# EUR-Lex - 52012DC0670 - EN

*|*

# 52012DC0670

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) River Basin Management Plans /* COM/2012/0670 final */**

			*

			*

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the Implementation of the Water
Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

River Basin Management Plans

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.           Introduction

The Water Framework Directive (WFD[1]) introduced in 2000 new and
ambitious objectives to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems as a basis for
ensuring the long term sustainable use of water for people, business and
nature. The WFD has incorporated into a legally binding instrument the key
principles of integrated river basin management bringing together economic and
ecological perspectives into water management.

The WFD established a programme and
timetable for Member States to set up the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs)
by 2009. The Plans should have identified all actions to be taken in the river
basin district to deliver the objectives of the WFD.

Implementation of the WFD has been
supported since 2001 by an informal co-operative effort under the Common
Implementation Strategy (CIS), led by Water Directors of the Member States and the Commission with the participation of all relevant stakeholders. The CIS
has delivered guidance documents and a large number of policy papers and is a
valuable platform for the exchange of experience and best practices.

This Commission implementation report is
required by WFD article 18 and is based on the Commission's assessment of the
RBMPs reported by Member States. It is accompanied by Commission Staff Working
Documents that include a detailed assessment of the RBMPs. It is one of the
basis of the Commission Communication on the 'Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's
Water Resources'.

2.           Main
elements of the WFD

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 chemical status for surface waters and good quantitative and
chemical status for groundwater.

The main instrument for the implementation
of the WFD is the RBMP and the accompanying Programme of Measures (PoM). The
planning process starts with the transposition and the administrative
arrangements, followed by the characterisation of the river basin district[2], the monitoring and the assessment of status, the objective
setting, and finally the programme of measures and their implementation. The
monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of measures is vital information
that links one planning cycle with the next. The programme of measures is the
tool to respond to the identified pressures, thus enabling the river basin/water
body to reach good status.

The strength of the planning process, and
the adequacy and reliability of the RBMP depends upon good implementation of
every intermediate step. If, for example, a significant pressure is overlooked
during the pressures and impacts analysis, the monitoring will probably not be
designed to assess it and the programme of measures will not envisage action to
address it.

Figure
1: Schematic representation of the WFD planning process

3.           The
assessment of the river basin management plans

The assessment of the RBMPs is based on the
reporting by Member States, consisting of the published plans and accompanying
documentation[3]
and the electronic reporting through the Water Information System for Europe
(WISE)[4].
The assessment of the plans is a complex task that involves dealing with
extensive information in 21 languages.

The Commission assessment will be as
accurate as Member States' reporting. It is recognised that reporting is a significant
undertaking for Member States, in particular the electronic reporting in WISE.
There are examples of very good quality reporting, but also cases where
reporting contains gaps or contradictions.

4.           State
of play of adoption and reporting of RBMPs

23 Member States have adopted and reported
all their Plans. 4 Member States (BE, EL, ES and PT) have either not adopted
Plans or only adopted and reported some plans. In total, the Commission has
received 124 RBMPs (out of expected 174). 75% of them concern transboundary
river basins[5].

In Belgium, the Flemish Region, the
Brussels-Capital Region and the Federal Government (responsible for coastal
waters) have adopted plans; the plans for the Walloon Region are awaited. In Spain, the RBMPs of Tinto Odiel y Piedras, Guadalete y Barbate and Cuencas Mediterraneas Andaluzas
have been approved but not reported and only the plan for the river basin
district of Catalonia has been adopted and reported. In Portugal and Greece no plans have yet been adopted or reported.[6]

Figure 2[7]:
State of adoption of the RBMPs: GREEN - adopted. RED – Not adopted or partially
adopted.

The delays in adopting first cycle RBMPs in
some Member States has consequences for the second implementation cycle both
within the Member States concerned and for other countries they share
catchments with.

5.           Commission findings: key messages and
recommendations

5.1.        Will the objective of good
status in 2015 be reached?

The WFD objective of good status is
necessary to ensure long term availability of sufficient water of good quality.
Achieving good status for all waters will allow aquatic ecosystems to recover
and to deliver the ecosystem services that are necessary to support life and economic
activity that depend on water.

