often true for pesticide

substances, but for these substances, the Groundwater Directive foresees a general quality

standard of 0.1µg/l. For all other substances where there is neither a EU-wide quality standard

(nitrate and pesticides) nor a nationally set threshold value, then the Member State is not able to

assess the status of a groundwater body at risk in a consistent way.

Most Member States (22) considered natural background levels when establishing threshold

values, while five considered elevated natural substances concentrations at a later stage during

138

status assessment. Four Member States considered natural background levels in a different way

or they did not report details about the consideration of background levels in the establishment

of threshold values. In seven Member States, different approaches were applied for their

different RBDs.

Trends assessment

Twenty-two Member States reported that trend assessment has been performed for each RBD

and methodologies are available, the remaining three Member States performed trend

assessment at least partially. Additional trend assessments (required by the Article 5.5 GWD to

assess the impact of existing plumes of pollution) were reported by three Member States for all

of their RBDs and by 5 Member States for a subset. Significant and sustained upward trends

were identified for 58 pollutants. For nitrate, significant upward trends were detected in 19

Member States for 260 groundwater bodies representing about 6% of the total groundwater

body area. Other substances with frequent upward trends are chloride, sulphate and pesticides.

Twenty-one Member States reported that a methodology for trend reversal assessment is

available for at least a subset of their RBDs, four Member States did not report on trend

reversal. Trend reversals were reported for 68 pollutants by 10 Member States, mainly for

nitrates (375 groundwater bodies), ammonium (310), sulphates (291) and chlorides (284).

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

Nineteen Member States reported that they had re-delineated a more or less significant number

of their groundwater bodies. In total about 19% of the groundwater bodies which were reported

in the second RBMPs are new and 81% remained unchanged. Several Member States reported

the improvement of the chemical status assessment methods, the development of trend

assessment methods, changed threshold values and the increased confidence in the assessment

results by the increased availability of monitoring data.

Changes in surveillance and operational monitoring: Overall, efforts in surveillance monitoring

were reduced. Four Member States kept there 100% coverage of groundwater bodies and more

than ten Member States increased the percentage of monitored groundwater bodies but two

Member States reduced their monitoring efforts. Grouping of groundwater bodies is applied in

about one third of the Member States. However, in the majority of Member States with

incomplete coverage of surveillance monitoring, grouping is not applied and consistency with

the WFD requirement on full coverage of groundwater bodies by surveillance monitoring is not

described.

Operational monitoring was reduced in some Member States (e.g. Denmark, Slovakia,

Romania, the United Kingdom), two Member States (Poland, Luxembourg) kept the

monitoring at the same level as in the first cycle, while more than ten Member States increased

their monitoring efforts. Changes in operational monitoring between reporting cycles need to

139

be seen in close relationship with the groundwater bodies being identified at risk of failing

good chemical status. Overall, in half of the Member States, the number of groundwater bodies

at risk is higher than the number of groundwater bodies subject to operational monitoring while

only two Member States (Belgium and Malta) have full coverage of the groundwater bodies.

The improvement of groundwater chemical status is very minor since the first cycle RBMPs.

The number of groundwater bodies achieving good status increased by 1% from 80% to 81%

which corresponds to an increase from 72% to 74% in terms of the represented total

groundwater body area. Half of this increase is due to the fact that the area at unknown status

has more than halved. This slight increase in good status and the reported expected

achievement of good status for most of the groundwater bodies by 2027 points to the long time-

lag between the implementation of measures and their effectiveness in groundwater; hence, the

importance of correctly classifying groundwater bodies status and timely targeting the

appropriate measures.

Figure 5: Groundwater chemical status of groundwater bodies reported in first and

second RBMPs in terms of groundwater area

Note:

Proportion of groundwater area in good and failing to achieve good chemical status.

Total groundwater area (EU25) is 4.3 million km².

Source:

Preliminary results based on WISE reporting 2016, including data from 25 Member

States (EU28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania).

Source of figure: EEA SoW report 2018

Note: The total area of GWBs in Europe is 4.34 million km². While this figure might seem

extremely large (the whole EU surface is about 4,3 km²), it is correct as the different layers of

delineated and reported groundwater bodies have been considered for calculating the total.

For many Member States and groundwater bodies the direct comparison between the first and

the second RBMPs might be difficult due to changes in assessment methodologies, increased

consideration of ecosystems (which was quite low in the first plans), changed threshold values

and the re-delineation of groundwater bodies. Overall, the confidence in the status results has

increased.

140

Compared to the first cycle RBMPs the consideration of groundwater associated aquatic and

groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems increased dramatically. Almost all Member

States reported the existence of such ecosystems and only few Member States did not consider

them in status assessment although risk is related to them.

Compared to the first cycle RBMPs, where available time series were often too short, trend

assessment is now commonly applied. In the second RBMPs, even trend reversal assessment is

widely applied, which usually requires longer time series than trend assessment.

1.10.2.

Conclusions

Most groundwater bodies have been assessed, and for only very few the chemical status is

unknown. Overall, the confidence in the status results is relatively high.

Due to the reported re-delineation of a significant number of groundwater bodies,

improvements of the status assessment methods and changed threshold values, comparisons

between both reporting cycles need to be made carefully.

Overall, groundwater chemical monitoring did not improve since the first cycle RBMPs. In

contrary, two Member States reduced the coverage of groundwater bodies by surveillance

monitoring. A significant number of groundwater bodies is still without chemical monitoring

sites and the partially reported grouping of groundwater bodies for monitoring purposes does

not fully justify the absence of monitoring. Therefore, there is still an inconsistency with the

WFD requirement on groundwater chemical monitoring. Following the clarification from the

Member States, the monitoring of the WFD core parameters is partly implemented for the

United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium, France, while it is complete for about seventeen Member

States. One Member State i.e. Finland has very limited monitoring of the WFD core

parameters.

Not all groundwater bodies which were identified at risk of failing good chemical status are

subject to operational monitoring and also not all substances causing risk are fully covered. As

with surveillance monitoring the partially reported grouping of groundwater bodies cannot

completely justify the absence of operational monitoring at in total 669 groundwater bodies at

risk. Therefore, there is evidence of inconsistency with the WFD requirement on groundwater

chemical monitoring.

About 74% of the total groundwater body area is at good groundwater chemical status. The

overall chemical status of groundwater bodies improved only very little since the first cycle.

Also the reported expected achievement of good status for most of the groundwater bodies by

2027 or beyond 2027 demonstrates the long time-lag between the implementation of measures

and their effectiveness in groundwater.

141

The consideration of groundwater associated aquatic and groundwater dependent terrestrial

ecosystems improved significantly. In almost all Member States such ecosystems were

identified and commonly considered in status assessment if risk was related to them.

Still, not all Member States (e.g. Spain) have established threshold values for all

substances/indicators posing a risk of failing good status.

Trend assessment is now commonly applied in all Member States, in few cases only covering a

subset of RBDs.

1.10.3. Recommendations



Operational monitoring must be ensured for all groundwater bodies identified at risk.

Monitoring of core parameters must be reported by Member States.

Grouping methodologies for monitoring and status assessment is not always clear, and

thus the absence of monitoring sites cannot be justified.

Member States should set threshold values for all substances/indicators posing a risk of

failing good status, and should clearly describe how natural background levels have

been considered in their establishment.



Some Member States still need to develop and apply trend reversal methodologies.



142

1.11.Designation of HMWBs and AWBs and definition of GEP

1.11.1.

Introduction

Designation of HMWBs and AWBs

The WFD aims to bring all water bodies to GES by 2015. Measures have to be identified and

implemented for impaired water bodies to improve their conditions. Not all water bodies,

however, can be brought to a GES which refers to only slight changes compared to natural

undisturbed conditions, since important water uses would otherwise be significantly affected.

Many water bodies have been heavily modified in their physical structure to serve various uses

including navigation, flood protection, hydropower, or agriculture. In many cases, it is not

viable nor desirable from a socio-economic perspective to abandon such uses and to remove the

physical modifications which affect the water bodies. Member States can, thus, designate such

water bodies as HMWBs or AWBs whose environmental objective is GEP instead of GES,

according to WFD Article 4(3).

Some of the key aspects which should be considered in the designation of HMWB are recalled

below:



HMWB should be water bodies that have undergone significant hydro-morphological

alterations such that the water body is substantially changed in character (WFD Article

2(9)). In general, these hydro-morphological alterations should be long-term and non-

reversible, and impact both morphological and hydrological characteristics.

The designation process needs to include a clear understanding of the expected failure

of good status due to hydro-morphological changes. Therefore, the proper assessment

of ecological status is a prerequisite for HMWB designation. If GES is achievable,

designation as HMWB is not justified.



Restoration measures to achieve GES need to be identified (changes to the hydro-

morphological characteristics of the water body which would be necessary for

achieving GES). For HMWB to be designated, these restoration measures should have

significant adverse effects on: (i) the wider environment, (ii) navigation, including port

facilities, or recreation, (iii) activities for the purpose of which the water is stored, such

as drinking water supply, power generation or irrigation, (iv) water regulation, flood

protection, land drainage, (v) other equally important sustainable human development

activities (WFD Article 4(3)(a)). The reasons and criteria for judgements on

significance should be made clear.



The beneficial objectives served by the modified characteristics of the water body

cannot, for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate costs, reasonably be



143

achieved by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option (WFD

Article 4(3)(b)).



HMWB and AWB are a specific water body category with their own classification

scheme and objective, namely GEP. While GES requires the implementation of

restoration measures to reach the environmental objectives, reaching GEP requires the

implementation of mitigation measures so as to improve the overall environmental

condition of the water bodies.



HMWB and AWB are not a type of exemption. Exemptions under WFD Articles 4(4),

4(5), 4(6) and 4(7) may also apply to HMWB and AWB, as they apply to natural water

bodies.



HMWB designation refers to existing modifications. Any new modification with

potential significant effect on the ecological status of the water body needs to be

handled as a possible exemption through WFD Article 4(7) if the conditions are met.

Therefore, designation of HMWB in view of future modifications is not in line with

the WFD.

The methodology and specific criteria for HMWB designation (application of all

relevant steps according to CIS HMWB guidance number 4

) should be clearly

explained in the RBMPs.



In addition, according to WFD Article 4(3), the designations of HMWB and AWB and the

reasons for them shall be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs and reviewed every six years

for each new WFD planning cycle.

The WFD takes a very similar approach to AWBs and HMWBs. AWB must have been created

by the same specified uses listed in Article 4(3)(a). The CIS Guidance document no. 4

interprets an AWB "as a surface water body which has been created in a location where no

water body existed before and which has not been created by the direct physical alteration or

movement or realignment of an existing water body". As in the case of HMWB, the

environmental objective of AWB is GEP.

According to the assessment of the first RBMPs, the designation of HMWB is one of the key

elements of the WFD. In the first RBMPs, HMWB were designated to a significant extent in

Member States (approximately 12% of surface water bodies with an additional 4% designated

as AWB), reflecting the amount of modifications that took place historically in Europe.

CIS Guidance Document no.4. Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies.

Available online:

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/f9b057f4-4a91-46a3-b69a-e23b4cada8ef/Guidance%20No%204%20-

%20heavily%20modified%20water%20bodies%20-%20HMWB%20(WG%202.2).pdf

144

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle

In the second RBMPs, approximately 13% of European surface water bodies are designated as

HMWB and 4% as AWB. The extent of designation varies across Member States, with some

States designating more than 30% of their water bodies as heavily modified (such as Hungary,

Malta, Germany and the Netherlands), while other States designate less than 5% of their water

bodies as heavily modified (such as Finland and Sweden). The extent of designation of AWB is

high in the Netherlands (more than 50% of surface water bodies), but in most Member States

with some exceptions is relatively low between 0% and 10%.

Figure 1 Designated HMWBs in the EU Member States

Source: WISE reporting 2016

145

Figure 2 Designated AWBs in the EU Member States

Source: WISE reporting 2016

Main activities and physical alterations due to which HMWB are designated

Flood protection, land drainage for agriculture and hydropower are the human activities (water

uses) due to which the highest number of water bodies is designated as HMWB across the EU,

followed by urban development (urban use other than drinking water supply) and storage for

drinking water and irrigation

. For a relatively high number of HMWB, the water activity for

which they are designated is either unknown or has been reported as “other” (i.e. not

further

specifying the water use categories in the WISE reporting).

The pre-defined list of water uses for HMWB in WISE is: Agriculture - land drainage; Agriculture - irrigation;

Energy - hydropower; Energy

–

non-hydropower; Storage for fisheries/aquaculture/fish farms; Flood

protection; Industry supply; Tourism and recreation; Transport - navigation / ports; Urban development -

drinking water supply; Urban development - other use; Wider environment - nature protection and other

ecological uses; Other; Unknown.

146

Figure 3 Activities for which water bodies are being designated as HMWBs

Source: WISE reporting 2016

Weirs/dams/reservoirs and channelisation/straightening/bed stabilisation/bank reinforcements

are the main physical alterations affecting the highest number of designated HMWB in the EU.

Dredging/channel maintenance, land drainage and land reclamation/coastal modifications/ports

are physical alterations which affect a substantial number of HMWB in certain countries only.

The pre-defined list of physical alterations of HMWB in WISE is: Locks; Weirs / dam / reservoir;

Channelisation / straightening / bed stabilisation / bank reinforcement; Dredging / channel maintenance; Land

reclamation / coastal modifications / ports; Land drainage; Other

147

Figure 4 Types of physical modifications considered in the designation of HMWBs

Source: WISE reporting 2016.

Methodologies for designating HMWBs

A methodology for designating HMWB is described for the RBMPs of all Member States, with

few exceptions, where a consistent description of the method is until now missing (such as in

Denmark, Sweden and Slovakia). Nevertheless, the degree to which the reported methodologies

of the Member States cover the main aspects of HMWB designation varies. The RBMPs of

Member States with a relevant recommendation by the European Commission for the first

RBMPs concerning their designation methodologies were assessed in more detail concerning

these aspects.

Most Member State methodologies address the definition of “substantial changes in character”

in order to consider a water body for designation as HMWB and report relevant criteria. Some

approaches refer to simple presence of certain structures, e.g. presence of dams, dykes or ports,

while other approaches are more “quantified‘ and connect criteria to specific thresholds, e.g. %

of river water body impacted, for defining substantial changes in character.

The designation tests concerning the assessment of significant adverse effects of restoration

measures on the use or wider environment (Article 4(3)(a)) and the assessment of other means

to deliver the beneficial objectives of the modifications (Article 4(3)(b)) are less adequately

covered in the reported Member State methodologies. Relevant descriptions of how to do such

assessments were only found in about two thirds of the Member States assessed in detail, while

148

for one third, no relevant information is provided in the methodologies for designating HMWB.

Only few Member States provide information on specific criteria used to assess significant

adverse effects of restoration measures, such as Austria, and the criteria reported are mainly of

qualitative nature, similar to the first RBMPs.

Furthermore, for the majority of Member States, no information was found reported in the

second RBMPs on the details of the outcome of the designation tests of significant adverse

effects and “other means” for individual water bodies

(e.g. in Czech Republic, Germany and

Hungary). The information provided is in most cases of general nature, applicable to the

national or regional level. Only few Member States provide information on specific criteria

used to assess significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use or wider

environment. The criteria reported are mainly of qualitative nature, instead of quantified ones.

This situation is similar to the first RBMPs.

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

The EU average share of surface water bodies designated as HMWB and AWB is similar

between the second and first RBMPs (ca. 12-13% and 4% respectively). Some differences are

noted only in individual Member States, while for the majority of countries, the extent of

designated HMWB and AWB has remained the same. In some countries, the share of

designated HMWB has increased, while in others, the share of designated HMWB decreased

since the first cycle.

Most countries clearly report that they have reviewed the designation of HMWB and AWB for

the second planning cycle; this involves an assessment of whether existing HMWB and AWB

still fulfil the relevant criteria, and whether water bodies formerly not designated should be

designated as HMWB or AWB for the new cycle.

The degree to which the reasons for changes in the extent of designations are explained varies

in the second RBMPs between Member States. In the RBMPs of some Member States, no

explanations of the changes are provided, even though it is stated that designations have been

reviewed. Other Member States provide explanations, even though these may not be detailed at

individual water body level.

The main reasons for changes in the extent of designating HMWB and AWB since the first

RBMPs, as reported by Member States, are:



Improved data available from new investigations and monitoring in hydro-

morphological and biological terms

Updated analysis of hydro-morphological pressures and updated assessment of status



149



Redelineation of water bodies (for example, changes in the number of HMWB due to

the merging of water bodies)

Further knowledge acquired on the feasibility of restoration actions or other means

which may have become available to provide equivalent benefits to those of the

physical modifications of the HMWB

Finalisation of designations of water bodies that were only provisionally identified as

HMWB or AWB in the first RBMPs



Designations of new HMWB as a result of new developments that have been permitted

since the first RBMPs

De-designations of HMWB into natural water bodies, because of new assessments

indicating that the water bodies may achieve GES

Changes in the methodology for designating HMWB (for example, further uses

considered in the designation may have led to an increase of HMWB)



For several countries, the methodologies for designating HMWB and AWB are the same as

those used for the first RBMPs. However, for certain countries, updates in the methodologies

used are explicitly reported, while in other countries, new methods or guidelines for

designation have been published since the first cycle.

In some countries, assessments to complete the designation of HMWB and AWB are still

ongoing and further changes to the extent of designation may take place during the second

cycle.

Definition of GEP for HMWB and AWB

Within the WFD implementation, the status of HMWB and AWB needs to be assessed in terms

of achieving at least GEP as this is defined in Annex V of the Directive. A water body shows a

GEP when there are slight changes in the values of the relevant biological quality elements as

compared to the values found at Maximum Ecological Potential (MEP). The MEP is considered

as the reference conditions for HMWB and AWB, and is intended to describe the best

approximation to a natural aquatic ecosystem that could be achieved given the hydro-

morphological characteristics that cannot be changed without significant adverse effects on the

specified use or the wider environment.

The definition of ecological potential for HMWB and AWB has been a subject of long

discussions between Member States and the Commission in the context of the CIS. Defining

ecological potential is a challenging and complex subject in the WFD implementation, which

needs to be defined on the basis of a sound methodological approach in order to set appropriate

environmental objectives for the numerous HMWBs and AWBs in Europe.

150

An Appendix to CIS Guidance document number 4 is currently in preparation to provide more

detailed guidelines on the establishment of GEP and MEP for HM and AW bodies.

Until the second RBMPs, the following two approaches had been put forward and discussed on

EU level for the definition of GEP.

•

Reference-based approach

(based on the CIS Guidance Document number 4): This

approach is based on biological quality elements as illustrated in CIS Guidance number

. The MEP for HMWB relates to the values of biological quality elements after all

mitigation measures have been implemented that do not have a significant adverse

effect on the use. GEP is defined as only slight changes from those values at MEP. GEP

represents a state in which the ecological potential of a water body is falling only

slightly short of the maximum it could achieve without significant adverse effects on

the wider environment or on the relevant water use or uses. An assessment of

disproportionate costs of the mitigation measures should not be considered (as these are

considered when applying exemptions).

•

Mitigation measures approach

(alternative Prague approach): The alternative Prague

approach

takes a different route and bases the definition of GEP on the identification

of mitigation measures. Starting from all measures that do not have a significant adverse

effect on the water use, those measures are excluded that, in combination, are predicted

to deliver only slight ecological improvement. GEP is then defined as the biological

values that are expected from implementing the remaining identified mitigation

measures. As in the first approach, an assessment of disproportionate costs of the

mitigation measures should not be considered. A key difference to the first approach is

that the GEP is derived directly from the mitigation measures, and not indirectly from

the specification and prediction of biological quality elements at MEP.

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle

According to the WISE reporting, GEP has been defined in almost all Member States. In some

Member States though, it has only been defined for some but not all RBDs with designated

HMWB or AWB. In a few Member States, GEP is reported as not defined yet in the second

RBMPs. In one case, there are currently projects ongoing to develop a GEP methodology. In

another, a national methodology for GEP has not yet been published.

CIS Guidance Document no.4. Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies.

Available online:

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/f9b057f4-4a91-46a3-b69a-e23b4cada8ef/Guidance%20No%204%20-

%20heavily%20modified%20water%20bodies%20-%20HMWB%20(WG%202.2).pdf

See Annex II of Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive 2006: Good Practice in

managing the ecological impacts of hydropower schemes; Flood protection works; and works designed to

facilitate navigation under the Water Framework Directive. 30 November 2006.

151

In the second RBMPs, about one third of the Member States define GEP on the basis of the

reference-based approach and one fifth of the Member States on the basis of the mitigation

measures approach. In several Member States, either a hybrid approach combining elements of

the two methods in all their RBDs is used or they use different approaches across the regions or

RBDs on their territory. In one country, the approach used is not specified as one of the

approaches listed in WISE; different criteria to assess ecological potential were used, which do

not correspond to any of these approaches.

Most methodologies of Member States for defining GEP are established at national level. In

terms of the water categories addressed, most reported methodologies describe the definition of

GEP for rivers, less methodologies refer to lakes and coastal waters while the category less

often addressed by the reported methodologies are transitional waters. In a few Member States,

the methods for GEP establishment treat reservoirs separately from lakes and rivers.

With regards to the level at which GEP has been defined, more than half of the Member States

report to have defined GEP at the water body level (a few of these countries have done so for

part of their RBDs). Several Member States have defined GEP for groups of HMWB and AWB

of the same use/physical modification (a few of these countries have used this approach for part

of their RBDs). A few Member States report to have used another approach (for all or some of

their RBDs).

GEP definition in terms of biology

GEP is reported as defined in terms of biology in most Member States, which have defined

GEP in the second RBMPs. In some Member States, GEP is reported as not defined in terms of

biology, but also in the case of a few other countries, no clear information could be found in

their RBMPs on how actual values for biological quality elements (BQEs) are estimated for

GEP.

The BQEs for which biological values have been derived for MEP and GEP in the majority of

RBDs are phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and fish (respectively in 77%, 76% and 60% of

the RBDs in which GEP is defined in biological terms). Biological values for phytobenthos and

macrophytes for MEP and GEP have been derived in less RBDs (respectively in 52% and 39%

of the RBDs).

Most Member States report that the establishment of values of BQEs for GEP is based on

assessment methods which are similar to those used for GES of natural water bodies, but often

using lower thresholds to distinguish between classes of “good” and “moderate”. A comparison

between GEP and GES has been carried out in half of the Member States, which have defined

GEP. In another few Member States, such a comparison was done in some but not all of their

RBDs where GEP is defined, while no such comparison was done in several Member States.

152

It is also noted that, according to WISE, for the second RBMPs, almost all Member States

(with few exceptions) report to have one or more biological quality element assessment

methods in place, which are sensitive to hydrological and/or morphological changes. Such

methods have been reported for various BQEs in the different water categories (rivers, lakes,

coastal and transitional waters).

Estimations of BQE values can be based on available data and monitoring, combined with

expert judgement. Some countries report that biological values have only been derived in case

monitoring data are available; in cases of lack of biological data, ecological potential is defined

mainly in hydro-morphological terms.

Figure 5 BQEs for which biological values have been derived for MEP and GEP

Source: WISE reporting 2016. Note: The total number of RBDs in which GEP is reported as

defined in biological terms is 93.

