TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. General information.. 4

2. Status of River Basin Management Plan reporting and compliance. 7

3. Governance. 9

3.1 Timeline of implementation. 9

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities. 9

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status. 10

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties. 11

3.5 Cooperation and coordination with third countries. 11

3.6 Integration with other sectors. 13

4. Characterisation of river basin districts. 14

4.1 Water categories in the RBD.. 14

4.2 Typology of surface waters. 14

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies. 15

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts. 16

4.5 Protected areas. 21

5. Monitoring.. 21

5.1 General description of the monitoring network. 21

5.2 Monitoring of surface waters. 23

5.3 Monitoring of groundwater. 24

5.4 Monitoring of protected areas. 29

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater) 31

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters. 49

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods. 49

7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results. 54

8. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential 56

8.1 Designation of HMWBs. 56

8.2 Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP) 60

8.3 Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB. 60

9. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters. 61

9.1 Methodological approach to the assessment. 61

10. Assessment of groundwater status. 63

10.1 Quantitative status. 63

10.2 Groundwater chemical status. 64

10.3 Protected areas. 65

11. Environmental objectives and exemptions. 67

11.1 Additional objectives in protected areas. 67

11.2 Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5) 67

11.3 Exemptions according to Article 4(6) 70

11.4 Exemptions according to Article 4(7) 70

11.5 Exemptions to Groundwater Directive. 72

12. Programmes of measures. 73

12.1 Programme of measures – general. 73

12.2 Measures related to agriculture. 75

12.3 Measures related to hydromorphology. 79

12.4 Measures related to groundwater. 82

12.5 Measures related to chemical pollution. 83

12.6 Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies) 84

12.7 Additional measures in protected areas. 85

13. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management and other emerging and linked issues as part of the rbmp. 87

13.1 Water Scarcity and Droughts. 87

13.2 Flood Risk Management. 87

13.3 Adaptation to Climate Change. 88

14. RECOMMENDATIONS. 89

1. General information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin Districts

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Greece has a population of 11 million[1] with a high concentration in the Athens metropolitan area, and a total surface area of 131,957 square km.[2] It is located in the southern extremity of the Balkan peninsula in south-east Europe. Its territory includes more than 2,000 islands in the Aegean and Ionian seas. Mount Olympus is the highest point in the country.

Greece has 14 River Basin Districts (RBDs) (see Table 1.1. below). The two largest ones are the Western Macedonia RBD (GR09) covering 13,585 km2 and the Thessalia (GR08) covering 13,153 km2. Two of the RBDs, namely Aegean Islands (GR14) and Crete (GR13) cover islands, while 6 more (Northern Peloponese-GR02, Western Sterea Ellada-GR04, Epirus-GR05, Attica-GR06, Eastern Sterea Ellada-GR07 and Thrace-GR12) cover both mainland and island areas.

The following overview is provided regarding the shared transboundary catchment with MS/third countries (see Table 1.2 below):

§ With Albania: Lake Prespa Basin (Part of Drin/Drim sub-basin) (GR09), Aoos/Vjosa River Basin (GR05);

§ With Bulgaria: Mesta-Nestos River Basin (GR12), Struma-Strymonas River Basin (GR11), Maritsa-Evros-Meric River Basin (GR12), Axios/Vardar River Basin (GR10);

§ With the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Lake Prespa Basin (Part of Drin/Drim sub-basin) (GR09), Axios/Vardar River Basin including the Doirani Lake Basin (GR10), Struma-Strymonas River Basin (GR11); and,

§ With Turkey: Maritsa-Evros-Meric River Basin (GR12).

RBD || Name || Size* (km2) || Countries sharing borders

GR01 || Western Peloponnese || 7,235 || -

GR02 || Northern Peloponnese || 7,418 || -

GR03 || Eastern Peloponnese || 8,442 || -

GR04 || Western Sterea Ellada || 10,432 || -

GR05 || Epirus || 10,007 || AL

GR06 || Attica || 3,139 || -

GR07 || Eastern Sterea Ellada || 12,268 || -

GR08 || Thessalia || 13,153 || -

GR09 || Western Macedonia || 15,218 || AL, FYROM

GR10 || Central Macedonia || 14,264 || BG, FYROM

GR11 || Eastern Macedonia || 7,320 || BG, FYROM

GR12 || Thrace || 11,242 || BG, TR

GR13 || Crete || 8,301 || -

GR14 || Aegean Islands || 9,118 || -

Table 1.1: Overview of Greece’s River Basin Districts

* Area in Greek territory

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[3]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/be/eu/wfdart13

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing borders || Co-ordination category

2 || 3 || 4

km² || % || km² || % || km² || %

Lake Prespa (Part of Drin/Drim Sub-basin) || GR09 || AL, MK || 347 || 25.1 || || || ||

Aoos/Vjosa || GR05 || AL || 2,154 || 33.0 || || || ||

Mesta-Nestos || GR12 || BG || 2,429 || 42.3% || || || ||

Struma-Strymonas || GR11 || BG, FYROM || 6,295 || 36.5% || || || ||

Maritsa-Evros_Meric || GR12 || BG, TR || 3,345 || 6.3% || || || ||

Axios/Vardar || GR09 || FYROM, BG || || || || || 863 || 3.9

Axios/Vardar || GR10 || FYROM, BG || || || || || 1,636 || 7.3

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Greece[4].