The assessment of the RBMPs indicates that
progress towards the objective is expected, but good status will not be reached
in 2015 for a significant proportion of water bodies. Several reasons are
behind this. The assessment of the RBMPs by the Commission[8] identifies the main obstacles
encountered in each Member State and stresses that hydromorphological
pressures, pollution and overabstraction remain the main pressures on the water
environment.

|| No of MS || No of water bodies || % Water bodies in good status or potential 2009 || % Water bodies in good status or potential 2015 || Progress 2009-2015 in % || Unknown status in 2009 in %[9]

Ecological status of surface waters || 21[10] || 82684 || 43 || 53 || 10 || 15

Chemical status of surface waters || Information unclear to establish the 2009 baseline[11] || 40

Quantitative status of groundwater[12] || 24 || 5197 || 85 || 92 || 7 || 6

Chemical status of groundwater12 || 24 || 5197 || 68 || 77 || 9 || 3

Source: Information
reported by Member States, 2012

The information provided in the RBMPs on
chemical status for surface waters is not sufficiently clear to establish a
baseline for 2009. The chemical quality of water bodies has significantly
improved in the last 30 years, but the situation as regards these priority
substances introduced by the WFD is below the objectives. A large proportion of
surface water bodies are reported with unknown chemical status. In addition,
the first RBMPs show different degrees of implementation of the Directive
2008/105/EC setting Environmental Quality Standards and this makes the chemical
status assessment in the Member States difficult to compare.

The WFD recognises that the achievement of
good status might take more time in some water bodies. For this reason, it
allows Member States to rely on an exemption on the basis of the natural
conditions of the water body, and to extend the deadline up to 2027 or beyond[13].

The deadline for the achievement of good
status can also be extended if inter alia, it is technically infeasible or
disproportionately costly to restore the water body to good status by 2015[14]. Where exemptions are applied,
the WFD requires Member States to justify and explain the reasons in the RBMPs.
This means explaining on what basis the evaluations of natural conditions,
disproportionate costs and/or technical infeasibility have been made and how to
move towards the objective of good status. This justification is key for the
transparency and accountability of decision making.

All too often, in the RBMPs, exemptions are
used to justify existing water uses and management practices showing no plan to
achieve WFD objectives.

Recommendations to Member States:

–
Assess the obstacles that have hindered the
implementation in the first cycle and take action to overcome them in the
second cycle;

–
Step up ambition in taking measures to
achieve good status. In case of uncertainties about effectiveness, take
no-regret measures.

5.2.        Monitoring
and assessment: robust knowledge to take informed decisions

Robust monitoring and methods for a
comprehensive assessment of the status of water bodies are essential elements
for sound water management. The cost of monitoring is much lower than the cost
of inappropriate decisions.

The WFD provides for adaptive monitoring
programmes that can be used to prioritise monitoring where it is most needed.
Smart monitoring programmes should be an integral part of building the evidence
base for the design and implementation of measures. In many monitoring
programmes it is unclear if and how the information on characterisation and
pressures is used in the further development of RBMPs.

A clear gap in monitoring emerges from the
information reported to the Commission. This shows that around 15% of surface
water bodies in the EU are in unknown ecological status and 40% in unknown
chemical status. In some Member States ecological and chemical water status is
unknown for more than 50% of the water bodies. A determined effort is required.

Ecological status as defined by the WFD is
an expression of the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems.
The WFD intercalibration exercise has compared Member States' methods for
assessing ecological status to ensure that they are consistent with the WFD
definitions ensuring comparability of results across Member States. This has
promoted a large exchange of information that has allowed countries with less
experience in the assessment of ecological status to benefit from others'
knowledge.

Despite considerable progress, some
countries show important gaps in the development and application of assessment methods.
Frequently, the intercalibration exercise has been taken as a scientific
exercise not used for water management. Gaps are significant for transitional
and coastal waters and for biological assessment methods sensitive to
hydromorphological pressures, which are the most important pressures preventing
water bodies from achieving good ecological status.

The assessment of chemical status presents
a large proportion of water bodies with unknown status. Chemical monitoring is
insufficient in many Member States, where not all priority substances are
monitored or the number of water bodies where monitoring takes place is
limited.