Table 1: Key elements of GEP definition in the second RBMPs of the Member States

Approach

definition

for

GEP

GEP reported as

Level at which GEP is

defined in terms

defined

of biology

Yes

At water body level

For

groups

HMWB/AWB in four

RBDs in Walloon

At water body level in

Brussels region and

Flanders

Member State

Austria (AT)

Hybrid approach

Mitigation

measures

approach in four RBDs in

Belgium (BE)

Walloon

Reference-based approach Yes

in one RBD (Brussels

region)

Hybrid approach in two

153

Member State

Approach

definition

for

GEP

GEP reported as

Level at which GEP is

defined in terms

defined

of biology

At water body level

Another approach

For

groups

HMWB/AWB in eight

RBDs

At water body level in

two RBDs

RBDs in Flanders

Bulgaria (BG)

Cyprus (CY)

Czech Rep (CZ)

Reference-based approach Yes

Mitigation

approach

measures

Reference-based approach Yes

Reference-based approach

Germany (DE)

in three RBDs

Yes

Hybrid approach in seven

RBDs

Yes

Denmark (DK)

(in three RBDs;

Reference-based approach for one RBD, At water body level

GEP

not

defined)

Reference-based approach Yes

For

groups

HMWB/AWB

Estonia (EE)

Spain (ES)

At water body level in

Reference-based approach

twelve RBDs, for

in fourteen RBDs

Partially (in 16 of

groups

Hybrid approach in four 18 RBDs)

HMWB/AWB in six

RBDs

Mitigation

approach

measures

At water body level

Finland (FI)

France (FR)

Hybrid approach

Yes

(in 11 RBDs; for

two RBDs with

designated

At water body level

HMWB/AWB,

GEP

not

defined)

Croatia (HR)

Hungary (HU)

Italy (IT)

Luxembourg (LU)

GEP not defined

Mitigation

approach

GEP not defined

Reference-based approach Yes

154

At water body level

measures

At water body level

Member State

Latvia (LV)

Malta (MT)

Approach

definition

Not specified

Mitigation

approach

for

GEP

GEP reported as

Level at which GEP is

defined in terms

defined

of biology

Yes

Another approach

Yes (only for

coastal

water At water body level

bodies)

Yes

At water body level

For

groups

HMWB/AWB in four

RBDs

Another approach in

five RBDs

In practice, depends on

water category (rivers:

for

groups

HMWB/AWB; lakes:

national

level;

transitional and coastal

waters: at water body

level)

Yes

(in eight RBDs;

Defined for groups of

for two RBDs,

HMWB/AWB

GEP

not

defined)

Yes

Another approach

At water body level

For

groups

HMWB/AWB

measures

The Netherlands (NL) Hybrid approach

Poland (PL)

Reference-based approach Yes

Portugal (PT)

Hybrid approach

Romania (RO)

Sweden (SE)

Slovenia (SI)

Slovakia (SK)

Hybrid approach

Mitigation

approach

measures

Reference-based approach Yes

Mitigation

measures

approach in England,

United Kingdom (UK) Wales and Scotland

Hybrid

approach

Northern Ireland

At water body level

Source: WISE reporting 2016 and additional information from the published RBMPs.

155

Mitigation measures for defining GEP

Mitigation measures for defining GEP are reported in almost all Member States, where GEP

has been defined. Measures related to longitudinal continuity and fauna migration, habitat

restoration and setting of ecological flows are the most commonly reported mitigation measures

(Figure 6). No mitigation measures for defining GEP were reported for a few. Mitigation

measures used to define GEP need to be linked to specific ecological improvements in order to

set the environmental objective of HMWB and AWB in a way which is consistent with the

WFD. In the majority of the first RBMPs, there was no explanation of the expected ecological

improvements, while, on some RBMPs, there was some general information on ecological

improvements but the ecological benefits of individual measures remained unclear. This has

not been significantly improved in the second RBMPs, as descriptions of the ecological

changes that the mitigation measures are designed to achieve were found in the plans of only

less than a third of Member States (descriptions being mainly qualitative). In the RBMPs of

more than half of the Member States, no such descriptions have been given, indicating a

significant gap in this respect.

Figure 6 Mitigation measures for defining GEP

Source: WISE reporting 2016; Note: Percentage calculated with reference to the total number

of RBDs (119) which reported mitigation measures for defining GEP and MEP.

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

In the first RBMPs, GEP was not defined at all or only in a very limited way in more than a

third of Member States. Overall, progress is noted in this respect, as in the second RBMPs,

156

GEP is reported as defined (or partly defined) in almost all Member States. Although there are

still gaps in the methods of many Member States and specific CIS guidance on the process for

establishing GEP is in development, several methodological improvements have been reported.

Methodological improvements for the establishment of GEP in the second RBMPs are reported

by a number of countries, and in some countries, new national methods have been developed

since the first cycle.

One of the key improvements reported by Member States in the methodological developments

of GEP definition since the first RBMPs is the inclusion of more biological quality elements in

the assessment. In the first RBMPs, due to the lack of data and well-developed assessment

methods, it was possible to only include few BQEs in the assessment of ecological potential.

Since the first cycle, the assessment methods for various BQEs have been reviewed and

improved, therefore, the number of BQEs to assess the classification of ecological status and

potential in different water categories has increased.

Nevertheless, the level of information provided on the ecological changes that the mitigation

measures for defining GEP are designed to achieve remains limited, indicating a lack of

progress in this respect since the first RBMPs.

1.11.2.

Conclusions

For the majority of countries, the extent of designated HMWB and AWB has remained similar

to the first RBMPs, while some differences (increase or decrease of the number of designated

HMWB and AWB) are noted only in individual Member States. In the RBMPs of some

Member States, no explanations of the changes are provided, even though it is stated that

designations have been reviewed. Other Member States provide explanations, even though

these may not be detailed at individual water body level.

A methodology for designating HMWB is described for the RBMPs of all Member States, with

few exceptions. Nevertheless, the degree to which the reported methodologies of the Member

States cover the main aspects of HMWB designation varies. Most Member State methodologies

address the definition of “substantial changes in character” in order to consider a water body

for designation as HMWB and report relevant criteria. However, descriptions of how to assess

significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use or wider environment and how to

assess other means which are better environmental options were only found in about two thirds

of the Member States assessed in detail.

For the majority of Member States, no information was found reported in the second RBMPs

on the details of the outcome of the

designation tests of significant adverse effects and “other

means” for individual water bodies. The information provided is in most cases of general

nature, applicable to the national or regional level. Only few Member States provide

information on specific criteria used to assess significant adverse effects of restoration

157

measures on the use or wider environment and the criteria reported are mainly of qualitative

nature, similar to the first RBMPs.

In the first RBMPs, GEP was not defined at all or only in a very limited way in more than a

third of Member States. In the second RBMPs, GEP is reported as defined (or partly defined)

almost all Member States (reported as undefined only in very few Member States).

Methodological improvements for the establishment of GEP in the second RBMPs are reported

by a number of countries, while in some countries, new national methods have been developed

since the first cycle. One of the key improvements reported by Member States since the first

RBMPs is the inclusion of more biological quality elements in the definition of GEP.

GEP is reported as defined in terms of biology in the majority of Member States, with only on

fifth of countries reporting not to have done so in the second RBMPs. The BQEs for which

biological values have been derived for MEP and GEP in the majority of RBDs are

phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and fish. Most Member States report that the

establishment of values of BQEs for GEP is based on assessment methods which are similar to

those used for GES of natural water bodies, but often using lower thresholds to distinguish

between classes of “good” and “moderate”.

Mitigation measures for defining GEP are reported in most Member States, where GEP has

been defined. Nevertheless, the level of information provided on the ecological changes that the

mitigation measures for defining GEP are designed to achieve remains very limited, indicating

little progress in this respect since the first RBMPs.

1.11.3.



Recommendations

Member States should continue the efforts to further improve the methodologies for the

designation of HMWBs. Clear criteria of how to assess significant adverse effects of

restoration measures on the use or wider environment and how to assess other means

which are a significantly better environmental option should be developed. Generic and

qualitative descriptions should be improved towards more transparent and traceable

quantitative approaches.



Member States should further improve the definition of GEP by including more

biological quality elements. The objective of GEP needs to be clearly distinguishable

from the application of exemptions.

158

1.12.Environmental Objectives and Exemptions

1.12.1.

Introduction

The WFD defines environmental objectives in Article 4 and sets the aim for long-term

sustainable water management. Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objectives to be achieved

in all surface and groundwater bodies, i.e. good status or potential (for HM and AW bodies) by

2015, and introduces the principle of preventing any further deterioration of status. A number

of exemptions to the general objectives are possible to be applied if specific conditions are met.

Article 4(4) allows for an extension of the deadline for achieving good status beyond 2015,

Article 4(5) allows for the achievement of less stringent objectives, Article 4(6) allows a

temporary deterioration in the status of water bodies as a result of circumstances of natural

cause or

force majeure,

and Article 4(7) sets out conditions in which deterioration of status or

failure to achieve certain of the WFD objectives may be permitted for new modifications to the

physical characteristics of surface water bodies, alterations to the level of groundwater, or

deterioration from high to good status as a result of new sustainable human development

activities. Furthermore, Articles 4(8) and 4(9) introduce two principles applicable to all

exemptions and designation of heavily modified water bodies: the exemptions applied for one

water body must not permanently exclude or compromise the achievement of the

environmental objectives in other water bodies, and when exemptions are applied, at least the

same level of protection provided for by existing EU law must be achieved.

The WFD provides the general and legally binding framework on exemptions. Guidance was

elaborated to facilitate a better common understanding on the practical application. Further

clarifications can be obtained in the CIS Guidance Document No. 20 on exemptions

. Since

the publication of the second RBMPs, three further supporting documents have been elaborated

and published, aiming to help and further clarify the application of exemptions. These include

the CIS Guidance Document No. 36 further clarifying aspects of Article 4(7)

, the technical

document clarifying the application of WFD Article 4(4) time extensions in the 2021 RBMPs

and practical considerations regarding the 2027 deadline

and the technical document on

natural conditions in relation to WFD exemptions

CIS Guidance Document No. 20: Guidance on exemptions to the environmental objectives

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/2a3ec00a-d0e6-405f-bf66-

60e212555db1/Guidance_documentN%C2%B020_Mars09.pdf

Guidance Document No. 36: Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives according to Article 4(7)

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/e0352ec3-9f3b-4d91-bdbb-

939185be3e89/CIS_Guidance_Article_4_7_FINAL.PDF

Technical document on Clarification on the application of WFD Article 4(4) time extensions in the 2021

RBMPs and practical considerations regarding the 2027 deadline

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/f6393a2a-87ba-4cb1-86e8-ff3178a1ac1f

Technical document on Natural Conditions in relation to WFD Exemptions

159

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 2

cycle

According to the EEA State of Water Report (2018), in 2015, around 40 % of surface water

bodies were in high or GES/potential and 38 % of surface water bodies were in good chemical

status. Concerning groundwater, 74 % of EU groundwater bodies (by area) achieved good

chemical status by 2015, while around 90 % of groundwater bodies were in good quantitative

status.

A comparison of the first with the second RBMPs shows that for groundwater some

improvement of the status (mainly quantitative) has been achieved between the first and the

second cycle. For surface waters, the assessment of the second RBMPs shows that there has

been progress in the status of single quality elements and single pollutants. For example, the

status of some biological quality elements has improved from the first to the second cycle,

whereas overall status is determined by the quality element(s) in the lowest status class hence

not necessarily leading to an improvement of the overall status

It should be noted that several changes between the first and the second cycle are outlined in

many RBMPs, such as changes in water body delineation, changes in the methodologies

applied, changes in the quality elements considered in the status assessments as well as changes

in the legal requirements related to priority substances (for priority substances, see chapter 6.4).

Further, new assessment methods for different quality elements have been developed and

intercalibrated since the first RBMPs, allowing a better assessment of the status of waters. This

has resulted in a marked reduction of water bodies with unknown status, a clearly improved

confidence in status assessments in the second RBMPs, as well as a better understanding of the

ecological, chemical and quantitative status, the pressures causing failure to achieve good status

and the needed measures.

Due to these developments

–

and changes to water body delineation - many Member States

have flagged that a direct comparison of the status between the first and second cycle is not

fully possible. Further details on the assessment of status of surface water and groundwater are

given in chapters 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 .

Expected good status in 2015, 2021, 2027 and beyond

In the second RBMPs, Member States have also indicated whether it is expected that water

bodies will achieve good (or better) status by the end of 2015. This may differ from the most

recently assessed status of the water body, due to the fact that the assessment of status will most

likely be based on monitoring data from the period 2010-2014 and measures implementation

was still ongoing. Therefore, the monitored status communicated in the second RBMPs may

not necessarily reflect the expected status in the year 2015. In addition, for water bodies failing

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/cea9ffbb-2cf0-4c08-b421-b085893352a0/WD2017-2-2%20-

%20Natural%20Conditions%20-%20Main%20document.pdf

EEA (2018): European waters - Assessment of status and pressures 2018

160

to achieve good status (in 2015), Member States have indicated in their reporting the year

(2021, 2027 or beyond 2027) by when they are expected to achieve the WFD objectives.

The table below summarises this information on EU level, while separate tables are provided

further below with more detailed information for ecological, chemical and quantitative status at

Member State level.

Table 1: Status (ecological, chemical and quantitative) expected to be good (or better) in

2015 and the proportion expected to be in good status in 2021 and 2027. All surface water

bodies (by count) and groundwater bodies (weighted by area).

Ecological

status/potential

surface

water bodies

Expected

achieve good (or

better) by end of

2015

Less stringent

objectives

already achieved

Expected

achieve good (or

better) by end of

2021

Expected

achieve good (or

better) by end of

2027

Expected

achieve good (or

better)

beyond 2027

Unknown when

objectives will

be achieved

43%

Chemical

status

surface water

bodies

51%

Chemical

Quantitative

status

of status

groundwater

bodies

74%

90%

21%

31%

24%

17%

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: The percentages above have been calculated on the basis of the total number of water

bodies, including water bodies with unknown current status.

Overall, the following observations can be made:



43 % of all surface water bodies were expected to be in high or GES or potential in

2015. The percentage of water bodies in high/good status or potential is expected to

increase to 64 % and 95 % in 2021 and 2027, respectively.

161



For chemical status, 51 % of surface water bodies were expected to be in good status in

2015; this is expected to increase to 53 % and 77 % in 2021 and 2027, respectively. For

21 % of surface water bodies (mainly corresponding to one Member State), the less

stringent objectives set have been already achieved.



74 % of the area of groundwater bodies was expected to be in good chemical status in

2015; this is expected to increase to 77% and 94% in 2021 and 2027, respectively.

90 % of the area of groundwater bodies was expected to be in good quantitative status

already in 2015; this is expected to increase to 94% and 98 % in 2021 and 2027,

respectively.



Only a few Member States reported that good status will be achieved after 2027 for a

significant share of their water bodies or it is unknown when objectives will be

achieved.



Although the number of water bodies in unknown status has substantially been reduced

since the first RBMPs, it is noted that in a few Member States, the share of surface

water bodies in unknown ecological status or potential is still significant. In the case of

chemical status of surface water bodies, there is still a high share of water bodies in

unknown status in approximately a quarter of the Member States. In these cases, further

clarification and information may be needed on how it is possible to indicate expected

good status in 2015 for water bodies currently in unknown status.

It should be noted that information is often limited to judge whether the estimations on the

timelines by several Member Status on reaching good status are realistic or not.

162

Table 2: Ecological status/potential of surface water bodies expected to be good (or better) in 2015 and the proportion expected to be in good

status/potential in 2021 and 2027 at Member State level (count of water bodies).

Expected to achieve good (or better) by end

of 2015

47%

27%

59%

21%

51%

63%

58%

81%

46%

45%

21%

63%

36%

53%

68%

38%

62%

70%

38%

Less stringent objectives already

achieved

2016--

2021

2022—

2027

53%

18%

28%

57%

81%

28%

19%

21%

10%

33%

21%

64%

10%

68%

17%

22%

13%

21%

38%

30%

39%

Beyond

2027

Unknown when

objectives will be

achieved

59%

17%

13%

20%

13%

11%

21%

17%

16%

20%

22%

34%

69%

11%

12%

47%

22%

18%

40%

52%

51%

26%

20%

11%

Source: WISE electronic reports.

ote: The percentages above have been calculated on the basis of the total number of water bodies, including water bodies with unknown current status.

163

Table 3: Chemical status of surface water bodies expected to be good (or better) in 2015

and the proportion expected to be in good status in 2021 and 2027 at Member State level

(count of water bodies).

Expected to achieve Less

stringent 2016 2022

good (or better) by end objectives already --

MS of 2015

achieved

2021 2027

100

BE 2%

BG 95%

1% 3%

CY 97%

1% 2%

CZ 61%

1% 13%

100

DK 99%

EE 98%

ES 92%

3% 5%

FI 50%

50%

FR 82%

1% 17%

HR 93%

1% 1%

HU 46%

54%

IT 76%

8% 7%

100

LV 95%

MT 53%

NL 39%

9% 18%

PL 96%

1% 3%

PT 26%

52% 16%

RO 98%

1% 1%

98%

1% 1%

SI 1%

99%

SK 98%

UK 97%

1% 2%

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Beyo Unknown

when

objectives will be

2027 achieved

97%

24%

47%

34%

Note: The percentages above have been calculated on the basis of the total number of water

bodies, including water bodies with unknown current status.

164

Table 4: Chemical status of groundwater bodies expected to be good (or better) in 2015 and the proportion expected to be in good status in

2021 and 2027 at Member State level (by area).

Expected to achieve good (or better)

Less stringent objectives

2016--

2022--

Beyond Unknown when objectives

by end of 2015

already achieved

2021

2027

will be achieved

98%

37%

62%

55%

39%

88%

37%

17%

44%

62%

20%

16%

80%

20%

95%

68%

15%

95%

75%

23%

98%

83%

13%

61%

26%

21%

29%

50%

100%

28%

67%

31%

67%

92%

97%

87%

13%

94%

83%

17%

53%

19%

21%

Source: WISE electronic reports. Note: The percentages above have been calculated on the basis of the total number of water bodies, including water

bodies with unknown current status.

165

Table 5: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies expected to be good (or better) in 2015 and the proportion expected to be in good status in

2021 and 2027 at Member State level (by area).

Expected to achieve good

(or better) by end of 2015

100%

71%

99%

43%

95%

96%

98%

94%

79%

100%

90%

99%

75%

81%

100%

20%

24%

95%

98%

100%

80%

76%

16%

10%

13%

50%

29%

Less stringent objectives

already achieved

2016--2021 2022--2027 Beyond 2027

Unknown when objectives will be

achieved

166

Expected to achieve good

(or better) by end of 2015

94%

100%

97%

84%

Less stringent objectives

already achieved

2016--2021 2022--2027 Beyond 2027

Unknown when objectives will be

achieved

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: The percentages above have been calculated on the basis of the total number of water bodies, including water bodies with unknown current

status.

167

Application and justification of exemptions

The number of exemptions applied in the different Member States varies. An accountable

factor is

inter alia

the fact that Member States have different starting points for achieving

good status/potential because of the different levels of pressures and impacts as well as

different degrees of progress regarding the implementation of measures.

The following two figures provide an overall picture on the type of exemptions applied at EU

level to surface and groundwater bodies.

The main reported type and justification for exemptions to GES/potential of surface water

bodies are Article 4(4) time-extensions based on technical feasibility. In relation to chemical

status of surface water bodies, the main type of exemptions are Article 4(5) exemptions

justified by technical feasibility and leading to less stringent objectives.

For groundwater, technical feasibility is the main reason for Article 4(4) time-extensions to

the achievement of good quantitative status. Natural conditions and technical feasibility are

the main justifications for Article 4(4) time-extensions to the achievement of good chemical

groundwater status.

The following sections describe the reasons behind the different exemptions applied in more

detail.

168

Figure 9: Type of exemptions applied to surface water bodies in the 2

RBMPs.

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: Ecological status exemptions are reported at the water body level. Chemical status

exemptions for surface waters are reported for each Priority Substances that is causing

failure of good chemical status.

169

Figure 10: Type of exemptions applied to groundwater bodies in the second RBMPs.

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: Groundwater quantitative status exemptions are reported at the water body level.

Chemical exemptions for groundwater are reported at the level of each pollutant causing

failure of good chemical status.

170

Use of exemptions under Article 4(4)

–

Time extensions

Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(4) are applied in all Member States in the second

RBMPs. For surface water bodies, technical feasibility, natural conditions and

disproportionate costs are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption. The main

pressures reported causing the application of exemptions under Article 4(4) in surface water

bodies are hydro-morphological pressures, atmospheric deposition, diffuse source pollution,

point source pollution and water abstractions.

The figures below set out the application of Article 4(4) per Member State for ecological and

chemical status of surface water bodies. For more than one third of the Member States,

Article 4(4) exemptions to the achievement of GES/potential are applied for more than 50 %

of their water bodies.

For approximately one-fifth of the Member States, Article 4(4) exemptions to the

achievement of good chemical status are applied for almost 100 % of their surface water

bodies. For most of these Member States, the main reasons that all or almost all surface

waters are exempted from the achievement of good chemical status by 2015 are ubiquitous

substances.

Figure 11: Percentage of surface water bodies with Article 4(4) exemptions per Member

State related to ecological status/potential

Source: WISE electronic reports.

171

Figure 12: Percentage of surface water bodies with Article 4(4) exemptions per Member

State related to chemical status

Source: WISE electronic reports.

For groundwater bodies, mainly natural conditions and technical feasibility are used as

justifications for Article 4(4) exemptions, with technical feasibility reported more frequently

than natural conditions. Disproportionate costs play a less important role. The main pressures

related to exemptions for chemical status are diffuse and point sources of pollution, while for

groundwater quantitative status the main pressures are from water abstractions.

In general, the justification of Article 4(4) exemptions has improved compared to the first

RBMPs. Exemptions are justified at water body level which was not always the case in the

first cycle. In addition, the details provided behind each justification have improved in most

Member States and more detailed relevant studies have been reported.

Use of exemptions under Article 4(5) - Less stringent objectives

In the first RBMPs, exemptions under Article 4(5) were rarely used for surface water bodies,

comprising less than 5% of all exemptions applied.

The main pressures behind Article 4(5)

exemptions were diffuse and point pollution.

The figures 5 and 6 below show the application of Article 4(5) exemptions per Member State

in the second RBMPs for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies. In the

second RBMPs, Article 4(5) exemptions for ecological status of surface waters were applied

See European Commission Staff Working Document (2012): European Overview (2/2) Report from the

Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the water Framework

Directive

172

in two-thirds of the Member States, and mainly due to technical feasibility and

disproportionate costs.

Article 4(5) exemptions for chemical status of surface water were applied in one third of the

Member States, but mainly in Sweden and Czech Republic (see Figure 6 below). Sweden has

used Article 4(5) in a general way as in the first cycle and has reported less stringent

objectives under Article 4(5) for about 23.000 water bodies due to pollution by mercury. The

most frequent justification for this type of exemption is technical feasibility which was used

for approximately one fifth of the total surface water bodies. Similar to the first RBMPs,

Sweden has reported less stringent objectives under Article 4(5) for about 23,000 water

bodies due to pollution by mercury.