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU.

Note: the area figures (km2) refer to the actual hydrological catchment of the respective river (i.e. not the RBD area, nor the respective WFD river basin area which both contain additional small catchments grouped with the actual river catchment)

2. Status of River Basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

At the time of drafting the current report, Greece had adopted 12 RBMPs (GR01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10,11, 12), which have also been fully reported in WISE (along with the accompanying Annexes) and thus the current report only considers those (see Table 2.1 below). In late 2014, in the context of a bilateral meeting between Commission Services and Greek authorities, some additions and corrections to specific tables of this report were provided, which have been incorporated.

The drafting of the RBMPs was commissioned to different consultants and coordinated by the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change – Special Secretariat for Water (EGY) assisted by a “coordinator consultant”. A general national approach has been followed, yet it is evident that RBMPs’ implemented approaches and structures present commonalities within the plans assigned to the same consultant, and differences across the background documents (Annexes) of the plans assigned to different consultants. Thus, the following groups can be observed: GR01/02/03, GR04/05/08, GR06/07, GR09/10, GR11/12. The role of the “coordinator consultant” was to support the EGY and provide expertise and guidelines (also in the form of guidance documents, which were nevertheless not officially published) for the streamlining and harmonisation of the process.

One of the main shortcomings of the Greek RBMPs is that they have been delayed due to a number of factors which relate to technical issues, as well as legislative and administrative barriers and socio-economic constraints. Consequently, time to implement the suggested Programme of Measures (PoMs) by 2015 and revise the plans for the second WFD cycle (considering and embedding the effects of the measures) is very tight. Nevertheless EL has specified that implementation of a great number of measures included in the PoMs had started before the approval of the RBMPs (detailed information on this aspect is reported by EL to be available in the PoM-Implementation Progress Report – national level, due in December 2012 but submitted to the COM in late 2014, and uploaded on WISE on 22.01.2015; the contents of that Progress Report has not been assessed yet and therefore is not taken into account in this report).

Another significant problem with the RBMPs was the lack of WFD-compliant data. The information used for the various assessments was based on the old monitoring network which was obsolete (with regard to the WFD required data) and the time-series fragmented and incomplete. Thus, the embedded uncertainty in the characterisation is judged significant, and in some cases it is not transparent how water bodies have been classified as “good” status (given the lack of complete information), as opposed to “unknown” status, since the characterisation is based on limited data and assumptions.

The new National Monitoring Programme (NMP), according to the WFD requirements, has been established late in the process (in 2012) and it is mentioned that it will furnish the necessary data for the revision and update of the RBMPs in the second cycle. Yet, the RBMPs have proposed some modifications with regard to the sites and parameters of the NMP based on their current findings, which essentially resulted from the new typology using system B (as opposed to the original typology using system A back in 2011 when the NMP was designed, see section 5.1 below). These suggestions have not been taken up yet by the Special Secretariat for Water, and would in some cases require additional financial resources (i.e. when supplementary sites are proposed). It is stated by EL that the NMP will be updated for the planning period 2016-2021, taking into account all available data and information from the RBMPs and of course the proposed modifications in each RBD. After the adoption of the RBMPs for all of the country’s RBDs and a cost-effectiveness analysis in relation to the financial resources already allocated for the planning period 2016-2021, the Special Secretariat for Water will propose a new updated National Monitoring Network to be consulted on with all involved national and regional authorities, within 2015. The new updated National Monitoring Network will be defined in an amendment of the JMD 140384/9-9-2011.

With regard to harmonisation and common approaches across the RBMPs, a national coordination programme was in place, yet it is not clearly reflected that all RBMPs implemented exactly the same approaches (e.g. on issues with small water bodies, definition of “significance” of pressures, assessment of groundwater quantitative status) when reading the WISE summary reporting and the Annexes. The Annexes themselves are very different in structure and content (for the same topics) which confuses the reader. A common structure and content across the RBMPs’ Annexes would have increased transparency and understanding.

Finally, a common approach to ensure adequate incentives for efficient use and an adequate contribution from different users was not in place (Art. 9). Moreover, economic analysis varied across the RBMPs, partly due to missing information. It is planned that the methodologies for the economic analysis will be increasingly harmonised in the second and future cycles of review of the RBMPs.

An important strength for the Greek RBMPs is that all underwent strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Another added value is the parallel development of a Drought & Water Scarcity Management Plan (DMP) for each RBD. In most cases the specific sub-units or specific river basins are looked at separately. Quantity issues are discussed in the RBMPs and some measures related to quantity management have been identified in the PoMs. The links between the RBMPs and the DMPs should be further strengthened and the DMPs should be further developed into fully operational plans complementing the RBMPs.