Recommendations to Member States:

–
Improve and expand monitoring and assessment
tools to ensure a statistically robust and comprehensive picture of the status
of the aquatic environment for the purpose of further planning.

5.3.        Legal
framework and governance

A robust legal framework and appropriate
governance structures are essential pre-requisites for successful integrated
river basin management.

The WFD introduced a new focus for water
management by putting the protection of the aquatic environment and ecological
targets at the heart of an integrated water management approach at the river
basin scale. To this end, an adaptation of existing legal frameworks and water
management administration was expected.

Although progress has been significant,
this has not taken place in most Member States, where there is a continuation
of the status quo. The WFD environmental objectives appear to have been
included as additional goals but not really integrated into policy decisions.

Appropriate coordination in decision making
across sectors is essential. Decisions on economic activities that do not take
into account current and future availability of water resources can drive
unsustainable practices, such as overexploitation of resources, with negative
consequences for environment, population and other economic sectors. With the
adoption of the WFD, Member States are expected to include in the RBMPs
measures addressing all water uses and to ensure coherence between RBMPs and
other spatial planning tools. The WFD also introduced a shift away from the
traditional water use-driven approaches to a more integrated approach that
should be reflected in a governance setting. This has happened to varying
degrees. In some cases the responsibility for WFD implementation has been
placed in dedicated units without clear links to the day-to-day water
management or feedback at basin level. The result creates overlapping
approaches and in some cases decisions and actions that are not compatible with
WFD objectives.

Cross-border cooperation and coordination
of implementation processes is also essential to implement the WFD principle of
management at the river basin scale, in particular considering that
transboundary river basins cover most of the EU. With the adoption of the WFD,
international cooperation has been reinforced and improved significantly. It
has progressed in some cases from an exchange of information to a joint problem
diagnosis and joint decisions on transboundary measures. Joint river basin
management plans in large transboundary basins have been prepared but efforts
on coordination of measures need to continue.

Public and user participation in water
management is another key element introduced by the WFD. A proactive approach
can deliver optimal decisions that are more acceptable and better implemented
on the ground. Transparency on how the results of the consultation processes
are considered is important, and there are some good examples in this respect.

Recommendations to Member States:

–
Continue consolidation of integrated
multidisciplinary water management; look for solutions that balance
environmental protection and sustainable economic development in the long term
and, when necessary, adapt legal and administrative approaches;

–
Coordinate with countries in shared river
basins early in the process of RBMP preparation, agree and implement
transboundary measures;

–
Involve stakeholders and authorities from the
beginning of the planning process and be transparent.

5.4.        Integration
of quantitative and qualitative aspects in water management

Sound water management should integrate
qualitative and quantitative aspects: the achievement of the WFD
objectives is only possible if sufficient quantity of clean water is available
for the aquatic ecosystems. To this end, the ecological flow is necessary to
support the ecological status and ensure water availability for different uses.
The relevance of water quantity issues is recognised in many river basins
across Europe. RBMPs have identified measures addressing water scarcity and
drought problems which are expected to be aggravated by the impacts of climate
change[15]. However, shortcomings have been identified in the RBMPs in
relation to the quality and availability of datasets and lack of coherent
measures.

Information on the impacts of climate
change is included in a number of RBMPs, but in most cases it does not
influence the selection of measures and it is planned to be addressed more
thoroughly in the next RBMP planning cycle.

Flood risk
management is an inherent part of integrated water management, and as a result
flood related issues are mentioned in the RBMPs throughout the EU, notably as a
reason for heavily modifying a water body. The second cycle of RBMP will need
to be coordinated with the first Flood Risk Management Plans.

Recommendations to Member States:

–
Apply ecological flow regimes to ensure that
authorities and users know how much water and which flow regime is needed to
achieve the objective of good ecological status;

–
Improve datasets on water quantity, water
availability and demand trend projections to be able to develop coherent and
effective sets of measures;

–
Integrate  climate change consideration into
the RBMPs;

–
Coordinate the preparation and consultation
on the Flood Risk Management Plans with the second RBMPs to ensure coherence.