Figure 5: Percentage of surface water bodies with Article 4(5) exemptions per Member

State related to ecological status/potential

Source: WISE electronic reports.

173

Figure 6: Percentage of surface water bodies with Article 4(5) exemptions per Member

State related to chemical status

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Use of exemptions under Article 4(6)

Article 4(6) provides the possibility for an exemption for temporary deterioration of the status

of water bodies in certain circumstances, which are exceptional or could not reasonably have

been foreseen. Such circumstances include natural causes or force majeure, in particular

extreme floods and prolonged droughts, or the result of circumstances due to accidents which

could not reasonably have been foreseen. The reason for invoking an exemption under Article

4(6) is that an extreme event may affect the status of a water body considerably and during a

significant period of time, so that temporary deterioration may be inevitable (see also chapter

6.16 on droughts and water scarcity).

In the second RBMPs, the application of exemptions under Article 4(6) has been reported in

the Netherlands, Portugal, Hungary and Spain. The reasons for the application of such

exemptions are linked to extreme floods (Netherlands), prolonged droughts (Netherlands,

Portugal, Spain

100

) and accidents (Netherlands, Hungary, Spain).

Use of exemptions under Article 4(7)

Under Article 4(7) exemptions can be applied due to new modifications to the physical

characteristics of surface water bodies or alterations to the level of bodies of groundwater

which might lead to deterioration / non-achievement of good status / potential, or for a new

sustainable human development activity which might lead to deterioration of surface water

bodies from high status to good status. Non-exhaustive examples which may cause such

100

It should be noted that this exemption is only included in a Spanish RBMP but has not been reported in the

WISE reporting system.

174

modifications or alterations include new hydropower plants, flood protection schemes,

navigation projects or groundwater abstractions.

Member States will not be in breach of the Directive if a new modification/alteration/new

sustainable human development activity leads to deterioration or compromising the

achievement of good status/potential at water body level, and the conditions as outlined under

Article 4(7) (a) to (d)

101

are met. The authorisation or licensing process plays a key role in

performing the related assessments and justifying the conditions as outlined under Article

4(7).

Since the first RBMPs, important clarifications have been provided

102

on the way in which

compliance with the Directive's environmental objectives should be interpreted in the

assessment of new developments and lately new guidance

103

has been elaborated in the frame

of the CIS for the WFD.

In accordance with WFD Article 4(7) and Annex VII A.5, A.7 and B1, which refer to Article

4(7) exemptions and the need to report them in the RBMP, more than a third of the Member

States have reported Article 4(7) in the second RBMPs. Article 4(7) has been applied for

specific projects in about one-fifth of the total RBDs (29 out of 147 RBDs).

Exemptions under Article 4(7) have most commonly been applied in RBDs due to

impoundments for drinking water followed by flood protection schemes and hydropower

plants (see Figure 7).

According to the information reported to WISE, Article 4(7) has been applied in the

following Member States: Austria (3 RBDs), Bulgaria (3 RBDs), Germany (2 RBDs), Spain

(9 RBDs), France (2 RBDs), the Netherlands (1 RBDs), Poland (3 RBDs), Portugal

(3 RBDs), Romania (1 RBD) and the UK (2 RBDs).

a) All practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the body of water;

b) The reasons for those modifications or alterations are specifically set out and explained in the river basin

management plan required under Article 13 and the objectives are reviewed every six years;

c) The reasons for those modifications or alterations are of overriding public interest and/or the benefits to

the environment and to society of achieving the objectives set out in paragraph 1 are outweighed by the

benefits of the new modifications or alterations to human health, to the maintenance of human safety or to

sustainable development, and

d) The beneficial objectives served by those modifications or alterations of the water body cannot for reasons

of technical feasibility or disproportionate cost be achieved by other means, which are a significantly better

environmental option.

102

Case C-461/13 Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. versus Bundesrepublik Deutschland:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d6146e624bf57c46808158f287ace

d950b.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Pax8Le0?text=&docid=165446&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=ls

t&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=11661

103

CIS Guidance Document No. 36 - Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives according to Article 4(7):

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/e0352ec3-9f3b-4d91-bdbb-

939185be3e89/CIS_Guidance_Article_4_7_FINAL.PDF

101

175

The RBMPs or background documents provide descriptions on how the steps of the

assessment required under Article 4(7) have been applied. It should be noted that in several

other RBDs, projects that may cause deterioration/non-achievement of good status/potential

and thus require to meet the conditions as outlined in Article 4(7) are being planned.

Figure 7: Number of RBDs (RBDs) with projects causing Article 4(7) exemptions.

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: Some projects causing an Article 4(7) exemption may be multi-purpose, e.g. a proposed

hydropower plant may also serve as a flood protection scheme or as impoundment for water

supply. For this reason, the same project causing an Article 4(7) exemption in one RBD may

be captured in more than one bar in the figure above.

An assessment of the methodologies behind the application of Article 4(7) shows that some

progress has been made in the second cycle. Member States have developed more detailed

approaches and improved methodologies to assess a project’s effect on the status of a water

body and justifications are provided in more detail. The assessment of cumulative effects

though remains a challenge. Information on how to determine overriding public interest is

limited, and it is not clear to which extent public consultations have taken place.

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

Since the first RBMPs, there have been improvements in the approaches and methodologies

used for the application of exemptions for surface and groundwater bodies. While in the first

cycle, not all Member States have justified the application of exemptions on water body level,

this has significantly improved providing now more detailed information on the justifications

176

for exemptions. Most progress has been made in the justifications related to disproportionate

costs.

Generally, more detailed studies have been elaborated, although the information provided

does not always clearly distinguish between the criteria applied for justifications under

Article 4(4) and Article 4(5). Overall, justifications for exemptions are still often provided in

a generic way.

As in the first cycle, fewer Member States are applying Article 4(5) exemptions compared to

Article 4(4) exemptions, but overall the use of Article 4(5) exemptions has increased. Sweden

is the Member State that applies Article 4(5) most frequently due to mercury pollution.

A comparison of the first and the second RBMPs shows that for groundwater, improvements

in the status (mainly in quantitative status) has been achieved between the first and the

second cycle. For surface waters, the situation is less clear and changes to the application of

exemptions are difficult to track due to changes related to the assessment of status between

the first and second RBMPs. In several Member States, the methodology for status

assessment has improved, for example through increasing the number of quality elements

considered. Although this has improved the understanding of status, the improved knowledge

has in some cases led to a change in water body status despite the implementation of

measures. Changes in the number of delineated water bodies, i.e. an increase or decrease in

the number of water bodies, also makes it difficult to assess whether the use of exemptions

has increased or decreased in an RBD.

In relation to Article 4(6), the number of RBDs applying this type of exemption has increased

from five to fourteen between the first and second RBMPs.

Reported exemptions under Article 4(7), which were applied in the first RBMPs in 12 RBDs,

have increased in the second RBMPs, now being applied in 29 RBDs. Based on the

assessment of the RBMPs, it can be concluded that more projects are in the pipeline and more

cases of Article 4(7) application may occur in the future. From the assessment of the

methodologies behind the application of Article 4(7), it appears that some progress has been

made in terms of methodologies to assess the impacts on the status of a water body.

1.12.2.

Conclusions

In the second RBMPs, the status of groundwater across Europe is generally better than that of

surface waters. In addition, for groundwater, some improvement in the status (mainly in

terms of quantitative status) has been achieved between the first and the second cycle. For

surface waters, the situation is less clear and changes to the application of exemptions are

more difficult to track e.g. due to improvements related to the assessment of status between

the first and second RBMPs. Improvements in monitoring and classification methods have

177

led to a better understanding of water boy status, but have also changed the baseline for

comparing status assessments between the first and second cycle.

Exemptions under Article 4(4) are still applied to a significant extent in all Member States. In

general, exemptions under this Article are more often applied to surface water than to

groundwater for which good status is already achieved to a greater extent. For surface waters,

technical feasibility, natural conditions and disproportionate costs are used as justifications

for exemptions under Article 4(4). For groundwater bodies, mainly natural conditions and

technical feasibility are used to justify these exemptions, with technical feasibility used more

often than natural conditions.

Article 4(5) exemptions have been applied more often in the second than in the first RBMPs

in several Member States.

The justification provided in the second RBMPs for exemptions under Article 4(4) and 4(5)

are more detailed and more consistently reported on water body level compared to the first

cycle. However, justifications are still often provided in a generic way and the criteria

applied, distinguishing between Article 4(4) and 4(5), are not always clear.

The application of Article 4(7) has increased in the second RBMPs. Based on the assessment

of the RBMPs, it can be concluded that more projects are in the pipeline and more cases of

Article 4(7) application may occur in the future. The assessment of the methodologies behind

the application of Article 4(7) provided evidence that some progress has been made in terms

of methodologies to assess impacts on the status of water bodies. The assessment of

cumulative effects though remains a challenge. Information on how to determine overriding

public interest is limited and it is not clear to which extent public consultations have taken

place. Further improvements in relation to the application of Article 4(7) may be expected

due to clarifications provided on the way in which compliance with the Directive's

environmental objectives should be interpreted in the assessment of new developments and

new guidance which was elaborated in the frame of the CIS.

1.12.3.



Recommendations

A significant number of exemptions from the WFD objectives is still applied in the

second RBMPs. Member States should raise the level of ambition for the

implementation of the necessary measures to subsequently reduce the amount of

exemptions and to ensure a timely achievement of the WFD objectives.



Transparency in relation to the justifications for the use of exemptions should be

further improved in the RBMPs, including clear criteria for the decision. In case of

extending deadlines or lowering objectives, the necessary remaining measures and

timeline for implementation should be clearly indicated.

178



Member States should include in the RBMPs an inventory of projects under

development to ensure that the RBMPs present a complete overview of all current and

planned developments, including particularly new hydropower, navigation, flood

protection, drainage and water abstraction projects.



Member States should ensure a thorough assessment of the expected effects of

projects under development on water body status/potential at quality element level

RBMPs. For the application of exemptions Member States are encouraged to

implement the policy recommendations and the best practice guidance that has been

elaborated under the CIS.

179

1.13.Programme of measures

–

general & measures related to other

significant pressures

1.13.1.

Introduction

The WFD requires that, within each RBD, a POMs is established to address the significant

issues identified and to allow the achievement of the objectives established under Article 4.

The Directive further specifies that the POMs shall include as a minimum 'basic measures'

and where necessary to achieve objectives 'supplementary measures'.

Basic measures as a minimum must comprise:



Measures required in order to implement existent Community water legislation and

other environmental legislation (set out in Article 10 and in Part A of Annex VI

–

detailed below).



Measures to implement Article 9 (cost recovery).

Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use.

Measures to protect drinking water quality and reduce level of treatment required.

Measures to control abstraction from surface and groundwater.

Measures to control recharging of groundwater.

Measures to control point source discharges.

Measures to prevent or control inputs of diffuse pollutants.

Measures to address any other significant impacts on status, in particular the hydro-

morphological condition.

Measures to eliminate or reduce pollution by priority substances.

Measures to prevent accidental pollution.



The legislation referred to in Article 10 and listed in Part A of Annex VI are:

(i) The Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC).

(ii) The Birds Directive (79/409/EEC).

(iii) The Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC) as amended by Directive (98/83/EC).

(iv) The Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC).

180

(v) The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC).

(vi) The Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC).

(vii) The Urban Waste-water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC).

(viii) The Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC).

(ix) The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC).

(x) The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC).

(xi) The Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC).

Supplementary measures are those measures designed and implemented in addition to the

basic measures, where it is necessary to achieve the environmental objectives of the WFD as

established in Article 4 and Annex V. Supplementary measures can include additional

legislative powers, fiscal measures, research, educational campaigns that go beyond the basic

measures and are deemed necessary for the achievement of objectives.

According to Article 11(5), additional measures may be necessary when a water body is

unlikely to achieve the objectives under Article 4, after the adoption of the measures under

the first RBMP.

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 was

followed by the characterisation of the RBD (including the pressure and impact 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. Finally, the

environmental objectives are set and the POMs to achieve those objectives established. The

first POMs should have become operational by December 2012 at the latest. There is also 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

181

investigated, relevant permits and authorisations should be reviewed, monitoring programmes

reviewed and adjusted and amended or additional measures devised to ensure achievement of

objectives. Article 11.8 requires the POMs to be reviewed and updated by 2015, with

measures being made operational three years later.

This chapter covers general issues concerning the POMs such as implementation of the first

POMs, the application of KTMs to achieve objectives, the use of basic and supplementary

measures, targeting of measures including the assessment of the gap to good status, and

finally measures to address other significant pressures. The following chapters in this report

cover specific measures targeted abstractions and water scarcity, to pollution from agriculture

and other sources, to hydro-morphological pressures and water pricing policies.

Reported progress with the implementation of the first POMs

In their second RBMPs, Member States were asked to report on the status of implementation

of the first POMs; a summary of this information is shown in Table 1. It should be noted that

the reporting to WISE was not always consistent with the reporting in the RBMPs. All

planned measures have been completed in only a few RBDs of few Member States, whilst in

the vast majority (84 %) of RBDs, only some measures have been completed. Member States

reported that a lack of finance and unexpected planning delays were the main obstacles to the

implementation of the POMs, with a lack of mechanism for implementing measures (e.g.

national regulations not yet adopted) and governance issues affecting the implementation of

measures in at least 50 % of RBDs. Some Member States reported other obstacles such as a

change of the delineation of water bodies and classification systems, measures that proved to

be irrelevant, lack of membership, difficulties due to land ownership, land availability, staff

resources and an acceptance of the measures, acquisition of real estate, complex approval

procedures and coordination with participants and staff shortages, the need to prioritise

measures under the conditions of limited time and financing and a lack of research on the

effect of the measures, land acquisition and a reduction in the national budget due to the

economic crisis, and the legal regime of the land and tendering process for the award of

contracts (“the contestation of the auctions for works”).

182

Table 1 Status of the implementation of the first POMs

Status of implementation of first Number

PoM

RBDs

All planned measures started

Some planned measures started

Some measures completed

All measures completed

No measures started

119

of Percentage

RBDs

84%

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Table 2 Number of obstacles to the implementation of measures identified in the first

PoM

Obstacle

Governance

Delays

Lack of finance

Lack of mechanism

Lack of measures

Planned measures not cost effective

Extreme events

Number

RBDs

102

112

of Percentage

RBDs

50%

72%

79%

62%

22%

18%

10%

Source: WISE electronic reports.

About one-quarter of the Member States provided no information on the costs of the first

POMs. At EU level, a total investment of at least € 92350

million was reported for the first

POMs. Ninety two RBDs (65 %) reported having received a contribution from EU funds for

the first POMs, which implies that EU funds were a significant source of funding for

measures in the first cycle for some RBDs.

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle

Overview of the application of KTMs to achieve WFD objectives

The concept of KTMs was developed in 2012 to simplify reporting. This approach was the

consequence of the large differences in the level of detail reported in 2010. Some Member

States reported 10-20 measures whilst others reported hundreds or even thousands. KTMs are

groups of measures identified by Member States in the PoMs which target the same pressure

183

or purpose. The individual measures included in the PoM (being part of the RBMP) are

grouped into KTMs for the purpose of reporting. The same individual measure can be part of

more than one KTM because it may be multi-purpose, but also because the KTMs are not

completely independent silos. There is certain degree of overlap in the description of KTMs

to ensure that the Member States can more easily find the way to report their PoMs. KTMs

are expected to deliver the bulk of the improvements through reduction in pressures required

to achieve WFD environmental objectives. A KTM may be one national measure, but it

would typically comprise more than one national measure. The KTM should be fully

implemented and made operational within the RBMP planning period to address specific

pressures or chemical substances and to achieve the environmental objectives.

Figures 1 and 2 show the number of RBDs where significant pressures causing groundwater

bodies and surface water bodies to fail to be of good status are addressed by operational

KTMs. 91 RBDs have measures in place to address failures caused by diffuse pollution from

agriculture in groundwater and 123 RBDs have measures in place to address the same

pressure causing failures of surface water bodies. 128 RBDs have operational measures in

place to address point source pollution from urban waste water treatment plants. Only very

few Member States reported operational measures in place to address all the significant

pressures identified as causing failures of objectives. Approximately half of the Member

States reported that the majority of the significant pressures were being addressed by

operational measures in all RBDs with only one or two pressures not reported as being

addressed. Figure 3 shows the number of RBDs which have reported each KTM as

operational to address at least one significant pressure. KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution

from agriculture is reported as operational in the most RBDs to address significant pressures

in groundwater, whilst KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants is

reported as operational to address at least one significant pressure in surface water bodies in

the most RBDs.

Member States were asked to report the national basic and supplementary measures mapped

against the KTMs

104

(see

Tables 3 and 4 and Figures 4 and 5 below). A total of 12 800 basic

measures were reported. No single KTM was reported to have been applied in basic measures

by all the 24 Member States that reported information. Following observations can be made

on selected KTM:

The majority of Member States reported a total of 5 579 basic measures mapped

against KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants.

The majority of Member States have also applied a total of 565 basic measures under

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture.

104

For each pre-defined or new KTM, Member States were asked to report the unique code of each national or

RBD specific measure incorporated into the KTM.

184

The majority of Member States have mapped a total of 285 basic measures against

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture.

Two thirds of Member States have mapped a total of 442 basic measures against

KTM6 - Improving hydro-morphological conditions of water bodies other than

longitudinal continuity.

Two thirds of Member States have mapped a total of 408 basic measures against

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.

Two thirds of Member States mapped a total of 572 basic measures against KTM8 -

Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households.

Two thirds of Member States mapped a total of 243 basic measures against KTM13 -

Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer

zones etc).

The majority of Member States mapped a total of 280 basic measures against 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.

The majority of Member States mapped a total of 706 basic measures against KTM21

- Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and

built infrastructure.

1 193 basic measures have been mapped against KTM14

- Research, improvement of

knowledge base reducing uncertainty by about half of the Member States.

Two thirds of the Member States (reported at total of 1 251 basic measures under

nationally defined KTMs.

Only a few Member States reported basic measures KTM24 - Adaptation to climate

change and under KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification.

Some Member States have reported a large number of basic measures across a wide range of

KTMs, whilst at the other extreme some have reported a small number of measures against a

limited range of KTMs. Neither of these extremes suggests that the programme of measure

will be effective in addressing the significant pressures, either because too many measures to

be implemented have been adopted, or because an insufficient number of measures have been

adopted.

All 24 Member States which reported also provided information on the number of national

supplementary measures mapped against KTM. A total

of 10 157 supplementary measures

185

were reported. This is significant progress from the first POMs where little if no information

on supplementary measures was provided:

All Member States have mapped a total of 1 442 supplementary measures against

KTM6 - Improving hydro-morphological conditions of water bodies other than

longitudinal continuity and 274 supplementary measures against KTM2 - Reduce

nutrient pollution from agriculture.

The majority of Member States have mapped a total of 1 602 supplementary measures

against KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty.

A few Member States reported a total of 16 supplementary measures against KTM11 -

Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water

services from agriculture and 13 supplementary measures against KTM25 - Measures

to counteract acidification.

As with basic measures, some Member States have reported a large number of supplementary

measures across a wide range of KTMs whilst others have reported a few supplementary

measures against a small range of KTMs.

A comparison of the national measures mapped against KTMs versus the KTMs that

Member States had reported as being operational for the control of significant pressures,

showed that all national measures reported are operational in only a third of the Member

States. For the other Member States, a number of national measures had been mapped against

KTMs which were not reported as operational to address significant pressures causing failure.

186

Figure 1 Main significant pressures on groundwater bodies for which KTMs are

operational

. - Grou d ater - Alteratio of ater le el…

6.1 - Groundwater - Recharges

3.7 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Other

3.3 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Industry

. - A stra tio or flo di ersio - Pu li …

3.1 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Agriculture

2.10 - Diffuse - Other

2.8 - Diffuse - Mining

2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition

. - Diffuse - Dis harges ot o e ted to…

. - Diffuse - Co ta i ated sites or…

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport

2.3 - Diffuse - Forestry

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off

1.9 - Point - Other

1.7 - Point - Mine waters

1.6 - Point - Waste disposal sites

. - Poi t - Co ta i ated sites or a a do ed…

1.4 - Point - Non IED plants

1.3 - Point - IED plants

1.2 - Point - Storm overflows

1.1 - Point - Urban waste water

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Number of RBDs

Significant Pressures on Groundwater Bodies Addressed by

KTMs

Source: WISE electronic reports.

187

Figure 2 Main significant pressures on surface water bodies for which KTMs are

operational

. - Hydro orphologi al…

. . - Hydrologi al alteratio -…

. . - Da s, arriers a d lo ks -…

Significant Pressures on Surface Water Bodies Addressed by KTMs

. . - Da s, arriers a d lo ks -…

. . - Physi al alteratio of…

. - A stra tio or flo di ersio …

2.10 - Diffuse - Other

2.8 - Diffuse - Mining

. - Diffuse - Dis harges ot…

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural

1.9 - Point - Other

1.7 - Point - Mine waters

. - Poi t - Co ta i ated sites or…

1.3 - Point - IED plants

1.1 - Point - Urban waste water

80 100 120 140

Number of RBDs

Source: WISE electronic reports.

188

Figure 3: Number of RBDs which have reported each KTM as operational to address at least one significant pressure in surface water and

groundwater

KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures

KTM

- Measures to pre e t or o trol the i put of…

KTM - Water pri i g poli y

easures for the…

KTM - I pro e e ts i flo regi e a d/or esta lish e t…

KTM - I pro i g lo gitudi al o ti uity (e.g. esta lishi g…

KTM

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture.

KTM

- Measures to pre e t or o trol the ad erse i pa ts…

Surface Water

Groundwater

KTM

- Measures to redu e sedi e t fro

KTM

soil erosio a d…

- Measures for the phasi g-out of e issio s,…

- Dri ki g ater prote tio

- Water pri i g poli y

easures (e.g.…

easures for the…

KTM

KTM - Co stru tio or upgrades of aste ater treat e t…

100

120

140

Number of RBDs

Source: WISE electronic reports.

189

Table 3 National basic measures mapped against KTMs

Member State

AT BE BG CY

KTM

1,2

DE DK

FI FR

3,47

4 4

558

148

117

HR HU IT

190

KTM

21 4

KTM

24 4

KTM

30 10 2

KTM

27 5

KTM

12 13

KTM

10 0

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Member State

AT BE BG CY

DE DK

FI FR

HR HU IT

103

246

438

32 0

191

Table 4 National supplementary measures mapped against KTMs

Member State

KTM

KTM1

KTM10

KTM11

KTM12 9

KTM13 6

KTM14 3

KTM15

KTM16 6

KTM17 3

KTM18

KTM19

KTM2

KTM20

KTM21

KTM22

KTM23

KTM24

KTM25

1,023

191

130

BE BG CY CZ

DE DK EE ES

FI FR HR HU IT

204 2

LU LV MT NL PL PT

113 59

RO SE SI SK UK

1,826 6

160 1

150 1

192

Member State

KTM

KTM3

KTM4

KTM5

KTM6

KTM7

KTM8

KTM9

KTM99

1,140 6

BE BG CY CZ

DE DK EE ES

275 6

436 17

220

671

445

FI FR HR HU IT

LU LV MT NL PL PT

RO SE SI SK UK

Source: WISE electronic reports.