RBD || RBMP Date of Adoption || RBMP Date of Reporting*

GR01 || 08/04/2013 || 13/09/2013

GR02 || 08/04/2013 || 13/09/2013

GR03 || 08/04/2013 || 13/09/2013

GR04 || 18/09/2014 || 05/12/2014

GR05 || 04/09/2013 || 28/01/2014

GR06 || 08/04/2013 || 05/09/2013

GR07 || 08/04/2013 || 05/09/2013

GR08 || 18/09/2014 || 05/12/2014

GR09 || 30/01/2014 || 25/09/2014

GR10 || 30/01/2014 || 25/09/2014

GR11 || 04/09/2013 || 19/03/2014

GR12 || 04/09/2013 || 12/02/2014

GR13 || Pending ||

GR14 || Pending ||

Table 2.1: Adoption and reporting to the Commission of Greece’s RBMPs.

Source: RBMPs and CDR. *Latest date of WISE reporting including all annexes and background documents.

3. Governance 3.1 Timeline of implementation

The dates of publication of RBMP preparatory documents are provided in Table 3.1.1 below; these are behind the due dates set in Art. 14 of the WFD.

RBD || Timetable || Work programme || Statement on consultation || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Final RBMP

Due dates || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009

GR01 || 05/04/2013 || 05/04/2013 || 05/04/2013 || 05/04/2013 || 05/04/2013 || 08/04/2013

GR02 || 05/04/2013 || 05/04/2013 || 05/04/2013 || 05/04/2013 || 05/04/2013 || 08/04/2013

GR03 || 05/04/2013 || 05/04/2013 || 05/04/2013 || 05/04/2013 || 05/04/2013 || 08/04/2013

GR04 || 01/11/2011 || 01/02/2012 || 05/04/2013 || 04/09/2013 || 30/10/2013 || 18/09/2014

GR05 || 01/11/2011 || 01/02/2012 || 05/04/2013 || 04/09/2013 || 04/09/2013 || 04/09/2013

GR06 || 30/08/2010 || 13/04/2011 || 03/05/2012 || 13/01/2012 || 03/05/2012 || 08/04/2013

GR07 || 30/08/2010 || 13/04/2011 || 03/05/2012 || 13/01/2012 || 03/05/2012 || 08/04/2013

GR08 || 01/11/2011 || 01/02/2012 || 05/04/2013 || 04/09/2013 || 30/10/2013 || 18/09/2014

GR09 || 15/06/2011 || 27/04/2012 || 30/07/2012 || 30/07/2012 || 01/02/2013 || 30/01/2014

GR10 || 15/06/2011 || 27/04/2012 || 30/07/2012 || 30/07/2012 || 01/02/2013 || 30/01/2014

GR11 || 30/08/2010 || 09/08/2010 || 15/10/2011 || 18/11/2011 || 07/05/2012 || 04/09/2013

GR12 || 30/08/2010 || 09/08/2010 || 15/10/2011 || 18/11/2011 || 07/05/2012 || 04/09/2013

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || Pending

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || Pending

Table 3.1.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: WISE (for all columns except “Final RBMP”) and DG Environment web page: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/map_mc/countries/greece_en.htm (for “Final RBMP” column).

3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

At a decentralised level, Greece is managed by 7 Decentralised Administrations, 13 self-governed Regions, and 325 Municipalities. This restructuring of the decentralised state structure in Greece (called “Kallikratis”) was implemented in 2010 and has created some confusion regarding the roles and functioning of various state institutions and difficulties on various topics including water management.

With regard to the development of the RBMPs, the national competent authority is the "Special Secretariat for Water" (under the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change), based on the Presidential Decree 24/2010 OJ A 56/15.04.2010 and Law 3199/2003, which has the following responsibilities: coordination of water management issues; implementation of the WFD; monitoring of water quality and quantity; management and reuse of wastewater; floods management. Furthermore, the main competencies of the Secretariat are described in WISE 1.1. The decentralised administrations (Regional Water Directorates) are responsible for the river basin districts. However, for the first round of the RBMPs they signed off their responsibility for the drafting of the plans to the EGY, but they were involved and contributed to the final formulation of the PoMs at the regional level; they are the ones responsible for implementing the plans. The RBMPs specifically state that “the RBMPs of Greece are developed under the responsibility of the competent authorities for each RBD. Based on a request by their Secretaries, the Special Secretariat for Water took over the development of the RBMPs, which then were commissioned to consultants”. Nevertheless, other authorities including regional, municipal, and local authorities from other sectors have contributed under topics of their expertise and interest.

Finally, in the relevant Annexes on those “responsible for specific aspects of water management”, long lists of additional authorities are presented showing how complex the overall setup is. With regard to the main next steps and difficulties, the RBMPs mention that many of the “responsible authorities” at the regional level are not sufficiently staffed, so they are in danger of not fully covering their responsibilities. Additionally, the fact that the RBMPs were commissioned to consultants may have limited the Regional Water Directorates’ opportunities to gain further insight into WFD issues and experience. Capacity building has nevertheless been undertaken through seminars organised by the EGY.