5.5.        The key role of pre-WFD
legislation in attaining WFD objectives

Before the WFD, EU water policy addressed
important pressures on the aquatic environment through the adoption of the Urban
Waste Water Treatment (UWWT) and Nitrates Directives[16]. These Directives provide
water protection with respect to nutrients pressures associated with
agriculture and urban developments and contribute to WFD objectives.

Implementation
of the Nitrates Directive is relatively advanced in the old Member States
(EU15), but significantly less in the Member States that joined the EU since
2004 (EU12) and enjoy transitional periods. Lack of financial support and
appropriate planning are the main bottlenecks.

The latest
reporting[17]
under the Urban Waste Water Treatment (UWWTD) Directive shows that waste water
collecting systems were in place for 99% of the total polluting load of EU-15
and for 65% of the total generated load of EU-12. Secondary treatment was in
place for 96% of the load for EU-15 and for 48% of the load for EU-12. More
stringent treatment was in place for 89% of the load in EU-15 and for 27% of
the generated load in EU-12. Availability of resources to cover investments
remains a bottleneck for compliance. Therefore, cost-effective innovative
technical solutions should be promoted.

Pollution from
industrial emissions is regulated by the IPPC Directive[18]. Its last implementation
report shows that although IPPC has prompted significant streamlining of
industrial environmental legislation in many Member States, too many permits
had emission limit values (ELVs) that were not in line with Best Available
Techniques (BAT) and sufficiently protective of the water environment.

Recommendations
to Member States:

–
Reinforce Nitrates Directive action
programmes and vulnerable zone designation, improve compliance rates on waste
water treatment by establishing appropriate investment plans and ensure
compliance of ELVs with BAT.

5.6.        Promoting rational use
through adequate water pricing

Transparency
in the form of adequate information on water costs is the basis for the
development of water pricing policies that provide adequate incentives for users
to use water efficiently in accordance with the WFD. However, little progress
has been made so far in implementing transparent pricing policies.

An efficient use of water requires
measuring the volume of water used. Flat rates, tariffs that rely on the
irrigated area or shared bills among users hardly provide any incentive for
sustainable water use. In some Member States, in some sectors, such as
agriculture or households, metering of water consumption is not fully
implemented.

Recovery of financial costs of water
services, including capital costs, ensures the necessary long term
sustainability of investments. Environmental and resource costs are also an
essential part of the cost recovery to ensure that externalities generated by
the use and disposal of water are adequately recovered. Moreover, the cost of
water services should be recovered taking into account the polluter pays
principle[19].

There are very few Member States that have
implemented a transparent recovery of environmental and resource costs. Cost
recovery is implemented, to a greater or lesser extent, in households and
industry. For agriculture, in many areas, water is charged only to a limited
extent.

The assessment of the RMBPs shows the poor
quality of the assessment of costs and benefits. A strong improvement in this
area and the definition of a shared methodology for the calculation of costs
(including environmental and resource costs) and benefits (including ecosystem
services) is necessary. Otherwise, it will be possible neither to ensure the
implementation of effective pricing policies nor to avoid disproportionate and
inadequate measures.

Recommendations to Member States:

–
Ensure the transparency and fairness of water
pricing policies and base them on metering;

–
Improve cost-benefit assessment to ensure
cost-recovery.

5.7.        Funding of measures

Member States' Programmes of Measures
contain different instruments (legal, administrative, technical,
infrastructure, training, etc.), and are potentially funded in different ways.
Public budget is expected to cover part of the measures but also private
operators are expected to provide funds e.g. through the cost recovery
provisions. European funds – Structural cohesion or CAP funds - can also
contribute to financing some WFD measures.

The Commission's proposal for a new LIFE
regulation 2014-2020 includes the possibility to co-finance projects which
integrate different EU funds and other financial sources in a single, large
scale project for the implementation of measures under the WFD.

The Commission's proposal for 2014-2020
cohesion policy builds on key elements of the WFD proposing ex-ante
conditionality for the use of cohesion and structural funds in the water
sector. Cohesion policy provides an opportunity for joining water use management
needs and implementation of water policy.