193

Figure 4 Number of Member States which have mapped basic measures against each KTM

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM

KTM - Water pri i g poli y easures for the i ple e tatio of the…

KTM - Water effi ie y, te h i al easures for irrigatio , i dustry, e ergy…

KTM - I pro e e ts i flo regi e a d/or esta lish e t of e ologi al…

KTM - I pro i g hydro orphologi al o ditio s of ater odies other…

KTM - I pro i g lo gitudi al o ti uity (e.g. esta lishi g fish passes,…

KTM - Re ediatio of o ta i ated sites (histori al pollutio i ludi g…

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture.

KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures

KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry

KTM - Measures to pre e t or o trol the i put of pollutio fro ur a …

KTM - Measures to pre e t or o trol the ad erse i pa ts of fishi g a d…

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture

KTM - Measures to pre e t or o trol the ad erse i pa ts of re reatio …

KTM - Measures to pre e t or o trol the ad erse i pa ts of i asi e…

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

KTM - Upgrades or i pro e e ts of i dustrial aste ater treat e t…

KTM - Measures for the phasi g-out of e issio s, dis harges a d losses…

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty

KTM - Dri ki g ater prote tio

easures (e.g. esta lish e t of…

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture

KTM - Water pri i g poli y easures for the i ple e tatio of the…

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants

KTM

Number of Member States

Source: WISE electronic reports.

194

Figure 5 Number of Member States which have mapped supplementary measures against each KTM

KTM - Water pri i g poli y

easures for the i ple e tatio of the…

KTM - I pro e e ts i flo regi e a d/or esta lish e t of…

KTM - I pro i g lo gitudi al o ti uity (e.g. esta lishi g fish passes,…

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture.

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change

KTM

- Measures to pre e t or o trol the i put of pollutio fro …

- Measures to pre e t or o trol the ad erse i pa ts of…

soil erosio a d surfa e…

- Measures to pre e t or o trol the ad erse i pa ts of fishi g…

KTM

- Measures to redu e sedi e t fro

- Dri ki g ater prote tio

- Water pri i g poli y

- Measures for the phasi g-out of e issio s, dis harges a d…

easures (e.g. esta lish e t of…

easures for the i ple e tatio of the…

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants

Number of Member States

Source: WISE electronic reports.

195

Notes: List of KTMs

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants

KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of

water services from industry

KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of

water services from agriculture

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer

zones etc)

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty

KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority

Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority

Substances

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including

farms).

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

KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species and

introduced diseases

KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation including angling

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture

KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and other

exploitation/removal of animal and plants

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport

and built infrastructure

KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change

196

KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture.

KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments,

groundwater, soil)

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old

dams)

KTM6 - Improving hydro-morphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal

continuity

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows

KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households

KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of

water services from households

KTM99 - Other KTM reported under PoM

197

As specified in the introduction to this chapter, Article 11(3) requires that the POMs include

specified basic measures. Table 5 below shows the types of basic measures that have been

reported mapped against KTMs in each Member State, and the number of RBDs within that

Member State for which the measures have been reported. Only a quarter of the Member

States reported that basic measures are in place to meet all the requirements of Article 11(3)

of the WFD, but not all of these measures apply in all the RBDs. Two Member States have

only 3 types of the basic measures required by Article 11(3) in place.

Of the types of basic measures required, half of the Member States who provided information

have reported that measures are in place for the implementation of the Habitats

105

or Birds

106

Directives, and to meet the requirements of Article 11(3)(f) on controls for the artificial

recharge or augmentation of groundwater and Article 11(3)(b) for the implementation of

Article 9 on the cost recovery of water services.

105

106

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and

flora

Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the

conservation of wild birds

198

Table 5 Basic measure types mapped against KTMs in the RBDs of each Member State

Basic

Measure

Type

Urban Waste

Water

Treatment

Nitrates

IPPC IED

Habitats or

Birds

Cost

recovery

water

services

Efficient

water use

Protection

water

abstraction

Controls

water

abstraction

Recharge

augmentation

groundwaters

Point source

discharges

Pollutants

diffuse

Hydro-

morphology

Pollutants

direct

groundwater

Surface

Member State

3/3

5/8

4/4

3/4

2/4

1/1

4/10

6/10

1/10

2/3

18/25

15/25

6/25

6/8

13/14

11/14

2/14

2/2

1/1

8/8

7/8

3/8

2/2

4/4

1/1

4/4

10/10

1/10

9/10

8/10

1/1

5/5

1/5

2/2

15/15

10/15

3/15

1/8

1/1

3/8

4/4

3/4

1/1

1/3

12/25

14/25

12/14

6/14

2/2

1/1

7/8

2/2

4/4

1/1

4/4

10/10

3/10

1/1

5/5

2/2

10/15

11/15

3/3

7/8

4/4

3/3

9/25

14/14

2/2

1/1

7/8

2/2

4/4

10/10

8/10

5/5

2/2

14/15

3/3

6/8

4/4

1/1

3/3

15/25

12/14

2/2

1/1

7/8

2/2

4/4

10/10

3/10

1/1

5/5

2/2

12/15

2/4

3/3

3/8

7/8

4/4

1/1

3/3

1/10

5/10

3/10

No information

2/3

No data reported

1/25

16/25

12/25

16/25

6/8

1/14

6/14

2/14

2/2

1/1

No data reported

1/1

3/8

7/8

8/8

7/8

No data reported

2/2

4/4

1/1

4/4

10/10

9/10

1/1

5/5

2/2

1/2

2/2

11/15

15/15

12/15

3/3

3/8

6/8

2/4

3/4

2/10

1/1

3/3

1/25

6/25

10/14

2/2

1/1

5/8

8/8

2/2

4/4

1/1

4/4

10/10

9/10

8/10

2/2

1/1

5/5

13/15

15/15

199

Priority

Substances

Accidental

pollution

3/3

3/8

2/4

2/3

5/25

12/14

2/2

1/1

4/8

2/2

4/4

10/10

9/10

5/5

2/2

11/15

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: The first number is the number of RBDs where the measure is in place. The second number shows the total number of RBDs in the Member State

–

thus

for Austria (AT) 3/3 indicates that measures are in place in all 3 RBDs, whereas for Spain (ES) 18/25 indicates that measures are in place in 18 of the 25

RBDs.

200

Targeting of measures to address the gaps to achieving WFD objectives

In order for measures to be effectively targeted, an analysis of the gap to good status should

be carried out, ideally, at a water body level. Member States were asked to report indicators

of the expected gap to good status for significant pressures for 2015, 2021 and 2027 together

with indicators of the level of implementation expected in the KTMs to be applied to address

the gaps.

From the information reported by the 25 Member States, it is clear that the implementation of

such an analysis varies considerably between the Member States. Some Member States

provided quantitative indicators for all RBDs showing the level of progress of

implementation of KTMs expected in 2015, 2021 and 2027 and the progress towards good

status that would be achieved for the main significant pressures to groundwater and surface

waters. In some cases it was anticipated that the level of progress that could be achieved in

addressing some significant pressures would be limited. Some Member States provided a

strong analysis for some, but not all of their RBDs. A number of Member States only

provided indicators for 2015 and 2021. In some cases this is because good status is expected

to be achieved in all water bodies by 2021, but this is not the case for all. Some Member

States provided quantitative indicators for the gap to good status for 2015 and 2021, but only

provided qualitative information for the level of progress expected in the implementation of

the measures. Four Member States (Germany, Finland, Malta and UK) provided some

information for some significant pressures for some years for some RBDs.

A few Member States reported that it was not possible to identify quantitative indicators, for

example due to the “complex pressure environment not allowing for the disaggregation of

the

pressure-measure

relationship”. A few other Member States reported that the information was

not available.

It is clear that some Member States have made significant progress in identifying the gap to

good status and the measures that should be implemented to address this, whilst others still

have significant work to do. It is also clear that some Member States have not yet developed

the methodology to achieve this level of analysis and there may be a benefit in ensuring an

effective sharing of knowledge between and within Member States of how this analysis can

be achieved.

201

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Prioritisation of Measures

Cost-effectiveness analysis is an appraisal technique that provides a ranking of alternative

measures on the basis of their costs and effectiveness, where the most cost-effective has the

highest ranking. A quantitative cost effectiveness analysis of measures was reported as

having been carried out in 17 RBDs (in only four Member States). No cost-effectiveness

analysis was reported to have been carried out in 22 RBDs (in five Member States). A

qualitative cost-effectiveness analysis of measure was reported as having been carried out in

35 RBDs (in five Member States). A combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis was

reported as having been carried out in the remaining 67 RBDs for which information was

reported.

For the purpose of this assessment, further information was sought on the methodology used

for the prioritisation of measures for most Member States. In all cases it was not possible to

easily identify from the information provided by the Member States the methods used to

prioritise measures, and how cost effectiveness analysis fits into this. It can therefore be

concluded that little progress appears to have been made on this aspect of implementation

since the first POMs.

Costs of planned measures

For the effective implementation of the second POMs, it is important that the costs of the

planned measures are clearly identified. Member States were therefore asked to report the

costs of measures (both capital investment and annual operation and maintenance costs) to

meet Article 11.3(a) requirements (measures required to implement Community legislation

for the protection of water) and measures to meet the requirements of Articles 11(3)(b-l),

11(4) and 11(5) (all other measures). Information could be reported either at the Member

State level or at the RBD level. Table 6 shows which information was reported by each

Member State and at what level.

A third of Member States reported all the information requested at the Member State level,

whilst one only reported the capital investment costs, another only reported the capital

investment costs for measures under Articles 11.3(b-l), 11.4 and 11.5 (all other measures).

Another Member State also only reported costs for measures under Articles 11.3(b-l), 11.4

and 11.5 (all other measures) but did report both capital investment and annual operation and

maintenance costs. Of these, only one Member State included depreciation in the

calculations.

Of those Member States that reported information at an RBD level, only three provided full

information for all RBDs. Two Member States only provided capital investment costs, no

202

operation and maintenance costs were reported. Two Member States provided capital

investment and operation and maintenance costs for both types of measures for most, but not

all, RBDs. Two other Member States only provided capital investment costs for measures

required by Articles 11.3(b-l), 11.4 and 11.5. The information provided by another two

Member States varied widely between the RBDs. No information was provided by one

Member State because the information was not available in the required format.

From the information reported, it can be estimated that the total capital investment needed for

Article 11(3)(a) measures from 2016-2021

will be at least € 56000 million and that € 10200

million/year will be needed for operation and maintenance costs. The total capital investment

costs for measures required by Articles 11(3)(b-l),

11(4) and 11(5) will be at least € 59600

million with € 3850 million/year in operation and maintenance costs.

Financing of measures

The planned measures identified will not be implemented unless the financing for these

measures has been agreed. Lack of finance was one of the key barriers to effective

implementation. Generally the Member States are expected to carry the costs of the EU

environmental acquis, although, when eligible, they can call on EU funds for support.

As several Member States have met their basic needs in terms of water services with the help

of EU funds, a significant source of support to Member States for the financing of measures

is still EU funds, similar to the first RBMPs. Two thirds of RBDs reported that they are

expecting a contribution from EU funds to the POMs. For instance, in the 2014-2020 period,

EU cohesion policy invests about 15 billion EUR in the water sector.

An additional source of funding has been the LIFE+, which has been used for many different

types of measures. Under its Environmental subprogramme, the development of RBMPs may

be identified as a target for 'Integrated Projects', which has been done for example in

Germany, Malta, Spain and UK.

Member States were asked to report the sectors for which a clear financial commitment has

been secured for the implementation of the PoMs in each of these sectors. Nearly half of

RBDs reported that financing has been secured for measures in all the relevant sectors, but a

fifth of RBDs (in Belgium, UK, Spain, Italy and Latvia) reported that financing had not been

secured for measures in any sector, whilst a tenth of RBDs reported that funding had been

secured for only one sector, although for a few of these RBDs only that specific sector was

reported as relevant (Figure 6).

Figure 7 below shows the number of RBDs that have secured funding for each sector. Over

half of the RBDs have reported securing financing for measures in the agricultural sector,

and/or from a governmental source (Parliament, Ministry of Finance etc.). At the other end of

203

the scale, only a tenth of RBDs report that finance has been secured for measures in the

energy sector for measures in the transport sector.

204

Table 6: Information reported by Member States on the costs of measures in the second cycle Programme of Measures

Articles 11.3(b-

Article11.3(a)

Depreciation

l), 11.4 and 11.5

Level

cost Capital

Article11.3(a)

included

in Capital

information

investment

Annual

costs Article

11.3(a) investment

reported

investment

reported

Member State

Yes

Some

RBDs, Some

RBDs,

RBD/Region

Some as 0

Yes

RBD

Yes

Member State

Yes

As 0

Yes

RBD

As 0

Yes

Nothing reported for all RBDs

Member State

Yes

Some

RBDs, Some

RBDs,

RBD

Yes

Some as 0

Some

RBDs,

RBD

Yes

Some as 0

Yes

Member State

Yes

RBD

Yes

Member State

Yes

Member

State/RBD

Yes

Some

RBDs, Some

RBDs,

Some

RBDs,

Some as 0, Some Some as 0, Some No

not Some as 0, Some

RBD

not reported

reported

not reported

Some

RBDs,

RBD

Some as 0

Not reported

Yes

205

Depreciation

Articles 11.3(b- included

l), 11.4 and 11.5 Articles 11.3(b-

Annual

costs 1), 11.4 and 11.5

reported

investment

Yes

As 0

Mem

ber

State

Yes

Some

RBDs,

Some as 0

Yes

Some

RBDs,

Some as 0, Some No

not reported

reported

Not reported

not

Mem

ber

State

Article11.3(a)

Level

cost Capital

information

investment

reported

RBD

Yes

Member State

Yes

RBD (but all

numbers

identical)

Some

RBDs,

RBD

Some as 0

RBD

Yes

RBD (but only 1

Yes

RBD)

Member State

As 0

Member State

Yes

Member State

Yes

RBD

For most RBDs

Articles 11.3(b-

Depreciation

l), 11.4 and 11.5

Article11.3(a)

included

in Capital

Annual

costs Article

11.3(a) investment

reported

investment

reported

Yes

Depreciation

Articles 11.3(b- included

l), 11.4 and 11.5 Articles 11.3(b-

Annual

costs 1), 11.4 and 11.5

reported

investment

Yes

All RBDs 0

Yes

Some

RBDs,

Some as 0

Yes

For most RBDs

Yes

As 0

Yes

For most RBDs

Source: WISE electronic reports.

206

Figure 6 Number of sectors for which each RBD has secured funding for the

implementation of measures

Number of RBDs

Number of sectors from which funding has been secured

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Figure 7 Number of RBDs for which funding is secured for the implementation of

measures in each specific sector

100

Number RBDs

Sector

Source: WISE electronic reports.

207

Co-ordination with MSFD

Article 13(2) of the MSFD

107

requires integration between the POMs adopted under the

MSFD and the POMs adopted under the WFD. As the timescales of the two Directives are

aligned, it is expected that joint consultation on the programmes will be carried out. This

section will discuss whether the preparations of the RBMP and PoM have been co-ordinated

with the implementation of the MSFD, whether the need for additional measures or more

stringent measures beyond those required by the WFD in order to contribute to the

achievement of the relevant MSFD objectives in coastal and marine environments have been

considered in the PoM, and, if so, what parameters those measures should address. This

section will also consider the KTMs that have been reported to be relevant to the purposes of

the MSFD.

Table 7 shows the number and percentage of RBDs who have reported that the preparation of

the RBMPs and PoMs has been co-ordinated with the MSFD and shows, that in the vast

majority of cases this has been carried out. Table 8 shows that only a third of RBDs reported

that the need for additional measures or more stringent measures beyond those required by

the WFD in order to contribute to the achievement of the relevant MSFD objectives in coastal

and marine environments have been considered in the PoM. Figure 8 shows the parameters

for which additional or more stringent measures are needed, and the number of RBDs for

which this applies.

For each measure reported in the inventory of measures, Member States were asked to

indicate if it is relevant to the MSFD. 7 485 basic measures and 5 068 supplementary

measures (a total of

12 553 measures) were reported to be relevant to the MSFD. Figure 9

shows the number of measures by KTM and Figure 10 shows the number of measures

reported by Member State as relevant to the MSFD (note: these are a total of the measures

reported for each RBD; if national measures apply in more than one RBD they will be double

counted).

107

Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework

for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (MSFD)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056&from=EN

208

Table 7: RBDs that have co-ordinated the preparations of the RBMP and PoM with the

MSFD

Preparations of RBMP and PoM co-ordinated with Number

MSFD

RBDs

Yes

100

Landlocked country

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Percentage

RBDs

72.5%

12.3%

15.2%

Table 8: RBDs which reported whether the need for additional measures or more stringent

measures beyond those required by the WFD in order to contribute to the achievement of the

relevant MSFD objectives in coastal and marine environments have been considered in the

PoM

Need for additional measures considered

Yes

Landlocked country

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Number of RBDs

Percentage of RBDs

29%

58%

13%

Figure 8: The parameters for which additional measures or more stringent measures are

needed beyond those required by the WFD in order to contribute to the achievement of the

relevant MSFD objectives in coastal and marine environments

Parameter for which additional

measure needed

None

Others

Litter

Chemicals

Nutrients

Number of RBDs

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note: “None” indicates that the need for additional measures was considered but the

conclusion was that no additional measures are needed.

209

Figure 9: Number of basic and supplementary measures reported as relevant to the MSFD by KTM

KTM99

KTM25

KTM24

KTM23

KTM22

KTM21

KTM20

KTM9

KTM8

KTM7

KTM6

KTM5

KTM4

KTM3

KTM2

KTM19

KTM18

KTM17

KTM16

KTM15

KTM14

KTM13

KTM12

KTM11

KTM10

KTM1

KTM

Supplementary

Basic

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Total number of measures reported relevant to MSFD

Source: WISE electronic reports.

210

Figure 10: Number of MSFD relevant measures reported by Member State

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

Basic

Supplementary

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Co-ordination with the Floods Directive

The integration and high level co-ordination between the WFD and the Floods Directive

108

has

been discussed in Section <> of this document on Governance. Article 9(2) of the Floods

Directive requires that the development of the first FRMPs should be carried out in co-

ordination with the review of the WFD RBMPs. This section investigates whether the

objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive have been considered in the second RBMP

and PoM, whether specific win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD

and Floods Directive, drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures

(NWRM) have been included in the PoM and whether the design of new and existing structural

measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, have been adapted to take

into account WFD environmental objectives.

Table 9 summarises the results of the analysis carried out on these aspects. A minority of RBDs

reported that the objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive had not been considered

in the PoM. The majority of RBDs reported to have included win-win measures in the RBMPs

in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management

and use of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM), with only a few RBDs reporting that

they have not included such win-win measures in the PoM. A similarly high proportion of

108

Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment

and management of flood risks

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060&from=EN

211

RBDs reported that the design of new and existing structural measures have been adapted to

take account of WFD objectives. A few RBDs reported that structural measures had not been

adapted.

Table 9: Summary of aspects relating to the integration of the PoMs for the WFD with the

requirements of the Floods Directive

Objectives

Requirements

Number

RBDs

Yes

123

and

FD Win

Win

measures

Structural measures adapted

Number

RBDs

124

Percentage

RBDs

88%

12%

Considered in PoM

included

Percentage

RBDs

89%

11%

Percentage Number

RBDs

87%

13%

125

Source: WISE electronic report

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1

cycle

The assessment of the first RBMPs showed that the measures were often not concrete and the

expected achievements not always clear. In general, there was limited understanding that the

PoM are to reflect the result of the analysis of pressures and impacts and the status information

from the monitoring programmes. Often the definition of the measures was too vague and there

was little clarity on the scope of the measure.

Furthermore, the financial commitment, the actors responsible for the implementation, the

planned timetable and the expected effects on the improvement of the status were not described

in the majority of the RBMPs. This lack of detail in the definition of the measures may have led

to insufficient action to tackle the specific problems of the water bodies and hindered the

achievement of the WFD at local level.

It is clear from the assessment of the second RBMPs that most Member States have taken some

steps to improve the link between the status and measures by providing some information on

the gap to good status, and the level of implementation of measures that is required to address

that, for some of the relevant significant pressures. However, only a few Member States could

be considered to have reported this analysis thoroughly and it is clear that a sharing of

information on the methodologies used to carry out this analysis between and within Member

States would assist in improving this aspect of implementation further for the third POMs.

The number of basic measures and supplementary measures reported has increased, although

the number of measures reported by some Member States does appear to be excessive

–

it is

questionable whether the number of measures reported can be properly implemented. Only

very few Member States have reported that all the basic measures required by Article 11(3) are

212

in place. In particular measures for the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directive, for

controls of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater and for the cost recovery of

water services are lacking to a great extent.

The methodologies used by the Member States for the selection and prioritisation of measures

are still not sufficiently transparent. Member States do not appear to be using quantitative cost

effectiveness analysis techniques widely to assist them in the selection of measures.

All Member States have started to implement all or some of the measures planned in the first

POMs, with the main obstacles to progress being a lack of finance, and unexpected planning

delays. It is therefore important for the effective implementation of the second POMs that

financing is in place. Despite this, only 46% of RBDs have reported that funding has been

secured for the implementation of measures in all relevant sectors and 17% of RBDs have

reported that no financing has been secured for the second POMs.

Measures related to other significant pressures

Introduction, key relevant requirements of WFD

Annex II of the WFD requires Member States

to identify “other anthropogenic impacts on the

status of water bodies, and Article 11(3)(i) requires basic measures to be in place “for any other

significant adverse impact on the status of water identified under Article 5 and Annex II”. This

section of the report will provide an overview of the measures included in the second POMs to

address the other anthropogenic pressures identified, specifically:



Introduced species and diseases

Exploitation or removal of animals or plants

Litter or fly tipping

Anthropogenic pressure - Other

Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown

Anthropogenic pressure - Historical pollution

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle

Figure 8 below shows the number of RBDs where operational measures are reported in place to

address other significant pressures in groundwater and surface water.

213

1. Measures related to other significant pressures in groundwater

One Member State identified “Introduced species and diseases”, a quarter of the Member States

“Anthropogenic pressure – Other”, a third of the Member States “Anthropogenic Pressure –

Unknown” and a few Member States identified “Anthropogenic pressure

- Historical

pollution” as significant pressures to groundwater.

One Member State reported the

KTM “KTM99

- Other KTM reported under PoM - No KTM

data available” as being in place to address introduced species and diseases. Other KTMs

reported as being in place to address “Anthropogenic pressure – Other” include:



KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture,

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas,

transport and built infrastructure,

KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification.



Other, nationally developed KTMs that are reported to address this pressure include “Measures

to prevent or control the adverse impacts of other human activities”, “Environmental

management of soil extraction sites”, “Other national measures” and “Measures to prevent or

limit groundwater contamination”.

KTMs reported as in place to address “Anthropogenic Pressure – Unknown” in groundwater

include,



KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones,

buffer zones etc) and, unsurprisingly,

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty.



The measures in place to address “Anthropogenic pressure

Historical pollution” include:



KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture,

KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments,

groundwater, soil),

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones,

buffer zones etc),



KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,

214



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.