As mentioned above, the drafting of the RBMPs was commissioned to different consultants and coordinated by the EGY. A general national approach has been followed. There are some differences in terms of the methodologies and available data that were used among the different groups of the consultants e.g. the GR01/02/03 plans were compiled by one team, the GR04/05/08 plans by another, GR06/07 plans by a third team, GR09/10 plans by a fourth and GR11/12 plans by a fifth. However, as the Special Secretariat for Water coordinated all the teams there are several common specifications. There were no main changes announced or implemented after the submission of the RBMPs (corrections dealt with clarifications or typos).

3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

In general the structure of the RBMPs follows the specifications of the WFD. In terms of clarity there are certain issues regarding the implementation of the methodology that is described in the relevant chapters of the RBMPs. In some cases it is not very clear whether and how a specific methodology, e.g. for assessing the water bodies, is applied. The different RBMPs have the same structure and content, but are accompanied by numerous Annexes, and harmonisation of structure and content is missing across them, thus confusing the assessment. In terms of completeness, it is explicitly mentioned on several occasions that there was insufficiency of available data and supporting studies/surveys for the assessment of water bodies. It is mentioned that in cases where no data were available, the assessment was done through expert judgment and/or through grouping of water bodies with similar types and levels of pressures, and thus the level of uncertainty was characterised as large. An improvement of the data quality and the water bodies’ assessment can only be addressed through the implementation of the National Monitoring Program that was defined with the Common Ministerial Decree 140384/9-9-2011. It was originally foreseen that the new network programme would provide the first monitoring results at the end of 2013. This new data would be used to improve the knowledge of the water bodies’ status and thus the completeness of the RBMPs in the next cycle. No links to any international plans are referenced within the RBMPs.

Out of the 14 RBMPs, 12 of them have been approved and embedded into the National Law, while the remaining 2 are in the process of compilation and consultation. For the approved RBMPs the relevant Strategic Environmental Assessments/Environmental Impact Assessments (SEA/EIAs) have been approved as well and are publicly available. The 12 officially approved RBMPs should implement the Programmes of Measures in the following very short period as the second round of revised Plans should be submitted by 2015, according to the WFD, taking into account the implementation of the first RBMPs.

3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

Regarding the RBMPs of GR01/02/03/09/10 there was a critical assessment expressed in a rather “positive” way about most consultation activities (in WISE 1.3.6), mentioning that: “Unprecedented for the Greek situation was the less than expected participation of the public”. A “results of the participation” document was submitted along with the relevant RBMPs. Regarding the consultation procedures, in the RBMPs of GR04/05/06/07/08/11/12, the consultation document does not refer to the activities that took place, but is a “planning document” for the activities that should/would take place. According to WISE 1.3.6, the main activities include: (a) publication and commenting of the public participation plan, involved stakeholders, Significant Water Management Issues report; (b) publication and commenting of the RBMP; (c) publication and commenting of the SEA/EIA; (d) informational meetings and (e) 39 stakeholder conferences/workshops (attended by 3,500 participants in total as stated by the EGY). Moreover the EGY has set up an interactive internet site http://wfd.ypeka.gr where the full content of the RBMPs is available and which facilitated the submission of comments by interested stakeholders. The consultation can be assessed as adequate but “improvable” in terms of stakeholders’ participation (almost 450 written comments/interventions were received through questionnaires and the consultation website) and input.

It is difficult to describe the impact of the consultation on the final plans, since the document “results of the participation” was not submitted (however it is reported by EL as available in the EGY). A “general list of comments was received” during the consultation workshops but it cannot be inferred from the RBMP itself whether these comments were actually taken under consideration and were incorporated in the newer RBMPs version. It is stated by the EGY that they have been considered and incorporated. Most of the comments originated either from the scientific community or from other institutions, organisations, etc.

There was no active continuous involvement of stakeholders and the general public but rather limited participation in certain consultation workshops. In general the consultation can be assessed as not very successful in terms of stakeholder participation and input.

3.5 Cooperation and coordination with third countries

For GR05 there has not been international coordination on public participation and active involvement of interested parties. In practice, in Albania (where the Aoos River Basin extends), the decisions of the National Water Council (NWC) and the respective local authorities have not been implemented; thus the competent national and local authorities do not fully operate. Both in WISE and in the RBMP there is no specific reference to existing or planned coordination on public participation[5].

For GR09, one part of the Prespa Basin and a sub-basin of Axios River extend geographically in the neighboring countries of FYROM and Albania; thus these basins are transboundary. However, there are no International RBMPs, as these countries are not EU MS; and thus not obligated to submit these Plans. Regarding the Axios River Basin, there is no border co-operation established for the integrated water resources management. Regarding the Prespa Basin there has been an international agreement between the three countries (Greece, Albania & FYROM) on the protection and sustainable development of the Prespa National Park. Additionally, a Coordination Commission was formed for the protection of the Park on 27/11/2009 and an International Agreement was signed on 02/02/2010 among the Ministers of Environment of the three countries and the EC Commissioner for the Environment. Furthermore, there has been recent mobility in international cooperation regarding the integrated water resources management in cross-border areas on 25/01/2012, followed by further meetings in June 2012 and May 2013 (both for Prespa and Axios Basin). Several actions and programmes have been implemented in the sub-basin of Prespa with the cooperation of Albania and FYROM. Also a working group has been established from 2006 for the monitoring and protection of the Prespa Basin. This group has organised four (4) meetings so far.