Decisions on funding have to match the
priorities set in the RBMPs. Most of the RBMPs do not contain precise
information on how much it will cost to implement the measures and how they are
going to be financed. Financing mechanisms and availability of funds are to be
identified when selecting the measures. Otherwise, the feasibility of
implementation is uncertain.

Recommendations to Member States:

–
Align funding decisions (including EU funds)
to priorities and actions identified in the RBMPs including the fulfilment of
EU water legislation requirements;

–
Include in the RBMP and the Programmes of
Measures the costs of the measures, the responsible authorities and indicate
who is bearing the cost.

5.8.        Integration with other
policies

Planning of land use, agriculture, urban
development, hydropower, navigation, flood protection, all have potentially
important impacts on water resources. The RBMP process offers a unique
opportunity to interact with these sectors and to develop a framework within
which these activities should take place in a sustainable way. Implementing the
WFD requires integration of water policy objectives into the development and
planning of economic activities that rely on water.

More than 90% of the RBMPs assessed
indicate that agriculture is a significant pressure in the basin, including
diffuse or point source pollution by organic matter, nutrients, pesticides and
hydromorphological impacts.

Although a large variety of technical,
non-technical measures or economic instruments can be found in the programmes
of measures, important elements are missing (scope, timing, and financing). In
general, the RBMPs do not show determined action to address agriculture
pressures nor satisfactory association of farmers to the WFD process[20]. Moreover, there are not many
details on how the opportunities provided by the Rural Development Programmes
are taken.

The Commission proposals for the CAP reform[21] contain a number of elements
that could greatly improve the interaction between agriculture and water
policy. These include the addition, subject to conditions, of WFD to
cross-compliance, the greening of the first pillar of the CAP and a programming
system with rural development policy which explicitly identifies water use
efficiency and water management as sub-priorities addressed through rural
development programmes.

WFD Article 4.7 on new projects and
modifications to water bodies frames the conditions under which trade-offs
between water protection and economic developments can be established. This
Article makes new modifications conditional on specific explanations in the
RBMP. Out of the 116 plans assessed that refer to exemptions inter alie, only 12
plans refer to projects that fall under Article 4.7. While it is clear that
there are more projects, planned and on-going, likely to cause deterioration of
status of water bodies, these are not mentioned in the RBMPs.

The lack of references to new projects and
programmes in most of the RBMP indicates a missed opportunity for the
sustainable development of economic activities under a framework of real integrated
water management.

In the context of Article 4.7, development
of hydropower deserves specific attention. Significant environmental impact of
hydropower needs to be properly addressed. Refurbishing and expanding existing
installations should be given priority over new developments which should be
underpinned by a strategic assessment at the river basin scale, selecting
optimal locations in terms of energy production and lowest environmental impact[22].

Similarly, inland navigation, although
potentially a low carbon mode of transport, can also have detrimental effects
on the aquatic environment. Extensive guidance has been developed in the
context of the CIS and other processes[23]
that should be used to ensure that inland navigation is developed in a
sustainable way not hampering WFD objectives.

Inland pressures influence the status of
the marine environment. The measures taken under the RBMPs will contribute to
reaching good environmental status under the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD)[24].
MSFD requires preparing a programme of measures by 2015 which would benefit
from coordination with the RBMPs produced in the 2nd cycle by 2015.

Recommendations to Member States

–
Use the RBMP process to provide a clear
framework for the development of economic activities that rely on water;

–
Improve co-operation with the farming
community in the preparation of the PoM to ensure feasibility and acceptance;
ensure that the Farm Advisory System plays a proactive role and exploit the
opportunities under the Rural Development Programmes;

–
Balance voluntary actions and mandatory
measures in agriculture to provide a solid baseline for rural development
programmes and cross-compliance water related requirements; increase reliance
on multipurpose natural water retention measures;

–
Coordinate and include programmes, plans and
projects affecting the water environment (such as navigation, hydropower or
flood protection measures) in the RBMP.

6.           Conclusions

·
A lot of effort has been put into the
preparation and drafting of the RBMPs. Our knowledge about the status of EU
waters and the activities that influence them is better than ever before.
However, the Commission's assessment shows that a more determined effort is
needed to ensure achievement of WFD objectives in 2015, 2021 and 2027 cycles.