No nationally derived measures were reported to control historical pollution.

2. Measures related to other significant pressures in surface waters

About half of the Member States identified

“Introduced species and diseases”

as a significant

pressure in surface waters and all reported KTMs to address it. The KTMs reported to be in

place include:



KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants,

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing

old dams),



KTM6 - Improving hydro-morphological conditions of water bodies other than

longitudinal continuity,

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,

KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species

and introduced diseases,

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas,

transport and built infrastructure,

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures and

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change.



Other nationally derived KTMs include “Lake restoration”, “Active fish stock/ shellfish stock

management” and “Active vegetation management”.

“Exploitation or removal of animals or plants”

was identified by a quarter of the Member

States as a significant pressure to surface waters. Measures in place to address it include:



KTM6 - Improving hydro-morphological conditions of water bodies other than

longitudinal continuity,

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,

KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species

and introduced diseases,



215



KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation including

angling,

KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and other

exploitation/removal of animal and plants,

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change.



Other nationally derived KTMs reported include “Measures to prevent or control the adverse

impacts of other human activities” and “Other national measures to preserve and improve the

structure and functions

of aquatic ecosystems”.

“Litter or fly tipping”

was reported as a significant pressure to surface waters by a few

Member States. KTMs reported to address it include:



KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,

KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation including

angling,

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas,

transport and built infrastructure



The nationally derived KTMs “Other measures at the source” and “Other management

measures” were reported by one Member State.

About half of the Member States identified

“Anthropogenic pressure – Other”

as a

significant pressure to surface water bodies with operational measures in place to address it,

and provided details of the KTMs. One Member State also identified this as a significant

pressure with operational measures in place, but did not report the KTMs. A wide range of

measures in reported to be place to address this pressure including:



KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments,

groundwater, soil),

KTM6 - Improving hydro-morphological conditions of water bodies other than

longitudinal continuity,



KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture,

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off,



216



KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species

and introduced diseases,

KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation including

angling,

KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and other

exploitation/removal of animal and plants,

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas,

transport and built infrastructure,

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures,

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change and

KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification.



Other nationally derived KTMs include “Measures to prevent or control the

adverse impacts of

other human activities”, “Lake restoration”, “Measures to retain sediment and nutrient before

discharged to surface waters”, “Reduce nutrient pollution from other sources”, “measure in

river water bodies limiting significant pressure on

lake water body” and “Develop evidence

base to support management of marine litter and marine litter strategy”.

More than two-thirds of the Member States reported KTMs to address the significant pressure

“Anthropogenic pressure – unknown”.

One Member State did not report this as a significant

pressure where operational measures are in place, and two Member States reported that

operational measures are in place, but did not report KTMs. The KTMs reported as being in

place to address this pressure include:



KTM6 - Improving hydro-morphological conditions of water bodies other than

longitudinal continuity,



KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and

households,

KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost

of water services from households,

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones,

buffer zones etc),

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,



217



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,



KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species

and introduced diseases,

KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation including

angling,



KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and other

exploitation/removal of animal and plants, and

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas,

transport and built infrastructure.



Other nationally derived KTMs include “Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of

other human activities”, “Lake restoration”, “Reduce nutrient pollution from other sources”,

“Characterise and quantify hydrological input of land based contaminants (including litter) to

coastal waters from major sub catchments”, “Investigate the role transboundary contaminants

through hydrographic

pathways and the extent of its contribution to marine contamination”,

“Carry out investigations to gauge potential contribution of contaminants to our coastal waters

by atmospheric deposition”, and “Carry out a survey of all direct discharges to sea

and identify

their source with the objective of setting up a plan to curtail/regulate such discharges”, “Risk

management”, and a “Study on development and application of methodology for assessing the

ecological status in terms of salinity of water bodies

with natural mineral loading”.

More than a third of the Member States identified

“Anthropogenic pressure –

Historical

pollution”

as a significant pressure. All reported that operational measures are in place to

address them and provided details of the KTM. One Member State also reported this as a

significant pressure with operational measures in place, but did not give details of the KTMs.

KTMs reported as in place to address the pressure include:



KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments,

groundwater, soil),

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty and

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas,

transport and built infrastructure.



218

Other nationally derived

KTMs include “No measure in this cycle

- review of less stringent

target in next cycle”, “Reduce nutrient pollution from other sources”, and “Other generic

measures”.

The analysis of the gap to good status and the identification of indicators for the

implementation of measures is also valid for measures related to other significant pressures, as

discussed for the other pressures above.

Figure 8 Number of RBDs with operational KTMs to address other significant pressures

9 - Anthropogenic pressure - Historical

pollution

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown

Significant Pressure

7 - Anthropogenic pressure - Other

Surface water

Groundwater

5.2 - Exploitation or removal of animals or

plants

5.1 - Introduced species and diseases

100

5.3 - Litter or fly tipping

Number of RBDs

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

The approach taken to addressing other pressures was not assessed in the first cycle and

therefore it is not possible to make a direct comparison.

219

1.13.2.

Conclusions

Progress has been made with the implementation of the first POMs, although a lack of finance

is a significant obstacle. 27 RBDs in five Member states (Belgium, UK, Spain, Italy and

Latvia) reported that financing had not been secured for measures in any sector.

Most Member States have made some progress in identifying the gap to good status for each

significant pressure, and the level of implementation of measures required to achieve good

status. Four Member States (Germany, Finland, Malta and UK) provided some information for

a number of significant pressures for some RBDs and few Member States only provided

indicators of the expected gap to good status for significant pressures for 2015 and 2021.

However, more work is needed to refine this for the third POMs.

It is clear that a lack of finance is likely to continue to present an obstacle to the

implementation of the second POMs as 54% of RBDs have yet to secure finance for all relevant

sectors.

Not all Member States have reported other significant pressures. It is not clear whether this is

because they are not relevant or because they have not assessed them.

For those Member States that have identified other pressures, measures are in place to address

them, the gap to good status has generally been identified, and indicators developed to identify

the level of implementation required to achieve good status.

1.13.3.



Recommendations

Member States should ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status for

individual pressures and water bodies, and that Programmes of Measures are designed

and implemented to close that gap.



Clear financial commitments should be ensured for all RBDs and information on the

costs of the measures provided.



KTMs should be reported to address significant Priority Substances, RBSPs and

abstraction pressures, identified as causing failure of objectives.

All KTMs should be operational and measures should cover all the significant pressures

identified as causing failure of objectives.



220

1.14.Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity

1.14.1.

Introduction

More than 7 600 (7%) of Europe’s surface water bodies are affected by significant water

abstraction pressures and 16% of the area of groundwater bodies is affected by over-

abstraction, being 11% of the area in worse than good quantitative status

109

. Since the first

RBMPs were published, there has been little progress in improving status due to reducing

abstraction pressures; although it is noted that total water abstraction decreased by around 7%

between 2002 and 2014

110

. However, it should also be noted that significant abstraction

pressures are not always metered and are often just estimated, e.g. based on surveys or cropping

patterns, which can lead to significant degree of uncertainty.

In the past, water scarcity management in the EU has largely focused on increasing supply by

drilling new wells, constructing dams and reservoirs, applying desalination techniques,

constructing large-scale water-transfer infrastructures, etc.; and there are still RBDs where such

actions remain as a major focus (as for instance Ebro RBD in Spain). However, as Europe

cannot endlessly increase water supply, demand measures should be applied including the use

of economic instruments, water loss controls, water-reuse and recycling, increased efficiency of

domestic, agricultural and industrial water use combined with water savings

111

. Moreover,

land-use or cropping-pattern changes should be applied, as well as the use of natural water

retention measures and water-saving campaigns should be supported by public education

programs. Water savings will bring additional benefits, for example by reducing pollution

discharges, treatment costs and energy consumption.

The WFD provides a comprehensive framework for the protection and management of water.

Sound water management requires joint management of qualitative and quantitative aspects.

Water quantity can have a strong impact on water quality and therefore on the achievement of

GES, e.g. by exercising abstraction pressures. Hence, quantitative requirements are implicit in

the definition of GES and explicitly through the inclusion of flow regime as a supporting

hydro-morphological element.

In particular, good quantitative status is required for groundwater, where a balance between

abstraction and recharge must be ensured. Furthermore, groundwater levels should not be

subject to anthropogenic alterations that might have impacts on surface waters and groundwater

dependent ecosystems.

EEA (2018) European waters

–

assessment of status and pressures 2018. EEA 2018 State of Water report

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/use-of-freshwater-resources-2/assessment-2

111

E.g. supported by Art.46 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of

17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural

Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

109

110

221

When developing the WFD RBMPs and associated PoMs, quantitative and qualitative aspects

should be jointly considered to be coherent and to create synergies where possible. Quantitative

issues should, in particular, be taken into account when making operational the objective of

GES and the objective of no further deterioration of current status (Articles 4(1), 4(5), 4(6) and

4(7)). In particular, actions to manage and preserve water quantity (e.g. actions to address water

scarcity) should be considered as measures (basic/supplementary) when developing the RBMP

and associated PoM.

Article 11(3)(e) of the WFD explicitly requires controls over the abstraction of surface water

and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register or registers of

water abstractions and a requirement for prior authorization of abstraction and impoundment.

These permits have to be periodically reviewed and, where necessary, updated. Furthermore,

other basic measures to be considered in addressing water abstractions, are those under Article

11(3)(c) to promote an efficient and sustainable water use and Article 11(3)(f) which refers to

controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation

of groundwater bodies, as well as those on water pricing considered under Article 10.

Supplementary measures (Article 11(4)) can address other related topics, such as water reuse.

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle

For the majority of Member States, the reported information to WISE concerning abstractions,

water scarcity and related measures is coherent and there are no doubts or unexpected gaps.

However, for some Member States, the information reported was unclear for some RBDs (for

instance in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany or France), where water scarcity/over

abstraction had not been considered as relevant in the reporting, despite the fact that they have

RBDs where more than 10% of surface or groundwater bodies are affected by significant

abstraction pressures.

Water exploitation and trends

Water exploitation and/or trends have only been reported to WISE for some RBDs (e.g. in

Cyprus, Spain, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, UK). However, the data assessment

by the European Environmental Agency

112

allows showing an overview on water consumption,

as reflected on the following four maps (January, April, July and October) for the latest

available year (2014):

112

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/explore-interactive-maps/water-exploitation-index-for-river-1

222

Figure: Water Exploitation Index + of European RBDs in January, April, July and

October 2014

The maps show the most severe water consumption pressures for spring and summer mainly in

the Western and Eastern Mediterranean.

Main uses for water consumption

In many Member States, the most relevant uses for water consumption have not been reported

to WISE because the pressures from those uses on water quantity have not been considered as

significant (some reported information came from Belgium, Spain, Croatia, Italy, Malta and

UK). However, the most relevant water uses continue stable compared to the first cycle, mainly

for energy production in Northern Europe; and abstractions for agriculture in Southern Europe.

Water quantity pressures have been reported as significant only in 10 Member States

113

and for

most (all except Belgium and Denmark), information is reported on the most relevant uses for

water consumption. It should also be noted that in some Member States, although water

quantity pressures are not reported as significant (and thus no data on water consumption uses

are provided), there are significant water abstraction pressures present in one or more of their

RBDs (e.g. in Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, France).

Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity

Controls over the abstraction of surface water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh

surface waters including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior

authorization of abstraction and impoundment (under Article 11(3)(e)) are used along all

Member States, with certain differences regarding the existence of a register or of controls for

all abstractions. Most Member States

114

apply exemptions to permitting and/or register for

small abstractions, and though this lowers administrative burden it might be inconsistent, if

groundwater bodies do not achieve good quantitative status due to the accumulation of such

113

114

Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Spain, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, UK

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Malta, the

Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, UK

223

minor abstractions. The causal chain for specific water bodies has not been assessed in this

report.

Water permits have to be periodically reviewed and, where necessary, updated. The granted

permits are in place for very different timespans, ranging from short periods up to very long

periods which hardly allow adapting abstraction permits to thresholds required for achieving

the WFD objectives.

Other basic measures to address water abstractions are in place widely across the EU, such as

those under Art.11.3 (c) to promote an efficient and sustainable water use and

–

less extended

–

Article 11(3)(f) controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or

augmentation of groundwater bodies. Supplementary measures (Article 11(4)), such as e.g.

water reuse, are in place in many RBDs, and in particular in those which suffer from water

scarcity.

The key technical measures most employed by Member States to tackle significant abstraction

pressures are KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows

and KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and

households. Some further KTM have also been applied in some cases, including KTM9/10/11 -

Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services

from households/ industry/ agriculture, KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture, KTM13 -

Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc),

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

built infrastructure, for groundwater related pressures, and KTM24 - Adaptation to climate

change.

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

According to the reporting on the second RBMPs, for most Member States no major changes

have occurred regarding measures to address water abstractions and scarcity. However, several

Member States (15 out of 25 assessed Member States

115

) are planning new measures or

significant changes to basic measures related to water abstraction and scarcity (e.g. basic

measures under Article 11(3)(c) and 11(3)(f)).

Some Member States which previously had specific recommendations from the European

Commission to improve measures related to water abstraction and scarcity still present major

gaps on implementation (Spain, Portugal and to lesser extent Sweden) and other still need

progress in those previous recommendations (Italy, Malta, Slovenia).

Some Member States have taken measures to improve controls on abstractions, which

can reflect good practice (Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, UK).

115

Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta,

Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia

224

1.14.2.

Conclusions

More than 7 600 (7%) of Europe’s surface water bodies are affected

by significant water

abstraction pressures and 16% of the area of groundwater bodies is affected by over-

abstraction.

Basic and supplementary measures are in place in most of the RBDs concerned with water

scarcity. However, progress in reducing pressures is slow.

More progress is needed especially in those Member States in which small abstractions are

exempted from controls and/or register, but water bodies are suffering from significant water

abstraction pressures and therefore do not achieve good status (e.g. Estonia, Spain, France,

Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, UK).

Some Member States still need to make progress in fulfilling previous recommendations to

improve water scarcity management (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta, Sweden, Slovenia).

However, relevant action in extending metering, water abstraction controls and review licenses

can be observed in some countries, while water abstraction datasets have improved in others.

1.14.3.

•

Recommendations

Member States should progress in reducing existing significant water abstraction

pressures, and in truly acting in river basin districts concerned with water scarcity

issues.

Groundwater bodies with over-abstraction problems are often well identified. Thus,

action needs to be focused on implementing the required measures to revert trends and

achieve good quantitative status.

Relevant action is required in extending metering, water abstraction controls and review

of licenses and water abstraction registers. Small abstractions exempted from

control/registers should be reviewed in areas with significant abstraction pressures.

•

Member States are encouraged to monitor water consumptions/abstractions per sector

and assess trends over the WFD cycles, as quantitative and qualitative aspects should be

jointly considered in the status assessment and establishment of measures.

Recommended and endorsed indicators such as Water Exploitation Index+ should be

further applied in water scarce basins.

•

225

1.15.Measures related to pollution from agriculture

1.15.1.

Introduction

Key relevant requirements of WFD

As set out in chapter 6.9 above, in accordance with the environmental objectives laid out in

WFD Article 4 and based on a risk assessment and the status assessment supported by the

monitoring programmes, Member States are required to implement necessary measures to

prevent the deterioration of water bodies and to achieve good water status in surface and

groundwater. These measures should be listed in the POMs (WFD Article 11).

The POMs must include basic measures and supplementary measures addressing the identified

pressures. Basic measures relevant for the agricultural sector include those set out in WFD

Article 10 (IPPC Directive,

116

Nitrates Directive

117

) and in Annex VI including the Habitats

Directive

118

and Plant Protection Products Directive

119

. WFD Articles 16 and 17 further affect

the agricultural sector by requiring the establishment of a list of priority substances that pose a

risk to the aquatic environment, including those in relation to fertiliser and pesticide application

in the agricultural sector.

The assessment of the first RBMPs showed that basic measures alone, mostly likely, may not

lead to sufficient improvements in water body status in all cases; supplementary measures

(according to WFD Annex VI, Part B) may be needed to target the significant pressures which

the agricultural sector poses on the water environment and to achieve the objectives set out in

Article 4.

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle

Main pressures

According to the EEA report “European

waters --

Assessment of status and pressures” (2018),

agriculture is the main driver for failure of good chemical status to EU groundwater, causing

diffuse pollution by nitrates and pesticides. Agricultural production is also a major source of

diffuse pollution into surface water, mostly associated with excessive emissions of nutrients

116

Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated

pollution prevention and control

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32008L0001

117

Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution

caused by nitrates from agricultural sources

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31991L0676

118

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and

flora

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FRF/TXT/?uri=celex:31992L0043

119

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning

the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and

91/414/EEC

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/frn/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R1107

226

and chemicals such as pesticides. Water abstraction for agriculture is amongst the main

significant pressures causing failure of good quantitative status of groundwater bodies

120

Based on the assessment of the first RBMPs, the Commission recommended to almost all

Member States to assess actions needed to close the gap between the current status and the

achievement of good status in terms of load reductions for nutrients and pesticides. This

recommendation was followed by half of the Member States, which reported their RBMPs, as

shown in table 1 below. The remaining Member States are still lacking a gap assessment and it

remains unclear how the selection and location of measures will contribute to closing the gap.

Those Member States or RBMPs, which have performed a gap assessment, either based

themselves on the loads to be reduced or the areas to be covered by agricultural measures. For

those Member States which carried out gap assessments, nitrogen is addressed in all cases and

phosphorus by two-thirds of them. Pesticides are addressed in the gap assessment by only a few

Member States.

Table 1

Gap assessment in terms of load reductions for nutrients and pesticides

Information on gap assessment in the second RBMPs

A gap assessment for nitrogen was performed including an

evaluation/prediction of how effective the measures are/will be at reducing

the pressures to the level needed for achieving good status.

A gap assessment exists for pesticides, nitrogen and phosphorus. .

A gap assessment for the reduction in the number of applications of

pesticides is only provided for a few RBDs. A gap assessment on the load

of nitrogen/phosphorus to be reduced to achieve objectives was done in all

RBDs.

A gap assessment has been performed for water quantity (abstraction

pressures) and nitrates pollution.

A gap assessment has been performed for diffuse nutrient pollution.

A gap assessment for nitrogen and phosphorus was performed and is

reported.

A gap assessment can only be found for nutrients in a few RBDs

A gap assessment has been performed on the load of nitrogen/phosphorus

to be reduced to achieve objectives for 2015. There is also information on

the area (km2) of agricultural land required to be covered by measures to

tackle nutrient pollution to achieve WFD objectives.

A gap assessment has been performed for diffuse nutrient pollution,

physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore from agriculture and

dams, barriers and locks serving the purpose of irrigation in all basins.

Member State

Cyprus

Czech

Republic

Germany

Spain

Croatia

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Netherlands

120

”European

waters -- Assessment of status and pressures 2018

227

Poland

Romania

Sweden

The gap assessment addresses diffuse chemical pollution and nitrates.

A gap assessment for nutrients and pesticides was performed and the areas

that need to be covered by measures are indicated.

A gap assessment was carried out for the load of nitrogen/phosphorus to be

reduced and for reduction in the number of applications of pesticides to

achieve objectives.

Source: Second RBMPs.

Types of measures applied in the second cycle programmes of measures

According to the assessment of the second RBMPs, all programmes of measures contain basic

and supplementary measures. To tackle diffuse pollution, the WFD requires the implementation

of basic measures under Article 11(3)(h) to prevent or control the input of pollutants from

agriculture at source. Such basic measures are reported for all assessed Member States, but not

for all RBDs and not for all diffuse pollutants (sediments, phosphorus, pesticides, nitrates,

microbiological/bacteriological and other pollutants).

Member States are also required to state whether general binding rules are in place for the

control of diffuse pollution from agriculture. Furthermore, Member States are required to report

whether these rules apply across the whole RBD, only in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) or if

there different rules apply for different parts of the RBD, linked to where pressures have been

identified. The figure below gives an overview of the application of binding rules in the RBDs

at EU level. Overall, general binding rules are in place in 140 RBDs. In only three RBDs are

binding rules not applied. In most RBDs (73), the same binding rules apply across the whole

RBD.

Figure 13: Application of general binding rules in RBDs for the control of diffuse pollution

from agriculture

Application of binding rules in RBDs

No general binding rules.

Yes, but rules apply only in Nitrate

Vulnerable Zones.

Yes, but there are differentiated rules for

different parts of the RBDs.

Yes, same rules apply across the whole RBD.

Source: WISE electronic reporting.

228

If general binding rules are applied, Member States are required to provide information on the

particular issues covered (sediments, phosphorus pesticides, organic pollution, nitrates,

microbiological/bacteriological and other pollutants).

Figure 14: Number of RBDs and issues covered in the general binding rules

Number of RBDs and issues covered in the general

binding rules

Sediments

Phosphorus

Pesticides

Organic pollution

Nitrates

Microbiological/bacteriological pollution

Other pollutants

100

120

140

160

Source: WISE electronic reporting.

According to Figure 2 above, general binding rules for nitrates are applied in all except five

RBDs. General binding rules for all other pollutants are less often applied.

The figures below show the number of Member States which report national basic and

supplementary measures under the main

KTMs related to agriculture.

Figure 15: Number of Member States which report national basic measures under KTM

related to agriculture.

229

Source: WISE electronic reporting.

Figure 4: Number of Member States which report national supplementary measures under

KTM related to agriculture

Source: WISE electronic reporting.

Most Member States have reported national basic measures under KTM2 to reduce nutrient

pollution from agriculture. There are also supplementary measures reported under KTM2 in

almost all Member States with few exceptions. The majority of Member States also have basic

measures reported under KTM3 to reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture, KTM8 on

water efficiency, technical measures, KTM15 to phase-out or reduce emissions of Priority

Substances and KTM13 on drinking water protection measures.

Special attention is given to drinking water protection. Most Member States have defined, or

are in the process of defining, specific zones including specific water protection measures (see

also chapter 15) and apply basic measures under KTM13 (Drinking water protection measures

(e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc)). In several countries, there are also

supplementary measures reported under KTM13.

While basic measures are mandatory in most cases, the supplementary measures are mostly

applied on a voluntary basis and are linked to the EU Rural Development Programs under the

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Payments under Article 38 of the Rural Development

Regulation contribute to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.

230

Considering the fact that agricultural pressures and in particular nutrients are still amongst the

main reasons for not achieving good status, the high dependency on voluntary action by the

farming sector might not lead to an adequate degree or rate of improvement across all RBDs, if

the uptake by farmers remains low.

The CAP´s mandatory

cross-compliance framework

includes statutory requirements related to

water protection and management arising from the implementation of the Groundwater

Directive and Nitrates Directive, as well as GAEC

121

standards relevant for the protection of

waters. In addition, under the CAP´s Greening, additional rules have been introduced for

protecting water and habitats by establishing ecological focus areas. It is acknowledged that

there is room for improvement in the implementation of this measure.

122

Farmers Consultation

Almost all Member States reported having consulted with farmers or farmers associations when

setting up the programmes of measures.

Financing of measures

More than two-thirds of the Member States reported that the financing of agricultural measures

is secured in all their RBDs and, in a few cases, in most of their RBDs. The EU Rural

Development Program is mentioned as the main source of funding. For those Member States

where financing of measures is not secured, the effectiveness of the POMs with regard to

agriculture might be significantly impacted. Also, the voluntary nature of measures could be a

limiting factor if their uptake by farmers remains low.