For GR10, one part of the Strimonas River Basin extends geographically in the neighboring country of Bulgaria, thus this basin is a transboundary one. However, there has not been an International RBMP, as Bulgaria had already submitted its RBMP to the EC before Greece. Thus, for the first round of the Plans, these are separate for the two countries. However, since 27th July 2010, there has been a common Announcement of the two responsible Ministries (i.e. the Hellenic Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change and the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water Resources). The Announcement confirmed the intention of the two countries to cooperate in the water resources management issues in the transboundary basins. For this purpose, the Joint Expert Working Group was established. The Group initially met in Drama on 16th May 2011, in Sofia on 12th October 2011 and in Thessaloniki on 23rd April 2013. Recently there has been a Joint Declaration of the competent Ministers of Greece and Bulgaria regarding the intention of cooperation between the two countries on issues of transboundary basin management.

For GR11 and GR12 there has been no international coordination on public participation and active involvement of interested parties, as Bulgaria submitted its RBMP to the EC before Greece, while Turkey is not a MS and thus not obligated to submit Plans. For GR05/11/12 there have not been any international RBDs designated and no international RBMPs adopted. For GR11, in spite of the fact that there has not been full international coordination between Greece and Bulgaria, from 27th July 2010, there has been a Joint Declaration between the Hellenic Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change and the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water Resources regarding the use of water resources in the territories of shared river basins. The Joint Declaration confirmed the intention of the two countries to cooperate in the water resources management issues in the transboundary basins. For this purpose, the Joint Expert Working Group was established; the Group initially met in Drama on 16th May 2011, then in Sofia on 12th October 2011, in Thessaloniki on 23rd April 2013 and in Athens on 8th May 2014. As regards the public participation there has been no international coordination between the two countries. For GR12, in spite of the fact that there has not been full international coordination between Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey, regarding the cooperation with Bulgaria, there has been a series of negotiations that started in 1965 and resulted in an Agreement between Greece and Bulgaria that was signed in 1995, certified with the Greek Law 2402/96, Government Gazette (GG/A/98) and has 8 Articles. As with GR11, the cooperation of the two countries was enhanced on 27th July 2010 with the Joint Declaration of the two responsible Ministries (see further details above). Additionally, regarding the cooperation with Turkey, an Ad Hoc Joint Committee has been established in November 2010 in respect to cooperation issues for the Evros River Basin. The Committee initially met on 30th May 2011. In this framework, the Joint Expert Working Group was established in order to exchange data and information for the Evros River and the relevant sub-basins in Greece and Turkey. The Joint Expert Working Group has met twice, in Adrianoupolis on 24th June 2011 and in Alexandroupolis on 8th September 2011. It should also be mentioned that both the Greek and the Turkish sides give a great deal of emphasis on a common management response to the flood issues of Evros, a subject of Greek terms associated with the implementation of the corresponding Directive 2007/60/EC on flood risk management in the EU. As regards the public participation there has been no international coordination between the interested countries.

3.6 Integration with other sectors

The links with 10 national sectoral plans were analysed in the SEAs which accompanied the RBMPs (e.g. National Plan for Rural Development 2007-2013). The Directorate for Spatial Planning and the Ministry of Rural Development were among the stakeholders that have sent written comments on RBMPs and the respective SEAs. There are some cases, such as the regional development plans, which are in the process of compilation and might have been linked or used information from the approved RBMPs but this is not currently established, as these plans are not fully completed yet. No links with agricultural plans are apparent in the RBMPs.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1 Water categories in the RBD

The RBDs reviewed in the current report include all water systems and their classification into four categories according to the requirements of the WFD (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters, groundwater). According to Annex II of the WFD, categorisation of surface water bodies apart from the four above categories include the identification of Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB) as well as artificial water bodies (AWB).

4.2 Typology of surface waters

The Presidential Decree 51/2007 “Establishment of measures and procedures for integrated protection and management of water in compliance with the provisions of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC” defines in Annex II that both systems A and B could be used in the characterisation of surface water bodies. In the Greek RBMPs, system B has been applied for all the water categories. It is to be noticed that previously, in 2009, in response to the obligations of Art. 8 of the WFD, system A was used. In the current RBMPs there was a switch to system B (all obligatory descriptors for system B have been used), which resulted in the modification of the number, boundaries and characteristics of the surface water bodies.

Overall the surface water typology has been validated with biological data. For river water bodies it was based solely on benthic macroinvertebrates, for lakes on phytoplankton and for coastal and transitional water bodies on macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton and macroalgae. In general, reference conditions have been established for each of the surface water types with the exception of the transitional waters where the work on reference conditions is at an early stage and the information provided so far is indicative until intercalibration is finalised. The methodology used was based both on spatially based methods, as well as on expert judgement. It is unclear from the RBMPs and Annexes (provided as background documents) how much expert judgement was used. In terms of a national Guidance Document, guidelines were formulated by the coordinator consultant and the General Secretariat for Water to guide and harmonise the work and methodological approach of all other consultants who were commissioned with the drafting of the RBMPs, but these were not organised into a detailed guidance document.