·
There are good examples of implementation of all
aspects of the WFD. Therefore, Member States lagging behind in the approval and
implementation of their RBMPs have the chance of learning from others with a
view to remedy their delays.

·
Implementation should ensure that water
management is based on a better understanding of the main risks and pressures
in a river basin founded on proper monitoring. This will result in cost
effective interventions to ensure the long term sustainable supply of water for
people, business and nature.

·
The Commission will continue to seek and promote
a fruitful informal cooperation with Member States and stakeholders in the
context of the CIS.

·
The Commission will also follow-up bilaterally
with the Member States on the implementation of the recommendations that it is
putting forward in this implementation report and in accompanying documents,
while keeping on enforcing WFD obligations as necessary.

·
The findings in this report have been used to
identify policy proposals put forward in the Commission Communication on the 'Blueprint
to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources' and will be further discussed under the
CIS.

[1]               Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for
Community action in the field of water policy; supplemented by the Groundwater
Directive (2006/118/EC) and the Environmental Quality Standards Directive
(2008/105/EC)

[2]               This includes the pressures
and impacts analysis, the economic analysis, the delineation of water bodies
and the establishment of the typology and reference conditions for surface
water bodies, and the basis for the ecological status assessment.

[3]               See http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_documents_1/submitted_rbmps

[4]               See http://water.europa.eu and in particular http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/interactive/water-live-maps/wfd

[5]               Norway is implementing the
Water Framework Directive as part of the European Economic Area Agreement, with
specific timetable agreed therein. Therefore, Norway has adopted 9 pilot RBMP.

[6]           The Court has ruled against Belgium, Greece and Portugal for not having adopted and reported the plans. A judgement on Spain is pending.  The cases are: Greece
- C‑297/11,  Belgium
- C‑366/11,  Portugal
- C-223/11

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

[8]               See accompanying Commission Staff Working papers

[9]               ES, PT and EL not included because of the lack of
RMBPs

[10]             Ecological status: countries that have not reported
RBMPs, or not reported exemptions or have high unknown status, are not included.

[11]             Chemical status: More than 40% of the surface water
bodies are reported as "unknown chemical status" and for the rest of
WB the assessment is not comparable.

[12]             Numbers do not include FI and SE which have a very
large number of small WB in good status

[13]             Article 4.4(c)

[14]             Article 4.4, 4.5, and 4.7

[15]             Communication on the Review of the European Water
Scarcity and Droughts policy

[16]             Council Directive 91/271/EEC
concerning urban waste-water treatment. OJ L135, 30.5.91 and Council Directive
91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources. OJ L375, 31.12.91.

[17]             6th Commission summary on the Implementation
of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive-Commission Staff Working Paper
SEC(2011)1561 final (reference years 2007/2008)

[18]             Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and
control Integrated pollution prevention and control Directive OJ L 24,
29.1.2008, p. 8–29. To be replaced by Directive 2010/75/EU of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on
industrial emissions (IED) as of 7 January 2014. See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/stationary/ippc/key_impl.htm.

[19]             The Commission has started infringement procedures
against 9 Member States that have implemented a narrow interpretation of water
services limited to drinking water and water treatment.

[20]             See on DG ENV website in all EU languages: "Guidance
for administrations on making WFD agricultural measures clear and transparent
at farm level" and "Handbook
on Farm Advisory Systems and water protection".

[21]             http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index_en.htm

[22]             CIS
Policy Paper on WFD and Hydromorphological pressures. Recommendations for
better policy integration (2006). http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/thematic_documents/hydromorphology/hydromorphology/_EN_1.0_&a=d

[23]             Ibidem; see also Joint Statement on Inland Navigation
and Environmental Sustainability in the Danube River Basin (2007); PLATINA project
Good Practice Manual on Sustainable Waterway Planning (2011); Commission's
Guidance document on sustainable inland waterway development and management in
the context of EU nature legislation (2012).

[24]             Directive 2008/56/EC establishing a framework for
community action in the field of marine environmental policy, O.J.
L174,25.06.2008