The WFD also requires the application of the polluter pays principle under Article 9. This is

only partly implemented in the agricultural sector as most supplementary measures are still

financed by external sources such as the EU Rural Development Programs and national

sources.

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

Due to differences in the reporting of Member States under the first and second RBMPs and

different methods of status assessments of the RBMPs, a detailed comparison between the first

and second cycle is not possible. However, some observations can be made:

121

Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions

https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/cross-

compliance_en

See also Special report no 21/2017 from the European Court of Auditors:

“Greening: a more complex income

support scheme, not yet environmentally effective”

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=44179

122

231



The main pressures remain diffuse pollution (with excessive emissions of nutrients and

chemicals such as pesticides) and water abstraction in certain areas.

Agriculture remains one of the main drivers for water pollution and over-abstraction.

Some progress has been made in terms of identifying and quantifying the gap between

the current status and good status in terms of load reductions for nutrients and

pesticides.

The types of measures applied by the agricultural sector have not changed. Many of the

supplementary measures found in the second cycle programmes of measures are linked

to the Rural Development Programmes with potential for inadequate progress in

mitigating risk to water due to the voluntary nature of measure implementation, when

there is a low uptake by farmers.

Farmers’ involvement seems to have increased as most Member States report having

consulted with farmers or farmers associations when setting up the programmes of

measures. However, the quality of this engagement remains unclear and ongoing

advisory support for farmers in implementation of measures is absent from most

RBMPs.



1.15.2.

Conclusions

Agriculture continues to be a significant pressure on surface and groundwater in most RBDs in

the EU. Agriculture has been identified as a major source of pollution and over-abstraction and

is partly responsible for habitat degradation. Only about half of the Member States have

performed a gap assessment in terms of load reductions for nutrients and pesticides for their

second RBMPs, following the Commission recommendation from the first cycle. For those

who have not yet carried out such a gap assessment, it remains unclear how the selected

measures will contribute to achieving good status. Member States need to closely monitor

whether the objectives are going to be achieved or not. This includes investigation of the causes

of the possible failure and establishment of necessary additional measures.

Basic measures under Article 11.3 are mandatory in most RBDs. Supplementary measures are

mostly applied on a voluntary basis and linked to the EU Rural Development Programs.

Considering the fact that agricultural pressures, and in particular nutrients, are still a main

reason for not achieving good status, the high dependency on voluntary action by the farming

sector might not lead to an adequate degree or speed of improvement to achieve WFD

objectives within a reasonable timeframe. This is of particular importance when developing the

next phase of the Common Agricultural Policy, which is likely to continue to be a major source

of funding.

232

1.15.3.



Recommendations

In the third RBMPs, Member States should identify appropriate sources of funding,

such as Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plans, to facilitate implementation of

measures to contribute to achieving the WFD objectives in all RBDs. The effective

involvement of environmental authorities in the designing of CAP Strategic Plans

should support this process.



Member States should ensure that there are explicit links in the RBMPs between the

WFD and other related Directives (e.g. Nitrate Directive, Sustainable Use of Pesticides

Directive etc.), supporting programmes and instruments (e.g. CAP Strategic Plans, LIFE

etc.) and include both nitrogen and phosphorus in the general binding rules.



Member States should state clearly to what extent, in terms of area covered and

pollution risk mitigated, basic measures (minimum requirements to be adhered to) or

supplementary measures (designed to be implemented in addition to basic measures)

will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives in all RBDs.



Member States should ensure a clear strategy is developed that defines the basic

measures that all farmers should adhere to as well as the additional supplementary

measures that may be required. The strategy should be developed in cooperation with

the farming community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance and an expert and

effective advisory service should be made available to farmers to aid successful

implementation of the measures. The strategy should be reflected in the system of

conditionality, eco-schemes and agri-environment-climate commitments of the CAP

Strategic Plans.

1.16.Measures related to pollution (including nutrients, organic matter and

chemicals) from sectors other than agriculture

1.16.1.

Introduction

In the context of this chapter, pollution is considered in terms of:

(a) general physico-chemical elements and river basin specific pollutants (RBSPs) from

non-agricultural sources causing failure or risk of failure to achieve GES;

(b) priority substances from non-agricultural sources causing failure or risk of failure to

achieve good chemical status of surface waters; and

achieve good chemical status of groundwaters.

Chemical pollution from non-agricultural sources, like that from agriculture, poses a threat to

the aquatic environment and to human health via the environment. Effects include acute and

233

chronic toxicity in aquatic organisms, accumulation of pollutants in ecosystems, loss of habitats

and biodiversity, and contamination of drinking water supplies and fishery products. As a

matter of priority, causes of pollution have to be identified so that measures to combat it can be

put in place. Pressure and impact assessment for the identification of sources of pollutants has

to be carried out under Article 5 WFD. On the basis of the information collected in accordance

with that Article and Article 8, Member States have to establish an inventory of emissions,

discharges and losses of all priority substances, and the eight so-called

“other pollutants” in the

EQSs Directive, for each RBD or part of a RBD lying within their territory, including their

concentrations in sediment and biota, as appropriate.

Emissions of pollutants should be dealt with at source, in the most economically and

environmentally effective manner.

According to WFD environmental objectives, in making operational the programmes of

measures specified in the RBMPs, the Member States must implement the necessary measures

in accordance with WFD Article 16(1) and (8), with the aim of progressively reducing

pollution from priority substances and ceasing or phasing out emissions, discharges and losses

of priority hazardous substances to the aquatic environment. Specifically in relation to

groundwater, the Member States shall implement the measures necessary to prevent or limit the

input of pollutants into groundwater and to prevent the deterioration of the chemical status of

all bodies of groundwater.

More explanation about the types of measures applied is provided in chapter 6.9.

Chapter 5.2 provides information on the assessment of pressures and impacts on surface and

groundwater bodies as well as on the establishment and use of inventories of discharges,

emissions and losses of chemical substances. Chapter 6.4 provides information on the

monitoring of priority substances discharged to surface waters and on the priority substances

causing failure of good chemical status. Chapter 6.6 provides information on WFD

groundwater chemical monitoring and substances causing failure to achieve good chemical

status for groundwater bodies.

KTMs to tackle pollution from non-agricultural sources

There are two broad categories of measures that could be established for the control and

reduction of pollution from non-agricultural sources:



measures referring to the source of pollution that allow the reduction/phasing-out of

more than one pollutant (e.g. a wastewater treatment process); and

measures relating to the specific substances causing the pollution (e.g. banning or

restricting the use of a substance).

234

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

All 25 Member States assessed provided information on measures addressing pollution by

nutrients, organic matter and chemicals (priority substances, river basin specific pollutants,

groundwater pollutants and other physico-chemical parameters) arising from sectors and

sources other than agriculture.

Non-agricultural sectors contributing to pollution include urban wastewater, atmospheric

deposition, mining, Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) plants and non-IED plants, historical

pollution, storm overflows, urban run-off, forestry, transport, contaminated or abandoned

industrial sites, discharges not connected to sewerage networks, and waste disposal sites.

Chapter 6.9 provides more information on the main significant pressures likely to give rise to

pollution of surface and groundwater bodies for which KTMs are operational.

The KTMs reported to be pertinent to tackling pollution from non-agricultural sources include:

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants,

KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments,

groundwater, soil),

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones,

buffer zones etc),

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,

KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority

Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of

Priority Substances,

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants

(including farms),

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off,

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas,

transport and built infra-structure,

KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry,

KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification, and

KTM99 - Other KTM reported under PoM.

The majority of Member States reported several of the KTMs mentioned above as pertinent to

tackling pollution from non-agricultural sources. However, the reporting to WISE was not

always consistent with the reporting in the RBMPs. Furthermore, some KTMs pertinent to non-

agricultural pollution were not always reported under Topic 12 itself, giving the impression that

they were not considered relevant. More details on the number of RBDs which reported each

KTM as operational to address at least one significant pressure as well as on the number of

235

measures and the distinction between basic and supplementary measures are provided in

chapter 6.9.

While in the first RBMPs, the availability of measures against chemical pollution of surface

waters by particular substances was generally not reported, in the second RBMPs, several

Member States reported KTM15 and/or other KTMs in relation to specific substances.

Although some Member States indicated that they were looking at measures to combat mercury

pollution, others indicated that it was difficult to see how sufficient measures could be taken

against that pollutant at Member-State level..

Progress towards achieving the objectives between 2015 and 2027 via measures related to

pollution from non-agricultural sources is expected in most of the Member States which

reported information on relevant pressure gap indicators and KTMs.

Basic measures to reduce pollution from non-agricultural sources are being taken in most of the

Member States:



authorisation and/or permitting regime to control wastewater point source

discharges

is in place in all Member States for surface and in most Member States for

groundwater, although coastal waters are not covered in at least one instance.

(Basic measures under Article 11(3)g) is

available in all RBDs of most of the Member States for surface and groundwater. In a

few Member States the register of wastewater discharges is available for surface water

only.



There are no

thresholds below which wastewater discharges do not require permits

and are not subject to registration

(WFD Article 11(3)(g)) in more than half of the

Member States. Small discharges are exempted from controls in fewer than half of the

Member States. In a few Member States, small discharges do not require permits but are

registered.



There is

prohibition of all direct discharges

to groundwater in almost half of the

Member States and in some of the RBDs of a few additional Member States. Some

direct discharges to groundwater are authorised in accordance with Article 11(3)(j) in

other Member States, at least in some of their RBDs.



There are

measures

in place

to eliminate / reduce pollution from priority substances

and other substances

in all (reported) RBDs in the majority of the Member States.



Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle

In the first RBMPs, the measures focusing on household-related pollution covered mostly

measures related to the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive and to WFD Article 11(3)(g),

(h) and (k). The identification of substance-specific measures was generally missing in the first

RBMPs, as substance-specific measures were reported only for a few RBDs, and they were

236

generally not linked to failure of chemical or ecological status. Many of the measures

addressing chemical pollution in the Member States were general and it was not always clear

whether the value they provided could be attributed to action taken specifically to meet the

WFD objectives.

In the second RBMPs, substance-specific measures to reduce the emissions of the chemical

substances preventing the achievement of good status have been adopted in most of the

Member States. In a few Member States, the substance-specific measures are clearly reported

in the RBMPs but in many other Member States, the main evidence for substance-specific

measures comes only from the WISE electronic reports, according to which KTMs are in place

in many Member States for at least some of the priority substances and or river basin specific

pollutants causing failure of good status. In these cases, however, the specific measures

proposed in the respective RBMPs are often generic and not substance-specific, thus not

addressing specific priority substances or river basin specific pollutants.

In a few Member States, no substantial improvement in terms of substance-specific measures

was observed in many or all of their RBDs, and the measures to tackle pollution from non-

agricultural sources are still very general and not linked to failure of chemical and ecological

status.

It has to be pointed out that because of the limited level of detail reported in some of the first

RBMPs on this issue, it is challenging to identify all relevant progress made in Member States.

Several Member States are making particular progress on improving urban wastewater

treatment, through the construction or upgrading of treatment plants. However, it is not always

clear whether funding has been secured for planned upgrades.

1.16.2.

Conclusions

Basic measures to reduce pollution from non-agricultural sources such as an authorisation

and/or permitting regime to control wastewater point source discharges, the operation of

registers of wastewater discharges, and the prohibition or limitation of all direct discharges to

groundwater, and/or other measures to eliminate / reduce pollution from priority substances and

other substances are in place in most of the Member States.

The identification of substance-specific measures was a major gap in the first RBMPs, as

substance-specific measures were reported only for a few RBDs, and they were often general

and not linked to failures of chemical and ecological status. This situation has improved in the

second RBMPs, as substance-specific measures to reduce the emissions of the pollutants

preventing the achievement of good status have been adopted in several Member States. There

is however still significant room for improvement as the specific measures proposed in the

RBMPs of many Member States are often generic and not substance-specific, and in a few

237

Member States the measures are still very general and not linked to failure of chemical and

ecological status.

Progress towards achieving the objectives between 2015 and 2027 via measures related to

pollution from non-agricultural sources is expected in most of the Member States which

reported information on relevant pressure gap indicators and KTMs. Although some Member

States specifically referred to the need to phase out the emissions of priority hazardous

substances, the rationale for identifying measures appeared in most cases to be the need to meet

the EQSs for good status. Therefore measures are likely to be missing where needed in some

RBDs to achieve the phasing out of emissions.

1.16.3.



Recommendations

Member States should ensure that measures (including KTMs) are identified to address

pollution by individual substances (Priority Substances, RBSPs and Groundwater

pollutants) from non-agricultural sources.



Member States should assess the likely effectiveness of measures so that they can

identify and implement appropriate supplementary measures to achieve the objective of

good status as soon as possible.



Member States should ensure the operation of a register of discharges and a suitable

authorisation/permitting regime for all relevant water bodies.

The progress made on implementing improvements to urban waste water treatment,

including sourcing funding and prioritising the most important locations, should be

continued and accelerated where possible.

Member States should ensure that measures aim at phasing out the emissions of Priority

Hazardous Substances, including where the EQSs have not been exceeded.



238

1.17.Measures related to hydro-morphological alterations

1.17.1.

Introduction

The WFD explicitly requires Member States to manage the effects on the ecological status of

water which result from changes to physical characteristics of water bodies. It requires action in

those cases where the hydro-morphological modifications are having an impact on the

ecological status interfering with the ability to achieve the WFD objectives and to avoid

deterioration due to new modifications or new sustainable human development activities.

Measures related to hydro-morphological improvements in the RBMPs are mainly reported as

supplementary measures with the aim of achieving the objectives established pursuant to

Article 4. Also basic measures under article 11(3) can impose controls over activities related to

hydro-morphological modifications. In addition to controls and registers of physical

modifications, certain regulatory actions may be taken to support the improvement of hydro-

morphology, such as reviewing existing permits to incorporate mitigation measures for the

achievement of WFD objectives.

WFD hydro-morphological measures planned to reduce existing hydro-morphological

pressures and improve the ecological status or potential of impacted water bodies should not be

taken in a silo approach but it is beneficial both in terms of the effects to be achieved and

funding opportunities to coordinate the planning of WFD measures with the planning process

for other sectors (e.g. planning for the energy, transport and agricultural sectors).

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle

Links of measures to significant hydro-morphological pressures

Significant hydro-morphological pressures have been identified in practically all Member

States assessed for this report. No hydro-morphological pressures were identified in a single

case which may be due to the lack of appropriate assessment methods and appropriate

monitoring data to understand the nature of hydrological and morphological modifications.

Hydro-morphological pressures should be clearly related to the main sectors responsible for

causing these pressures on the water environment However, in the second RBMPs of most

Member States, the identified hydro-morphological pressures are not clearly apportioned to

specific sectors, according to the WISE reporting. The significant hydro-morphological

pressures have been clearly linked to sectors only in a fifth of Member States. In a third of

Member States, the sector linked to the significant hydro-morphological pressures of all or the

largest share of affected water bodies is either unknown or reported as “other” (i.e. not linked to

one of the key sectors in the WISE reporting). In almost half the Member States, there is only

partial apportionment of the hydro-morphological pressures to sectors, i.e. for part of the

239

pressures or in part of the RBDs, apportionment has been made, while for other pressures or in

other RBDs, the sector is unknown or “other”.

The KTM reported most frequently by Member States as operational to address significant

hydro-morphological pressures in the second RBMPs are:

•

KTM 5 Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing

old dams).

KTM 6 Improving hydro-morphological conditions of water bodies other than

longitudinal continuity (e.g. river restoration, improvement of riparian areas, removal of

hard embankments, reconnecting rivers to floodplains, improvement of hydro-

morphological con-dition of transitional and coastal waters, etc).

•

KTM 7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.

KTM 14 Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty

KTM 23 Natural water retention measures, and

KTM 99

–

Other KTM reported under the POMs

Section 8.9 provides additional information on the number of national measures (basic and

supplementary) mapped against each of these KTM in each Member State.

The majority of Member States have reported operational KTM to address the significant

hydro-morphological pressures in all their RBDs where such pressures are identified. In a few

Member States, no KTM to tackle hydro-morphological pressures were reported in WISE,

although hydro-morphological pressures are identified. It is noted though that in these Member

States, information in the published RBMPs gives evidence that hydro-morphological measures

are planned for the second cycle, despite the gap in the WISE reporting.

In a few Member States, operational KTM for hydro-morphological pressures are reported only

for some but not all of their RBDs. In some Member States, , KTM are addressing only some

but not all of the main hydro-morphological pressures identified. in once example, KTM are

addressing only pressures linked to continuity barriers but not other types of hydro-

morphological pressures. In one of the RBDs in another country, KTM (research activities) are

generally addressing physical alterations.

The main types of specific national measures taken to address hydro-morphological

modifications were checked in 50 representative RBDs across Member States. The hydro-

morphological measures most frequently planned in the second RBMPs are related to

continuity interruption (e.g. fish ladders, removal of structures such as weirs, bypass channels),

sediment/debris management, setting of ecological flows, habitat restoration and specific

restoration of modified bed and bank structures.

240

Figure 1 Main types of specific national measures on hydro-morphology

Source: Published RBMPs of 50 RBDs selected for detailed assessment across the EU. The

RBDs selected were those with the most extensive hydro-morphological pressures in each

Member State.

Indeed, restoring river continuity is in many RBDs one of the priority issues for hydro-

morphological improvements. River continuity is specifically related to the free passage of fish

and is in this respect distinguished into upstream continuity (allowing the fish to migrate

upstream) and downstream continuity (allowing downstream migration). Management

objectives for restoring river continuity are reported to have been set in all RBDs of

approximately half of the Member States, while in another few Member States, such objectives

have been set for some but not all of their RBDs. More than a third of Member States have

reported not to have set any management objectives for river continuity. The objectives set for

river continuity are quantitative (e.g. km of rivers connected, number of obstacles to be made

passable) in all RBDs of almost half of the Member States, while in another quarter of Member

States, the objectives are quantitative only for some of the RBDs. In one Member State,

although continuity objectives are set, they have not been quantified.

Basic measures under WFD article 11.3(i)

Almost all Member States take basic measures to address hydro-morphological pressures

according to WFD article 11.3(i). These measures correspond to authorization/permitting

regimes to control physical modifications, which cover changes to the riparian area. Only one

has such an authorization/permitting regime, which does not cover changes to the riparian area.

241

In another Member State, no authorisation/permitting regime for physical modifications has

been reported.

The majority of Member States also has registers of physical modifications in place in all their

RBDs or in a few of their RBDs. In one fifth of Member States, there is no register of physical

modifications in any of the RBDs.

Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures

In the 2015 recommendations of the Commission based on the assessment of progress on the

implementation of the programmes of measures from the first RBMPs, many Member States

were asked to provide evidence that they consider natural water retention and green

infrastructure measures in their second RBMPs.

Win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive,

drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures are reported to be included

in the programmes of measures in the majority of Member States. In one Member State, such

win-win measures are reported for some but not all of its RBDs, while in a few Member States,

such win-win measures have not been included in their programmes of measures.

The specific KTM on natural water retention (KTM23) is reported as operational to address

significant hydro-morphological pressures (e.g. related to flood protection and agriculture) or

abstractions in one third of Member StatesIn one country , KTM23 is applied but only in

relation to diffuse pollution pressures (hydro-morphology or abstractions). In the majority of

Member States though, KTM23-Natural water retention measures is not reported yet as part of

the operational KTM to tackle significant pressures. Examples of measures reported under

KTM23 refer to the restoration of floodplain meadows and floodplain forests but also

reconstruction of drainage systems in agriculture and forestry or removal of weirs in the context

of river restoration.

Measures for ecological flows and their implementation

Having a sufficient ecological flow regime is a prerequisite to reach GES in rivers and it is

crucial to maintain a flow throughout the river continuum. Therefore, establishing ecologically

based flow regimes is an important measure in the RBMPs.

In the second RBMPs, ecological flows have been reported to be derived and implemented for

all relevant water bodies in very few Member States. In the majority of Member States,

ecological flows have been derived and implemented only for some water bodies yet in all or

part of their RBDs. Therefore, in most Member States, the work on defining and implementing

ecological flows is still ongoing in the second cycle.

242

In one fifth of Member States and in some of the RBDs of another fifth, ecological flows have

not been derived yet, but there are plans to do so during the second planning cycle.

As shown in Figure 1, setting of ecological flows is planned as a specific measure in 42% of

the second RBMPs, in the majority of Member States. Explicit references that the

establishment of ecological flows is addressed by specific regulations were found for several

Member States, while in some of these, the relevant requirements are new compared to the

legislation which was valid under the first RBMPs. In other Member States, there are still

ongoing initiatives to set new standards and methodologies for ecological flow definition in

order to achieve WFD objectives.

Table 1

Derivation and implementation of ecological flows in the second RBMPs

Member States

All RBDs:

ES, CY, EE, HU, NL

In some RBDs:

FR (4 RBDs), IT (2 RBDs),

All RBDs:

CZ, AT, DK, RO, SE, SI

In some RBDs:

UK (Scotland, England, Wales,

Northern Ireland), BE (1 RBD), BG (1 RBD), DE (7

RBDs), FI (7 mainland RBDs), FR (10 RBDs), PL

(8 RBDs), PT (9 RBDs)

All RBDs:

CY, HU, NL

Some RBDs:

FR (2 RBDs)

All RBDs:

CZ, ES, AT, EE, RO, SE, SI

Some RBDs:

UK (Scotland, England, Wales), BG (1

RBD), DE (7 RBDs), FR (2 RBDs), IT (2 RBDs),

PL (8 RBDs), PT (8 RBDs)

All RBDs:

Some RBDs:

UK (Northern Ireland), BE (1 RBD),

FI (7 mainland RBDs)

All RBDs:

LV, LU, MT, SK, HR

Some RBDs:

BE (7 RBDs), BG (3 RBDs), IT (5

RBDs), PL (1 RBD), PT (1 RBD)

DE (3 RBDs), FI (1 RBD), IT (1 RBD), PL (1 RBD)

Derivation and implementation of

ecological flows

Ecological flows

in all

water bodies

derived

in some

water

bodies (work is still

ongoing)

Ecological flows

in all

water bodies

implemented

in some

water

bodies (work is still

ongoing)

Ecological flows derived

but not

implemented

but there are plans to do

so in 2

cycle

Ecological flows

not derived

but there

are plans to do so in 2

cycle

Ecological flows

not derived

and no

plans to do so in 2

cycle*

Source: WISE reporting 2016; Note (*): For some of the RBDs, where there is no intention to

derive ecological flows, this is due to the fact that no river water bodies are reported.

Ambition of hydro-morphological measures in closing the gap to good status/potential

In terms of the level of ambition in tackling significant hydro-morphological pressures, the

situation differs between Member States. In some Member States, there will be small to

medium progress in terms of closing the gap for hydro-morphological pressures by 2021, but

the main progress is expected between 2021 and 2027. In other countries, the information

reported in WISE indicates that no or very little progress is expected in closing the gap for

significant hydro-morphological pressures between 2015 and 2021.

243

Overall, however, from the information reported by the 25 Member States, it is clear that the

implementation of the analysis of the gap to good status and of the level of implementation

expected in the KTMs varies considerably between the Member States (see also section 8.9).