The number of surface water types that have been defined in different water categories is summarised in Table 4.2.1.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

GR01 || 6 || 1 || 2 || 1

GR02 || 6 || 4 || 2 || 1

GR03 || 5 || 1 || 2 || 1

GR04 || 8* || 3* || 2* || 1*

GR05 || 8 || 3 || 2 || 1

GR06 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1

GR07 || 5 || 1 || 1 || 1

GR08 || 8* || 2* || 0* || 1*

GR09 || 10 || 4 || 2 || 1

GR10 || 7 || 4 || 2 || 1

GR11 || 6 || 2 || 1 || 1

GR12 || 7 || 2 || 2 || 1

GR13 || No data reported in WISE

GR14 || No data reported in WISE

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level Source: WISE; * corrections/additions provided by EL late 2014.

4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies

The river delineation process excluded from the first step ephemeral streams, where 95% of the time there is no presence of water in them and neither is any aquatic environment present. After this exclusion the initial water bodies selection was performed on the basis of the Strahler stream classification index. Only streams of the 4th order and above are initially included in the set. This initial set is considered by definition to be comprised of “important and discrete” elements of surface water, but not including all such elements. Additional water bodies (which were initially excluded due to their ephemeral flow) were then added to this initial set if deemed important elements in terms of aquatic ecosystem and fish population. This assessment of importance of these small water bodies was made almost exclusively based on expert judgment of scientists from the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research (HCMR) taking into account biological data (fish and benthic invertebrates) where available. In the RBMPs it is mentioned that an investigation was undertaken into whether small water bodies can be aggregated with adjacent water bodies (aggregation was performed where feasible and essential). Finally, further additions were made during the consultation process where some additional streams to be included were indicated by local officials and scientists. For example, in the RBMP of GR11 it is stated that during the public consultation, objections were raised with regards to the inclusion of some small water bodies with ephemeral flow in the sub-catchment of the Aggitis River, and thus the necessary adjustments were then performed to exclude them.

The above clarifications were provided by EL since it does not clearly appear from the RBMPs’ Annexes how the inclusion/exclusion of small water bodies has actually been implemented (i.e. the specific criteria for defining what is termed as an “important” element of water/ aquatic ecosystem are not clear in the RBMPs; the information on which small water bodies have been joined with adjacent ones, or not joined, and/or not considered is not obvious).

In the case of lakes, all lakes with a size greater than 0.5 km2 have been considered as surface water bodies.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)

GR01 || 110 || 8 || 2 || 2 || 5 || 1 || 11 || 95 || 26 || 262

GR02 || 63 || 11 || 6 || 5 || 9 || 2 || 19 || 127 || 26 || 284

GR03 || 80 || 7 || 1 || 1 || 6 || 1 || 13 || 206 || 27 || 299*

GR04 || 102* || 10* || 5* || 26* || 4* || 68* || 8* || 273* || 25* || 410*

GR05 || 85 || 13 || 1 || 19 || 7 || 59 || 13 || 81 || 26 || 349

GR06 || 14 || 9 || 1 || 3 || 0 || - || 14 || 288 || 24 || 129

GR07 || 81 || 13 || 3 || 12 || 1 || 18 || 19 || 339 || 46 || 268

GR08 || 74* || 19* || 1* || 35* || 0* || 0* || 7* || 134* || 32* || 392*

GR09 || 150 || 10 || 14 || 39 || 2 || 20 || 2 || 564 || 62 || 275

GR10 || 104 || 11 || 6 || 28 || 3 || 23 || 11 || 350 || 39 || 348

GR11 || 91 || 9 || 2 || 24 || 1 || 7 || 4 || 183 || 15 || 456

GR12 || 188 || 10 || 6 || 4 || 5 || 56 || 12 || 61 || 18 || 578

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Total || 1142 || 11 || 48 || 17 || 43 || 23 || 133 || 225 || 366 || 338

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE; * corrections/additions provided by EL late 2014.

4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts

Even though in certain RBDs limited information on methods for defining significant pressures is available, the WISE summary report shows that determination of significant pressures has been made for all of the RBDs. Table 4.4.1 gives an overall picture of the significance of the different pressures within the country. These data indicate that diffuse pollution is assessed as the most significant pressure in Greece, affecting 63% of surface water bodies (802 SWBs) followed by point source pollution which affects 45% (520 SWBs). “Other pressures” affect 17% (228 SWBs), and surface water abstraction affects 6% (74 SWBs) of surface water bodies. Additionally, pressures such as water flow regulations and morphological alterations, other morphological alterations and river management are allocated smaller percentages, i.e. 3% (42 SWBs), 0.3% (4 SWBs), and 1% (14 SWBs) respectively.

An explicit identification of the criteria used to determine the significance of pressures is not apparent in all the RBMPs, yet EL clarified that criteria (and the related thresholds) for individual pressures (point and diffuse pollution, and water abstraction) were identified from the limits contained in other relevant Directives, studies and research results found in literature, and expert judgement as being likely to impact on water status.

Regarding point source pollution, some RBMPs (such as GR11/12) refer to the use of both numerical tools and expert judgement in pressure analysis; however, they do not provide details on the specific methods or criteria used. On the other hand, GR01/02/03/05/06/07/09/10 identify specific thresholds that define significant pressures from point source pollution (e.g. in GR05 the significance of pressure from industrial units was based on the criterion of the type, size and number of units that relate to discharges of priority substances and were classified as follows: N≥5 (high), 1≤N<5 (medium), N=0 (low)).

Regarding diffuse source pollution most RBDs (e.g. GR01/02/03/04/05/06/07/08/09/10) give a summary table of criteria (related to type, size and pollution load) for all pressures, defining specific levels of N, P and BOD concentrations as thresholds connected to diffuse pollution (e.g. when BOD>10 mg/l, N>10mg/l and P >1mg/l the pressure is defined as significant).

Regarding abstraction pressures, generally in all RBDs a description of the pressures considered and the methodology followed is mentioned (a mixture of actual numbers and expert judgement). Criteria for assessing the significance of the pressure are available in GR01, GR02, GR03, GR04, GR06 (only relevant for groundwater abstractions), GR07, GR08 GR09 and GR10. These criteria relate to the assessment of water exploitation, abstraction volumes as percentage the natural annual and summer runoff volumes.

Regarding water flow regulation and hydromorphological alterations, overall all RBMPs describe these pressures and a relevant analysis (a mixture of actual numbers and expert judgement), but specific criteria to judge significance were not found in the background documents. The most common hydromorphological pressures mentioned and analysed among RBDs are: flood defence structures/dams, water reservoirs, modifications and diversions, water transfers.

Further information provided by Greek authorities indicate that the criteria used are far from comprehensive because, to a large extent, only main dams (higher than 15 m and considering also the abstractions and the regulating capacity in relation to the river flow) have been considered as significant hydromorphological pressure. It appears also that the main impact that has been assessed is downstream of the dam, not necessarily considering the water bodies where the dams are located and the upstream effects. This approach potentially overlooks many smaller but significant hydromorphological pressures. This is likely the reason for the very low percentages of water bodies reported as affected by hydromorphological pressures.

As regards pollution loads, the main conclusions for each RBD are summarised below:

GR01: the greatest individual point source pollution load comes from industrial units. Important pollution is also produced from urban waste water, and notable BOD load is produced by aquaculture. GR02/03: the greatest point source pollution burden comes from industrial units. Regarding diffuse pressures, livestock produces the largest amount of pollutants. GR04: it is evident from the available data collected for point source pollution that the increased pressure on water bodies comes from the Acheloos basin (GR15). Significant point source pollution loads are mainly generated by the industrial units and the stabled livestock. The greatest effect from non-point source pollution seems to be related to the intense livestock activity in the region, as the organic load, the nitrogen and phosphorus load is estimated to contribute over 90%, 80% and 50% respectively, of the total load. GR05: Significant point source pollution loads are mainly generated by industrial units and stabled livestock. One of the major sources of non-point source pollution in the area relates to livestock and agriculture. In particular, the greatest effect is associated with intense livestock activity in the region, as the organic load, the nitrogen and phosphorus load is estimated to contribute more than 90%, 80% and 60% of the total load respectively. GR06: it was concluded that the main pollution load is generated by the intense industrial activity. Moreover, from the evaluation of quantitative estimates of diffuse sources of pollution it was concluded that surface runoff from cropland and livestock contribute significantly to pollution loads. The organic load due to untreated urban sewage contributes more than 60% of the total organic load (BOD t/year), while the effect of nitrogen and phosphorus load due to agricultural activity is greater (75% and 90% respectively). GR07: the main pressures on surface water bodies come from the sectors of agriculture, industry and livestock. From the assessment of quantitative estimates of diffuse sources of pollution it can be concluded that surface runoff from agriculture and livestock contributes significantly to pollution loads. The organic load due to livestock contributes more than 78% of the total organic load, while the effect of nitrogen and phosphorus load due to agricultural activity is greater (84% and 95% respectively). GR08: the increased pressure on the water bodies comes mainly from the river basin of Pinios from various activities (urban waste water treatment plants, livestock activity, industry, mining activities and uncontrolled dumpsites). Regarding the pollution load from diffuse sources (mainly from agriculture and stable livestock activity), the organic load and the nitrogen load resulting from livestock is over 90% and 60% respectively, while greater is the influence of phosphorus load due to agricultural activity (about 70%). GR09/GR10: industrial activity together with livestock and agriculture are the greater pressures within the water district. Quantitative estimates of diffuse sources show that the surface runoff from cropland and livestock contribute significantly to pollutant loads. The effect of nitrogen and phosphorus load due to agricultural activity is significant. It is worth mentioning that the concentration of organic load is generated mostly due to livestock activities, while nitrogen and phosphorus arise in farming and agriculture. The mining activity that relates to water pollution is located mainly in the region of Jerrissou, in the southeast of the water districts. GR11/12: most of the pollution loads come from agriculture, livestock and urban waste.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