Quite frequently data on the gap to good status are only reported for 2015 and 2021 but not for

2027, or are reported for only part of the pressures or part of the KTM. For some Member

States, no conclusion on the level of ambition in closing the gap for hydro-morphological

pressures can be reached due to the lack of reporting on the relevant indicators.

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

In the first RBMPs, a linkage between water uses, types of hydro-morphological pressures and

specific hydro-morphological measures could be found only in around 40% of the RBMPs

assessed across the EU. Thus, it was not possible to assess in detail whether the hydro-

morphological measures planned covered all the significant hydro-morphological pressures. In

the second RBMPs, information on the links between measures, hydro-morphological pressures

and water uses/sectors has largely improved, partly due to the improved WISE reporting which

requires a linkage between KTM, pressures and specific sectors. Nevertheless, for a large

number of water bodies affected by hydro-morphological pressures, the sector/driver is still

unknown/obsolete.

In addition, through the improved WISE reporting, the gap to be closed for hydro-

morphological pressures is better specified for 2015 and 2021.

Several hydro-morphological measures of the first RBMPs have not been implemented yet

mainly due to lack of financing, planning procedures, public acceptance of measures, legal

issues and issues related to land ownership. In most cases, measures of the first RBMPs which

were incomplete by end 2015 are included in the second RBMPs.

In some Member States, no specific hydro-morphological measures or very limited measures

were reported in the first RBMPs). In these Member States, the reporting of operational KTM

and more detailed measures related to hydro-morphological modifications in the second

RBMPs is considered an improvement compared to the first RBMPs.

1.17.2.

Conclusions

The majority of Member States, with few exceptions, have reported operational KTMs to

address significant hydro-morphological pressures. In some Member States, no specific hydro-

morphological measures or very limited measures were reported in the first RBMPs. Overall,

the reporting of operational KTM and more detailed measures related to hydro-morphological

modifications in the second RBMPs is considered an improvement compared to the first

RBMPs.

244

The hydro-morphological measures most frequently planned in the second RBMPs are related

to continuity interruption (e.g. fish ladders, removal of structures such as weirs, bypass

channels), sediment/debris management, setting of ecological flows, habitat restoration and

specific restoration of modified bed and bank structures.

In the second RBMPs, information on the links between measures, hydro-morphological

pressures and water uses/sectors has largely improved, partly due to the improved WISE

reporting which requires a linkage between KTM, pressures and specific sectors. Nevertheless,

for a large number of water bodies affected by hydro-morphological pressures, the sector/driver

was reported as still unknown/obsolete.

In addition, through the improved WISE reporting, the gap to be closed for hydro-

morphological pressures is better specified for 2015 and 2021. In some Member States, there

will be small to medium progress in terms of closing the gap for hydro-morphological pressures

by 2021, but the main progress is expected between 2021 and 2027. In other Member States,

the information reported in WISE indicates that no or very little progress is expected in closing

the gap for significant hydro-morphological pressures between 2015 and 2021. For some

Member States, no conclusion on the level of ambition in closing the gap for hydro-

morphological pressures can be reached due to the lack of reporting on the relevant indicators.

In most Member States, the work on defining and implementing ecological flows is still

ongoing in the second cycle. Ecological flows were reported to have been derived and

implemented for all relevant water bodies only in few Member States. In the majority of

Member States, ecological flows have been derived and implemented only partially.

1.17.3.



Recommendations

Member States should continue the work on restoration of water bodies, and in

particular improve river continuity and restore habitats in many RBDs throughout

Europe. Authorisation and permitting systems to ensure appropriate control of physical

alterations should be applied more widespread in all Member States.



Ecological flows required to achieve GES should be properly derived wherever relevant

based on all relevant biological quality elements, and their implementation for the

timely achievement of GES ensured.



The use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures should be more

widespread to allow for a large range of environmental, social and economic benefits

that these types of interventions have the potential to provide, as compared to grey

infrastructure.

245

1.18.Economic analysis and water pricing policies

1.18.1.

Introduction

At the time of its introduction, the WFD was one of the first framework directives to explicitly

refer to economic analysis and include the use of economic instruments (e.g. environmental

charges and taxes). This is based on the polluter pays principle and on the understanding that

economic instruments can be important tools in managing environmental pressures that affect

Europe’s waters.

The WFD includes three general economic concepts, closely related but not equivalent, each

one imposing specific requirements on water economics in general and water pricing schemes

specifically:



Cost recovery establishes the overall amount that users are charged for water services

(through fees or taxes). The WFD requirements, however, are not limited to the

financial costs for the provision of a water service, but also of the costs of associated

negative environmental impacts (environmental costs) as well as forgone opportunities

of alternative water uses (resource costs).



Incentive pricing deals with the way water users pay for their use and whether the right

price signals are transmitted, i.e. it addresses the question how water is being paid for

and how the water price affects the behaviour of water users.



The polluter pays principle establishes how environmental costs should be covered

among economic agents, i.e. it looks at the adequacy of contributions from the different

agents based on their role in causing these costs.

The principle of cost recovery is referred to in Article 9(1) of the WFD as follows:

“Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services,

including environmental and resource costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted

according to Annex III, and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle.

Member States shall ensure by 2010

that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources

efficiently, and thereby contribute to the environmental objectives of this Directive,

an adequate contribution of the different water uses disaggregated into at least

industry, households and agriculture, to the recovery of the costs of water services

based on the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III and taking account of

the polluter pays principle.

246

Member States may in so doing have regard to the social environmental and economic effects

of the recovery as well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the region or regions

affected."

As a basis for this, Article 5 of the WFD requires Member States to undertake an economic

analysis of water uses according to the specifications of Annex III. Annex III of the WFD

requires that the economic analysis of water uses should contain enough information in

sufficient detail (taking account of the costs associated with collection of relevant data) in order

to:



Make the relevant calculations necessary for taking into account the principle of

recovery of the costs of water services under Article 9, taking into account long term

forecasts of supply and demand for water in the RBD and where necessary:



estimates of the volume, prices and costs associated with water services.

estimates of the relevant investment including forecasts of such investments.

Make judgments about the most cost-effective combination of measures with respect to

water uses to be included in the Programmes of Measures under Article 11 based on

estimates of the potential costs of such measures.

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 2nd cycle and

key changes since the 1st cycle

Water services and cost recovery

In about one third of the Member States assessed, only public water supply and waste water

collection/treatment are covered (in the first cycle, a narrow definition was used by more than

half of the Member States). Such a

narrow definition

limits very significantly the potential

impact of Article 9 provisions by reducing the scope of the analysis and cost recovery

calculations to a limited number of water services. Compared to the first cycle however, where

more than half of the Member States used a narrow definition of water services, this is a

significant improvement.

In more than one third of the Member States, a rather

wide definition

of water services is used,

including water use activities that have a significant impact on water bodies such as for

example (inter alia), hydropower generation, navigation and flood protection, or self-

abstraction for irrigation and industrial purposes. In Latvia for example, a broad definition of

water services has been used, and cost recovery rates are presented for all these services.

According to

Article 9.4

of the WFD, Member States can choose not to apply the "cost

recovery principle" for some water services, in cases where this does not compromise the

purposes and the achievement of the objectives of the WFD. While most Member States take

247

waste water and sanitation as the core area for cost recovery, it is counter-intuitive to note that

one fifth of the Member States applied Article 9.4 for precisely this area.

Self-abstraction is the water service for which Art 9.4 has been most often used. Further it is

noted that the application of Article 9.4 varies across Member States, and also across RBDs in

the same Member State. Additionally, in some Member States, the water services for which

Article 9.4 is applied do not correspond with the water services which are reported for Article 9

cost recovery purposes.

Figure 1:

Article 9.4 applied in (all/some/none) RBDs in Member States

Source: WISE reporting 2016.

Calculation of cost recovery rates and the inclusion of environmental and resource costs

The main observation with regards to the calculation of cost recovery rates is that there are

varying methodologies

in place, which can be attributed to the fact that such calculations need

to take into account the local conditions but which makes it difficult to make comparisons

across RBDs or Member States.

Overall there is a consensus in all Member States about the need to cover the

financial costs

water services. Considerable work is reported in all Member States regarding the calculation of

financial costs of water services (in all Member States there is some information of financial

cost recovery presented). At the same time, the approaches vary across the Member States and

it is not always clear how exactly financial costs are calculated and if all elements of financial

costs are taken into account in the calculation, for example regarding capital costs (investment

costs, depreciation, cost of capital, replacement costs etc).

248

Regarding the estimation and integration of

environmental and resource costs

it is reported

that environmental and resource costs are calculated for all reported water services in half of

the Member States (in about one third of the Member States environmental and resource costs

are not calculated, and in a few Member States only some water services are). However, this

does not automatically mean that the calculation is transparent.

The significance of these costs is judged very differently among the Member States, from being

highly important to not significant at all. The situation also differs significantly with regard to

their (partial or full) internalization, often even within Member States. As in the first RBMPs,

an often-shared opinion is that the environmental and resource costs are already minimized

through permit systems and internalized through charges and fees. In several Member States, in

cases in which the good environmental status is not reached in a water body due to a specific

water service, the environmental and resource costs of that service are assumed to be as high as

the costs of the measures that would be needed to reach the good status (abatement cost

approach).

Figure 2: Environmental and resource costs calculated in RBDs in all Member States

assessed for all/some/no water services

Source: WISE reporting 2016.

The use of quantification and monetary valuation of ecosystem services is so far not used for

supporting the Article 9 implementation.

249

Water-pricing policies, adequate incentives and volumetric charges

Water-pricing policies

are unevenly implemented across the EU. Price levels for water

services vary significantly across the assessed Member States, ranging from 0 over very small

amounts to rather high levels.

Incentive pricing

is not referred to in many of the RBMPs. Even when referred to, the

information is mostly too general and does not present the situation in appropriate analytical

detail. In most cases, a global explanation is provided, stating that the regulations and

instruments in place guarantee that incentives are set.

In the first cycle, in many cases there was not sufficient information on whether

water

metering

was in place for different water uses, information that is fundamental when

considering an incentive pricing policy. In the second cycle, the information has improved,

even if water metering is not a requirement in all Member States and for all water uses, since

various exemptions for some activities (mostly agricultural activities) exist.

Across the EU,

volumetric charges

are in place for 58% of all reported water services. For

31% of the reported water services, volumetric charges are partially in place, and only for 11%

of the reported water services, no volumetric charges are in place. The assessment of the

incentive function of volumetric charges is not reported in detail, and only general statements

regarding this issue are given.

Finally, in the first RBMPs, limited efforts were made on documenting the

adequate

contribution

of water uses, and this situation did not change much in the second RBMPs. The

contributions of the water uses to the recovery of the costs are still unclear in many cases, or

very vaguely described. Especially in agriculture, adequate contributions are mostly not defined

(in 58% of all reported water services, there is either no contribution reported at all, or the

situation is unclear). In Hungary and Slovakia however, pricing policies have been modified to

increase cost recovery in agriculture.

Polluter pays principle

The polluter pays principle is mentioned in most second RBMPs only in a general way without

providing details, e.g. regarding which policy instruments or other mechanisms guarantee that

the polluter pays principle is applied and how.

Economic analysis

The economic analysis has been updated in virtually all RBDs assessed (fully in 125 and

partially in 15 RBDs). It has not been updated in only one RBD, and for two RBDs the

situation is not clear.

250

1.18.2.

Conclusions

In spite of the efforts made by several Member States, in part thanks to the ex-ante

conditionality for the 2014-2020 European Structural and Investment Funds, progress on the

implementation of the principle of cost recovery and the use of economic instruments has been

limited, which limits the potential of promoting efficient water management. The RBMPs in

the majority of cases do not report much progress or changes since the first implementation

cycle. Only a number of Member States have changed their previous approaches to water

pricing or their water pricing policies based on the work done to implement Article 9.

Some progress can be noted. A significant amount of Member States have widened the

definition of water services to water use activities that have a significant impact on water

bodies, such as for example hydropower generation, navigation and flood protection, or self-

abstraction for irrigation and industrial purposes. This does not mean however that the

respective cost recovery calculations are fully developed or transparently presented.

On the calculation of financial costs of water services, considerable work is reported by all

Member States (even if not always complete/transparent).

Environmental and resource costs are treated more specifically in the second cycle compared to

the first cycle: there are more efforts evident to calculate these costs and more information is

available on methodologies and approaches, and there is more transparency on whether these

costs have been internalized or not.

In the second cycle the information has improved on whether water metering was in place for

different water uses, even if water metering is not a requirement in all Member States and all

water uses, since various exemptions for some activities (mostly agricultural activities) exist.

The economic analysis has been updated in almost all RBDs.

Nonetheless the implementation of Article 9 remains incomplete, which limits the potential of

promoting efficient water management in the EU. Several key points require further attention.

It is noted that reporting is uneven across Member States and even across RBDs within the

same Member State. In many cases methodologies to calculate costs are insufficiently

documented and essential information is missing. This makes it difficult to efficiently assess

the effectiveness of the use of economic instruments.

Cost recovery is not always applied to all water use activities having a significant impact on

water bodies. The application of Article 9.4 also varies across Member States, and across RBDs

in the same Member State.

The Member States that calculate the environmental and resource costs of water services

generally use a wide range of different methodologies, which can be attributed to the fact that

251

such calculations need to take into account the local conditions but makes it difficult to make

comparisons across Member States. However, in many cases these costs are considered as

calculated through their internalization, without a primary effort to actually estimate them.

Hence, significant gaps remain and there is room to improve the transparency on how these

costs have been dealt with. The European Commission could support the development of more

consistent methodologies.

Limited changes in the water pricing policies have taken place in order to implement the

Article 9 provisions. Information on the incentive function of water pricing and the adequate

contribution of water uses is often rather limited and generic.

1.18.3.



Recommendations

Reporting on cost recovery policies should be sufficiently detailed and transparent,

while at the same time focusing only on the information that is relevant to assess the

effectiveness of the use of economic instruments. To the extent possible it should be

done in a way that allows for comparison across RBDs.



Cost recovery should be applied to all water use activities that have a significant impact

on water bodies, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and

distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of wastewater,

also when they are 'self-services', for instance self-abstraction for agriculture.

Exemptions based on Article 9(4) should be transparently justified.

Sufficient information should be provided about how the financial, environmental and

resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different

users is ensured (disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture), i.e.

demonstrating how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account.

Sufficient information should be provided about the water-pricing policies, including

the use of adequate incentives for users to use water efficiently, and documenting

volumes, prices, and costs associated with water services (as required by the Annex III).

In line with the requirements of the Annex III Member States should provide a

transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs.



252

1.19.Protected Areas

1.19.1.

Introduction

According to Article 6 and Annex IV of the WFD, Member States shall ensure the

establishment of a register or registers of all areas lying within each RBD which have been

designated as requiring special protection under specific Community legislation for the

protection of their surface water and groundwater, or for the conservation of habitats and

species directly depending on water, including the protection of Natura 2000 sites and

economically significant aquatic species.

For water bodies which are designated as Protected Areas, the environmental objectives set are

beyond good status, as more stringent objectives may have to be set for those areas in the

relevant Community legislation.

The relevant EU legislation for the protection of water with additional or more stringent

objectives includes the following directives:



Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC, as amended by Directive 98/83/EC).

Shellfish Directive (2006/113/EC) (repealed)

Freshwater Fish Directive (2006/44/EC) (repealed).

Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC)

Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)

Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)

Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)

Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

Member States were required to report on monitoring, additional objectives and additional

measures for protected areas under the Habitats/Birds, Shellfish and Drinking Water Directives.

The Freshwater Fish Directive and the Shellfish Directive were repealed on 22 December 2013.

According to the WFD, the level of protection should be maintained through the inclusion of

the designated areas as Protected Areas under WFD, but Member States were not required to

report on additional objectives and measures for freshwater fish protected areas.

Annex VII (7)(1) of the WFD requires that the RBMPs contain a summary of the measures

required for implementing Community legislation for the protection of water. Additional

measures for Protected Areas should be an integral part of the RBMPs in order to ensure that

the requirements of those Protected Areas are included in the overall management of the RBDs

253

and to ensure the coherence of the entire water planning with the objectives already established

by other Community and national legislation.

Article 11(5) of the WFD states that “additional measures as may be necessary in order to

achieve those objectives are established, including, as appropriate, the establishment of stricter

EQSs following the procedures laid down in Annex V.”

Article 4(1)(c) of the WFD states that ‘Member States shall achieve compliance with any

standards and objectives at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive,

unless otherwise specified in the Community legislation under which the individual Protected

Areas have been established’. Therefore, water bodies in the Protected Areas must be of good

status by 2015 at the latest, and earlier if required by another piece of Community legislation. If

a water body is not of good status then it would be expected that an exemption under Article

4(4) of the WFD has been applied.

1.19.2. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle

Identification of protected areas

All 25 Member States, which have been assessed, have in general reported and identified

protected areas for the relevant Directives (see Table 1).

Table 1 Number of protected areas for each type at Member State level

Protected area type

Urban

Waste

Member

Water

State

Article

Treatment

Abstraction

Directive

for drinking

Sensitive

water

Bathing Birds Fish Habitats Nitrates Shellfish Area

Other

201

134

605

220

278

359

374

2971

402

8736

2132

25690

250

113

160

1641

1038

1834

273

3344

917

598

110

420

198

194

254

109

706

168

116

120

219

593

3269

234

328

1023

343

940

626

107

134

104

181

392

5827

761

Protected area type

Urban

Waste

Member

Water

State

Article

Treatment

Abstraction

Directive

for drinking

Sensitive

water

Bathing Birds Fish Habitats Nitrates Shellfish Area

Other

1952

13870

211

368

418

2755

1266

1259

202

1623

238

2609

376

126

499

439

616

437

133

136

117

145

552

374

1474

139

128

645

270

1058

214

219

1520

211

372

1270

251

131

2596

100

177

133

696

225

448 489

614

Source: WISE reporting 2016.

Note: The values in the table represent unique Protected Areas as determined from the

Protected Area codes entered by each Member State into WISE. A Protected Area that is

associated with more than one water body category is counted only once.

Status assessment

The reporting of the status assessment regarding both surface and groundwater protected areas

and also regarding ecological, quantitative and chemical status is quite comprehensive in the

second RBMPs. The share of water bodies with unknown status is relatively low, with the

exception of chemical status of surface water bodies in protected areas which is unknown for a

share of almost 20% (see Figure 1).

Nearly 70% of the ecological status assessments have been made with high or medium

confidence, meaning that the status assessment should be based on monitoring data. Only for

6% of the water bodies, it is reported that no information is available for a status assessment.

Also in the case of groundwater, nearly 70% of the quantitative status assessments have been

made with high or medium confidence. Only for 8% of the water bodies, it is reported that no

information is available for a status assessment.

255

Figure 1 Status of water bodies within protected areas

Source: WISE reporting 2016

Ecological status/potential

Source: WISE reporting 2016

256

Chemical status - surface water

Chemical status

–

groundwater

257

Quantitative

–

groundwater

Additional objectives in protected areas

The establishment of additional objectives for the different types of protected areas is shown on

the EU level in Figure 2.

It is concluded that drinking water areas (under Article 7) are the dominant type of protected

area for which objectives have been set, followed by protected areas related to the Habitats

Directive, Nitrate Sensitive Areas and bathing waters. Objectives related to the repealed

directives (Fish and Shellfish) are very limited and concentrated in a few countries. The

situation is similar for protected areas under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, for

which specific objectives have been set in only few countries.

258

Figure 2: Objective setting in protected areas per category of protected area.

Source: WISE reporting 2016

Table 2 shows whether specific objectives have been set to protect water dependent habitats

and species for protected areas under the Birds and Habitats Directives (amounting to

approximately 16 000 protected areas) in the different Member States. For 44% of the protected

areas under the nature Directives, the additional needs (to reach the more stringent objectives)

are still unknown. Considering also that for 13% of the protected areas for which objectives

have been set, work to determine the needs is ongoing, this indicates that for nearly 60 % of the

protected areas under nature Directives, the needs for improvement are not yet established. The

low reported monitoring activities in relation to protected areas makes this critical, as the data

necessary to determine the needs are not being produced.

Only for 17% of protected areas under the nature Directives, specific water objectives have

been set and the needs for changes should be known. Further information in some of the

relevant RBMPs indicates that a considerable part of this category consists of water bodies,

where the more stringent objectives are already met, meaning that no further effort is needed.

For a number of nature protected areas (26%), the achievement of the WFD good status is

expected to be sufficient also to achieve favourable conservation status under the nature

Directives. Some Member States have reported all their protected areas in this category, and

further clarification may be needed on whether this decision is based on individual assessments

of water bodies.

259

Table 2: Percentage of protected areas under the Birds and Habitats Directives in the RBMPs for which specific objectives have been set or

not set.

Member No specific objectives No specific objectives set - Achievement of Some specific objectives set - Specific objectives set (all

set - Additional needs WFD good status is sufficient to achieve But work still on-going to water dependent habitats

State

are not known

favorable conservation status

determine needs

and species)

Austria

(AT)

Belgium

(BE)

Bulgaria

(BG)

Cyprus

(CY)

100

Czech

100

Republic

(CZ)

German

y (DE)

Denmar

k (DK)

Estonia

(EE)

100

260

Member No specific objectives No specific objectives set - Achievement of Some specific objectives set - Specific objectives set (all

set - Additional needs WFD good status is sufficient to achieve But work still on-going to water dependent habitats

State

are not known

favorable conservation status

determine needs

and species)

Spain

(ES)

Finland

(FI)

France

(FR)

Croatia

(HR)

Hungary

(HU)

100

Italy (IT) 53

Luxemb

ourg

(LU)

Latvia

(LV)

Malta

(MT)

100

The

Netherla

nds (NL)

261

Member No specific objectives No specific objectives set - Achievement of Some specific objectives set - Specific objectives set (all

set - Additional needs WFD good status is sufficient to achieve But work still on-going to water dependent habitats

State

are not known

favorable conservation status

determine needs

and species)

Poland

(PL)

Portugal

(PT)

100

Romania 0

(RO)

Sweden

(SE)

Slovenia

(SI)

Slovakia

(SK)

United

Kingdo

m (UK)

100

Source: WISE reporting 2016

262

Table 3 shows the percentage of shellfish areas where a standard has been set and those without

any standard. It should be noted that most countries have used the same standards as in the

repealed Directive, and only very few countries have fully or for a considerable percentage of

the protected areas introduced standards different to those in the repealed Directive. Also few

countries have either no standards at all or no standards for a considerable percentage of the

shellfish areas.

Table 3: Percentage of protected shellfish areas where information on standards has been

reported

Member State

Microbiological

microbiological

standards have been standards have standards have been

set to protect shellfish been

set

to set to protect shellfish.

and

these

are

identical to those in

the repealed Shellfish

Directive

2006/113/EC.

protect shellfish

and these are

different to those

in the repealed

Shellfish

Directive

2006/113/EC.

100

Austria (AT)

Belgium (BE)

Bulgaria (BG)

Cyprus (CY)

Czech Rep (CZ)

Germany (DE)

Denmark (DK)

Estonia (EE)

Spain (ES)

Finland (FI)

France (FR)

Croatia (HR)

Hungary (HU)

Italy (IT)

Luxembourg (LU)

Latvia (LV)

Malta (MT)

The Netherlands (NL)

100

263

Member State

Microbiological

microbiological

standards have been standards have standards have been

set to protect shellfish

and

these

are

identical to those in

the repealed Shellfish

Directive

2006/113/EC.

been

set

to set to protect shellfish.

protect shellfish

and these are

different to those

in the repealed

Shellfish

Directive

2006/113/EC.

Poland (PL)

Portugal (PT)

Romania (RO)

Sweden (SE)

Slovenia (SI)

Slovakia (SK)

United

(UK)

100

Kingdom 98

Source: WISE

reporting 2016; Note: “-“ in the table indicates no information available.

Protected area exemptions

In the second RBMPs, exemptions for protected areas have been reported to a very limited

extent, as only 6% of the protected areas have been exempted from the relevant protected area

objectives or standards. More than half of the exemptions for protected areas have been applied

in only few Member States.

Exemptions have not been applied equally for all Directives, ranging from 1-2% of exemptions

applied for Drinking Water protected areas and Nitrate Sensitive Areas up to 15% exemptions

applied for protected areas under the Habitats Directive. The most frequently reported type of

exemptions is time extension under Article 4(4), because of technical feasibility issues,

amounting to nearly 50% of all the exemptions applied.

Monitoring

Reporting of monitoring specifically targeted towards protected areas is very limited

–

certain countries even missing. Especially for groundwater (both for drinking water and

dependent habitats and species), the reported monitoring activities are in general very low or

often missing (see table 4). Figure 2 shows that more than 50% of the protected areas with

264

objectives set are drinking water areas

–

meaning several thousands of sites, that need to be

monitored. Table 4 shows the monitoring sites especially related to protected drinking water

areas, summing up to approximately 13 000 sites. According to table 4, more than half of the

monitoring sites are reported by one country, while more than one third of countries report no

monitoring sites at all of protected drinking water areas.

The reported information shows a need for specific monitoring of protected drinking water

areas as well as of other types of protected areas. In a number of countries, there seems to be a

contradiction between the confidence of the status assessment (high or medium) and the limited

reported monitoring activity especially related to protected areas. High or medium confidence

on the status assessment requires a data basis established through a monitoring program and

this coherence is not present in the reporting of a number of countries.

Table 4 Number of monitoring sites associated with drinking water protected areas for

groundwater and surface water

Monitoring sites drinking water

Member Groundwater

State

375

374

7084

773

346

286

641

Surface water

327

977

120

197

265

Monitoring sites drinking water

1253

11273

1992

Source: WISE reporting 2016.

Measures for protected areas

The main information available from the reporting on measures related to protected areas

concerns safeguard zones. According to Article 11(3)(d) of the WFD, measures are needed to

meet the requirements of Article 7 (Waters used for the abstraction of drinking water),

including measures to safeguard water quality in order to reduce the level of purification

treatment required for the production of drinking water. According to Article 7(3) of the WFD

Member States shall ensure the necessary protection for the bodies of water identified

according to Article 7(1) (drinking water protected areas) with the aim of avoiding

deterioration in their quality in order to reduce the level of purification treatment required in the

production of drinking water. Member States may establish safeguard zones for those bodies of

water.

Table 5 shows whether safeguard zones have been established in the second RBMPs and

whether there is going to be any change as a result of the second cycle. For nearly 80% of the

RBMPs, safeguard zones are established and no changes are foreseen as a result of the second

RBMPs.

266

Table 5: Number of RBMPs where safeguard zones have been established (or not established), indicating also needs to change the regulations.

Member

States

Austria

(AT)

Belgium

(BE)

Bulgaria

(BG)

Cyprus

(CY)

Czech

Rep (CZ)

Germany

(DE)

Denmark

(DK)

Estonia

(EE)

Spain

(ES)

Finland

(FI)

Safeguard zones and no plans to Safeguard zones but there will be No safeguard zones but plans No safeguard zones

change the regulations as a result significant changes to them as a to implement them as a result and no plans

of this RBMP

result of this RBMP

of this RBMP

establish them

267

Member

States

France

(FR)

Croatia

(HR)

Hungary

(HU)

Italy (IT)

Safeguard zones and no plans to Safeguard zones but there will be No safeguard zones but plans No safeguard zones

change the regulations as a result significant changes to them as a to implement them as a result and no plans to

of this RBMP

result of this RBMP

of this RBMP

establish them

Luxembo 1

urg (LU)

Latvia

(LV)

Malta

(MT)

The

Netherla

nds (NL)

Poland

(PL)

Portugal

(PT)

Romania

(RO)

268

Member

States

Sweden

(SE)

Slovenia

(SI)

Slovakia

(SK)

United

Kingdom

(UK)

Safeguard zones and no plans to Safeguard zones but there will be No safeguard zones but plans No safeguard zones

change the regulations as a result significant changes to them as a to implement them as a result and no plans to

of this RBMP

result of this RBMP

of this RBMP

establish them

107

Source: WISE reporting 2016

269

For the remaining water bodies especially those protected under the Habitat and Birds

Directives, needs are either not known or it is reported that the WFD good status is sufficient to

achieve favourable conservation status. In both cases, measures are not necessary in the second

cycle.

Overall, there is very limited information about measures to be implemented in protected areas,

which is probably also related to the fact, that only a very small number of protected areas have

a specific objective set

–

and most of them probably already fulfil the objective.

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

Changes with regard to protected areas since the first cycle are generally very limited. There

seems to be a general reduction in the reported monitoring activities specifically targeted

towards protected areas and especially regarding ground water. This is critical as monitoring

data should be the basis for setting objectives, determining needs for improvement (gap

analysis) and for the implementation of measures in the third cycle.

1.19.3.

Conclusions

Very little has changed with regard to protected areas since the first cycle. There seems to be a

large gap between the intensions of the WFD concerning protected areas and the Member

States’ efforts –

and this goes for both drinking water protected areas and for nature protected

areas.

There is a large proportion of the protected areas, where the knowledge about status, pressures

etc. is lacking - and therefore no objectives are set. Specific objectives have only been set for a

limited number of protected areas and for a considerable part of water bodies in this category,

the more stringent objectives are already met, meaning that no further effort is needed.

Furthermore, for a significant part of the water bodies related to protected areas, GES under the

WFD is reported as sufficient also to reach the more stringent objectives according to other

Directives. Therefore, the need for additional measures in protected areas can be described only

for a very small number of water bodies.

Reporting of monitoring specifically targeted towards protected areas is very limited

–

certain countries even missing. Especially regarding groundwater monitoring (both for drinking

water, but also for groundwater dependent habitats and species), the gap between the actual

level of reported monitoring and the needed monitoring is large. In the light of an insufficient

activity in specific monitoring of protected areas, it is difficult to see how knowledge about the

needs in protected areas can change significantly during the second cycle.

1.19.3.



Recommendations

Member States should ensure that the register of Protected Areas required under Art. 6

of the WFD is complete and kept up to date, that additional objectives linked to the

conservation of those Protected Areas are identified where needed, that adequate

monitoring is in place and that all measures necessary to fulfil the specific objectives for

Protected Areas are included in the Programmes of Measures.

270

1.16. Adaptation to climate change and drought

Introduction

Adaptation to climate change

Floods and droughts have already affected large parts of the EU and have an important impact

on socio-economic developments. In the future, climate change will probably increase both the

number and magnitude of these hydrological extremes

123

. The WFD does not explicitly refer to

adaptation to climate change, although Annex II refers to the need to identify ‘significant

pressures’ affecting water bodies. Furthermore, when drafting the CIS guidance document No.

24 River Basin Management in a Changing Climate, Member States agreed that from the

second planning cycle onwards climate-related threats and adaptation planning should be

incorporated in their RBMPs. This is reinforced by the fact that almost all the elements which

are included in the definition of WFD qualitative and quantitative status are sensitive to climate

change and due to the step-by-step cyclical approach are well-suited for adaptation action. The

requirements include:



Assessing direct and indirect (primary and secondary) climate pressures in order to

provide information for the pressures analyses.

Assessing monitoring programmes to ensure early climate impact signal detection.

Close monitoring of climate impacts in reference sites (sites with limited anthropogenic

modification).

Integrating potential additional pressures, impacts and constraints caused by climate

change in the economic analysis of WFD.

Undertaking a ‘climate check’ of the PoMs by applying a transparent and fully

documented methodology.

Outlining of specific adaptation measures with preference of robust no-regret actions is

further recommended.

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle

Even if the WFD does not explicitly refer to climate change, it is mentioned as being linked to

the Directive in nearly all RBDs in various ways, with few exceptions. Climate change aspects

which are reported to have been considered include the following:



123

Assessing direct and indirect climate pressures

Detecting climate change signals

Monitoring change at reference sites

Setting objectives

EEA (2017): Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016, EEA Report No 1/2017

271



Forecasting the economics of water supply and demand

Checking the effectiveness of measures

Selecting preferably robust adaptation measures

Maximising cross-sectoral benefits and minimising negative effects across sectors

Applying flood risk management

Addressing drought management and water scarcity

The table below shows the number of RBDs for which each of the climate change aspects has

been considered in the second RBMPs.

Figure 1: Number of RBDs for which each of the climate change aspects have been

considered

Source: WISE reporting 2016.

Climate change has been mostly considered in the context of flood risk management (112

RBDs) followed by the assessment of direct and indirect climate pressures (98 RBDs).

The CIS Guidance on climate change has been used by most Member States.

The ‘climate check’ of the PoMs is supposed to carry out a sensitivity analysis of the proposed

measures based on a fully transparent methodology to evaluate long-term effectiveness and

cost-efficiency under changing climatic conditions. The results of the climate check should be

integrated in other RBMP processes. A climate check of PoMs has been carried out in all

RBDs, except for some RBDs in a few Member States

Specific sub-plans addressing the issue of climate change have been reported for a few Member

States.

32% of the Member States (eight out of 25 assessed in this report) in one way or another

adopted specific adaptation measures to climate change under KTM24 in their RBMPs. The

table below gives an overview of those countries which are applying KTM24. Even if the total

272

number of Member States applying adaptation measures has decreased (from 11 in 2009), it

should be noted that due to the mainstreaming efforts of climate change at EU and Member

State level over the last years, several planned measures with a different objective will support

adaptation.

Table 1

Application of KTM24-Adaptation to climate change in the second RBMPs

in the Member States

Member

State

Bulgaria

(BG)

Germany

(DE)

Application of KTM24-Adaptation to climate change

KTM24 is made operational to address significant pressures in 2 of the RBDs

(BG2000 and BG3000) and national measures are mapped against KTM24.

KTM24 is applied to tackle abstractions and hydro-morphological pressures.

DE2000, DE4000, DE5000, DE6000, DE7000 all apply KTM24-adaptation

measures to address significant pressures.

Finland (FI) Specific climate change adaptation measures, KTM24, have not been applied

to tackle pressures in any RBD. However, there are national measures mapped

against KTM24 in one RBD (FIWDA).

France (FR) Specific climate change adaptation measures, KTM24, have been applied in

FRA FRB2, FRD, FRE, FRH FRK, FRL. In all basins there are national

measures mapped against KTM24.

Italy (IT)

KTM24 are made operational to address significant pressures related to

agricultural diffuse pollution in ITA and ITE, as well as abstractions and

hydrological alterations in ITG.

KTM24 is not made operational to address significant pressures in the RBD,

although national measures have been mapped against KTM24.

KTM24 is made operational to address significant pressures in SK4000. Also

national measures are mapped against KTM 24 in SK4000

KTM24 is not made operational to address significant pressures in the RBDs,

although national measures are mapped against KTM 24 in all basins.

Source: WISE reporting 2016.

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

The main change on how climate change is addressed in the plans in comparison to the first

cycle is that the number of basins where climate change has been considered has increased

significantly and only a few Member States/RBDs have not considered climate change yet.

While in the first cycle a climate check of PoMs was carried out in 41% of the RBMPs (46 out

of 112), this is now done in all RBDs except RBDs in six Member States (117 out of 143

RBDs, which corresponds to 82%).

Romania

(RO)

Slovakia

(SK)

Croatia

(HR)

273

Adaptation to Droughts

Drought

124

is a natural phenomenon. It is a temporary, negative and severe deviation along a

significant time period and over a large region from average precipitation values (a rainfall

deficit), which might lead to meteorological, agricultural, hydrological and socioeconomic

drought, depending on its severity and duration.

A specific Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

for addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the EU

125

gave further indication

on the key measures that should be promoted in the RBMPs and other tools in order to reduce

the impacts of these phenomena.

The WFD includes several references to droughts:



It contributes to mitigating the effects of droughts (Article 1.e).

According to Article 4(6), temporary deterioration in the status of bodies of water shall

not be in breach of the requirements of this Directive if this is the result of

circumstances of natural cause or force majeure which are exceptional or could not

reasonably have been foreseen, in particular prolonged droughts.

Supplementary measures (Article 11(4)) can include (ix) demand management

measures, inter alia, promotion of adapted agricultural production such as low water

requiring crops in areas affected by drought.



The RBMPs may be supplemented by the production of more detailed programmes and

management plans for sub-basin, sector, issue, or water type, to deal with particular

aspects of water management, such as when and where needed, a specific drought

management (sub)plan (Article 13(5)).



Within the Common Implementation Strategy of the WFD, a Technical report on Drought

Management Plans

126

was adopted in 2007, and refers to the three key elements for the proper

mitigation of drought impacts:



Indicators and thresholds establishing onset, ending, and severity levels of the

exceptional circumstances (prolonged drought).

Measures to be taken in each drought phase in order to prevent deterioration of water

status and to mitigate negative drought effects.



Based on Schmidt, J.J. Benítez & C. Benítez (2012) Document: Working definitions of Water scarcity and

Drought. Version 4, and taken note by Water Directors (4 June 2012)

125

European Commission (2007) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the

Council - Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the EU {SEC(2007) 993} {SEC(2007)

996}/* COM/2007/0414 final */

126

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/dmp_report.pdf

124

274



Organizational framework to deal with drought and subsequent revision and updating of

the existing drought management plan

Furthermore, the 2009 Guidance document No. 24 (River Basin Management in a Changing

Climate) provides further guidance, such as e.g. its “Principle 11: Drought

management and

water scarcity: Use the WFD as the basic methodological framework to achieve climate change

adaptation in water scarce areas and to reduce the impacts of droughts”. Furthermore, the Water

Blueprint

127

, including the Review of the EU policy on water scarcity and droughts, in 2012

encourages Member States to better integrate drought risk management and climate change

aspects in their future RBMPs and when developing cross sectoral and multi hazard risk

management plans.

1.16.1.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle

Overall, in the second cycle of the WFD implementation, there are 11 Member States where

drought is considered not to be relevant. However, this reflects a geographically quite varied

picture which is not aligned with the drought occurrence as they are identified by the European

Drought Observatory

128

For 14 Member States, drought is a relevant issue, even if the relevance covers only the sub-

basin level or one specific RBD.

129

The main strength of these Member States lies in the

adoption of Drought Management Plans, whilst the major weaknesses refer to the lack of such

plans, at least for the RBDs concerned with droughts (see table below).

In total, six Member States have reported Drought Management Plans in the second RBMPs.

Table: Strengths and weaknesses of Member State’s drought management in the second

RBMPs (selection)

Strengths

Weaknesses

Drought

Management

Plans

including key measures are

approved and aligned with RBMP

There is a specific sub-plan to

address water scarcity and

droughts in 2 RBDs

No Drought Management Plans

have been reported for Germany

(Danube RBD).

There is concern about a possible

Drought Management Plans are in broad application of Article 4(6)

place

exemptions due to drought,

following the 2017 draft Drought

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Germany

Spain

127

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources

COM/2012/0673

128

http://edo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/edov2/php/index.php?id=1000.

129

For one Member State (Croatia), no information is reported regarding the relevance of droughts.

275

Management Plans, not yet adopted

All Finnish RBDs recognise the

existence of local or sub-basin

drought spells as one of the effects

of climate change. However, none

of the RBDs has developed a

Drought Management Plan.

Droughts are relevant for the

country. No Drought Management

Plan have been reported for France.

There is no clear distinction in the

country between droughts and

water scarcity. No Drought

Management Plan has been

developed in Hungary

No Drought Management Plan has

been reported for one RBD (ITH).

Drought Management Plans have

not been reported

Exemptions have been applied

following Article 4(6) due to

prolonged droughts for all four

RBDs.

Drought Management Plans have

not been reported for Poland

Droughts are relevant for a major

part of Portugal. It is unclear if

proper

drought

management

planning and actions are in place to

justify the Article 4(6) exemptions

which have been applied.

No Drought Management Plans

have been reported for Sweden

Preparation of selection of drought No Drought Management Plan is

indicators (as measure)

established

Changes in recognising drought

risk for several RBDs. Drought

Management Plans are in place for

some RBDs.

Source: WISE reporting 2016 and second RBMPs.

Finland

France

Hungary

Italy

Malta

Drought Management Plan are

developed for some RBDs

The Netherlands

Sub-plans

addressing

water

scarcity and droughts have been

reported for all RBDs in the 2nd

cycle

Poland

Portugal

Measures are included in the

RBMPs

Sweden

Slovenia

United Kingdom

Furthermore, it should be noted that a few Member States have applied Article 4(6) exemptions

due to prolonged droughts in the second cycle. No information has been reported on other

effects of droughts than the applied exemptions.

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle

Out of the list of Member States for which drought is considered as a relevant topic, only three

Member States have made progress since the first RBMPs.

276

No change or improvement has been identified for seven Member States since the first cycle,

whilst the information reported does not allow drawing conclusions regarding the remaining

Member States due to the few relevant elements reported.

1.16.2.

Conclusions

The assessment of the second RBMPs clearly shows that climate change has been integrated

into water management across Europe. While in the first cycle not all RBDs had considered

climate change, in the second cycle almost all Member States followed the CIS agreement that

from the second planning cycle onwards climate-related threats and adaptation planning should

be incorporated in their RBMPs. Thereby, the CIS Guidance on climate change has been used

by most countries. Climate change is mostly considered in relation to flooding, followed by the

assessment of pressures from climate change. In one third of the Member States, specific

measure to adapt to climate change are applied.

The consideration of drought as a relevant water management feature follows an inconsistent

geographical pattern: in 14 assessed Member States, droughts are considered as relevant

(including at sub-basin level), whilst in another 11 Member States they are not relevant.

The development of Drought Management Plans is the key management measure for mitigating

the impact of droughts but is not yet fully adopted in all drought-facing river basin districts.

The adoption of elements within the RBMPs that address clearly the key elements for drought

mitigation (indicators, measures, organisational set-up) can provide a step-wise approach, but

their implementation has not been assessed in detail for the purpose.

Most Member States have reported that they have used the Common Implementation Guidance

number 24, River Basin Management in a changing climate, have done a climate proofing of

the POMs and have a national Climate Change Strategy or Plan. However, the assessment has

not allowed to determine the effectiveness of the climate proofing methodologies, and in

general green infrastructures and water retention measures are underused.

At least two Member States have applied Article 4(6) exemptions due to prolonged droughts

during the first planning cycle. Drought Management Plans, and their indicators and measures

can provide proper elements for a justification.

At least two Member States have progressed in their drought management since the first

planning cycle by developing drought indicators and extending the number of RBDs with

Drought Management Plans.

1.16.3.



Recommendations

To further improve climate proofing, technical measures and planned infrastructures

should take due account of climate change predictions, especially for the occurrence of

extreme phenomena and changes in river flows.

277



A national Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change should be developed and taken

into account in the design of the PoM in the relevant Member States.



Regarding drought management, Member States are encouraged to develop Drought

Management Plans where appropriate and monitor drought events and their severity

with specific indicators.

When applying exemptions under article 4(6) for prolonged droughts, Member States

should be fully transparent when providing information on the methodologies applied

and all possible measures considered to avoid deterioration.



278

COOPERATION UNDER THE

EU D

IRECTIVE

2000/60/EC

ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK FOR THE

OMMUNITY ACTION IN THE FIELD OF

130

WATER POLICY

NTERNATIONAL

1.17.Introduction

The WFD stipulates that Member States shall ensure that a river basin covering the territory of

more than one Member State is assigned to an iRBD. Appropriate administrative arrangements,

including the identification of the appropriate competent authority for the iRBD shall be

established by the Member States. Member States shall ensure that the environmental

objectives of the Directive are met in iRBDs. To this end, Member States shall coordinate at the

international level on a POMs.

In the case of an iRBD falling entirely within the EU, Member States shall ensure coordination

with the aim of producing a single international river basin management plan (iRBMP),

including involving third countries. If an iRBMP is not produced, Member States shall produce

RBMPs covering at least those parts of the iRBD falling within their territory to achieve the

objectives of the Directive.

International coordination by the EU Member States was assessed for the second river basin

management cycle. The following sections reflect the situation described by the River

Commissions in their iRBMPs, reported by each Member State in 2016 or 2017 and

information on international coordination described in the national RBMPs. The circumstance

in the River Commissions or the situation in the Member States may have further developed

since then. More detailed information on individual international basins can be obtained from

the accompanying document compiling iRBMP assessments.

1.17.1.

International river basin districts and their coordination mechanisms

There are 75 iRBDs and 30 sub-basins in the EU. International coordination mechanisms

(agreements, working groups etc.) under the WFD vary among the different international river

basins districts. Based on their level of cooperation, four main categories were identified. An

overview of different types of international cooperation is given in Table 6.

Table 6

Different types of international coordination in relation to the WFD

Category Formal

international International

iRBMP produced

agreement

coordinating body

Yes

130

This document reflects the situation as described by the River Commissions in their iRBMPs, or as reported by

each Member State to the European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to national RBMPs

prepared earlier. The circumstance in the River Commissions or the situation in the Member State may have

further developed since then.

279

EU Member States were requested to report to WISE the iRBD in their territory and the level

of international coordination taking place in these iRBDs. Greece, Ireland and Lithuania were

delayed in the second river basin management cycle and thus did not report to WISE the level

of international coordination in their iRBDs. The categories of these iRBDs were taken from

the assessment of international coordination in the first cycle

131

The map below shows the iRBDs and their level of international coordination.

Figure 16

Overview map of iRBDs

131

See: Vogel, B., et al. (2012): Transboundary Cooperation Fact Sheets. Comparative Study of Pressures and

Measures in the Major River Basin Management Plans. available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/water/implrep2007/pdf/Governance-

Transboundary%20Fact%20Sheets.pdf

280

6.1.2. Selection of iRBDs for the assessment

Twenty-one iRBDs were chosen for the assessment (see Table 7). The selection was based on

the following criteria:



All iRBDs with iRBMPs were selected.

In cases where EU Member States/third countries share several iRBDs (e.g. there are 4

iRBDs shared between Portugal and Spain), the most representative basin was

identified, taking into account the overall iRBD catchment area size, the balanced share

of catchment area between the iRBD sharing countries and the level of international

coordination.

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



International basins shared with Greece (5 iRBDs

132

), Ireland (2 iRBDs

133

) and Lithuania (2

iRBDs

134

) were not assessed due to delays in the adoption of the national level RBMPs and

reporting. As a result, Category 4 basins (see Table 6 for explanation) were not assessed. Table

7 presents the list of basins included in the assessment and the categories of these iRBDs as

reported by the EU Member States.

Table 7