GR01 || - || 0 || 88 || 69 || 128 || 100 || 10 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 32 || 25

GR02 || - || 0 || 48 || 49 || 97 || 100 || 18 || 19 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 39 || 40

GR03 || 2 || 2 || 63 || 63 || 98 || 98 || 4 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 37 || 37

GR04 || 53* || 44* || 54* || 45* || 41* || 34* || 11* || 9* || 17* || 14* || 5* || 4* || 4* || 3* || 0* || 0 || 53 || 44

GR05 || 44 || 42 || 46* || 42 || 44* || 41 || 11* || 9 || 8 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 5* || 5* || 0* || 0* || 44* || 42*

GR06 || 5 || 17 || 23 || 79 || 19 || 66 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

GR07 || 20 || 19 || 67 || 64 || 74 || 71 || 5 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 4 || 0 || 0

GR08 || 13* || 16* || 55* || 67* || 62* || 76* || 2* || 2* || 2* || 2* || 7* || 9* || 0* || 0* || 0* || 0* || 13* || 16*

GR09 || 115 || 68 || 28 || 17 || 25 || 15 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

GR10 || 51 || 41 || 26 || 21 || 67 || 54 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

GR11 || 40 || 41 || 17 || 17 || 52 || 53 || 10 || 10 || 6 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

GR12 || 114 || 54 || 5 || 2 || 95 || 45 || 2 || 1 || 9 || 4.27 || 2 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 5

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Total || 457 || 29 || 520 || 45 || 802 || 63 || 74 || 6 || 42 || 3 || 14 || 1 || 9 || 1 || 4 || 0,3 || 228 || 17

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE; * corrections/additions provided by EL late 2014.

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE

4.5 Protected areas

In Greece 1,615 protected areas have been designated, according to information provided to WISE (see Table 4.5.1). Just over half of these areas (57%) are for bathing water, while 8% are for drinking water abstraction under Art. 7 of the WFD. Another 10% are for habitats, birds and fish altogether, 6.5% are for UWWTPs. With regard to the protected areas under Art. 7 abstraction for drinking water, out of the total 131 protected areas 85 are for groundwater (i.e. 65%) and the remaining 35% are for surface water.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

GR01 || 5 || 50 || 2 || || 4 || 8 || || 8 || || ||

GR02 || 9 || 114 || 4 || || 6 || 15 || || 5 || 1 || ||

GR03 || 3 || 88 || 3 || || 4 || 7 || || 8 || 1 || ||

GR04 || 21* || 60* || 15* || || || 22* || 9* || 25* || 2* || || 12*

GR05 || 10 || 87 || 21 || || || 23 || 33 || 23 || 2 || || 6

GR06 || 4 || 125 || 4 || || || 5 || || || 3 || || 4

GR07 || 16 || 170 || 14 || || || 16 || || || 4 || || 11

GR08 || 7* || 67* || 16* || || || 13* || || 5* || 1* || || 2*

GR09 || 17 || 11 || 11 || || 6 || 22 || || || 2 || 2 || 23

GR10 || 4 || 84 || 9 || || || 15 || || || 1 || 4 || 6

GR11 || 15 || 23* || 5 || || 2 || 7 || || || 1 || 4 || 14

GR12 || 20 || 36 || 14 || || 5 || 12 || || || 3 || 7 || 27

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Total || 131 || 915 || 118 || 0 || 27 || 165 || 42 || 74 || 21 || 17 || 105

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[6]

Source: WISE; * corrections/additions provided by EL late 2014.

5. Monitoring 5.1 General description of the monitoring network

The monitoring programme for Greece has been defined in the Common Ministerial Decree ΚΥΑ 140384/9-9-2011 while the standards and minimum performance criteria of the analytical methods for the chemical analysis and monitoring have been defined in the Common Ministerial Decree 38317/1621/Ε103/2011. According to the Ministerial Decree 140384/9-9-2011, the EGY is responsible for: i) the submission of the annual budget for the operation of the NMP to the Ministry, ii) the monitoring at national level of the quantity and quality of surface and groundwaters in cooperation with the Regional Water Directorates of the Decentralised Administrations, iii) the development and operation of the national network/ grid. At the time that the RBMPs were being drafted, the new WFD monitoring programme was not operational. Thus, the monitoring data used for the characterisation of the water bodies in the RBMPs were based on the old fragmented monitoring network which had significant data gaps with regard to the WFD-required assessment parameters.

The new National Monitoring Programme - NMP (established with the above mentioned Ministerial Decree in 2011 and currently implemented from 2012 onwards) follows a common national approach in terms of objectives, standards, definition of monitoring points, responsible authorities, etc. The number, type and location of monitoring stations per water body and the number, type and frequency of the sampling parameters are listed in the Ministerial Decree. All these were originally defined in 2009 in response to the obligations of Article 8 of the WFD, considering the state-of-the-art knowledge at that time and the results of a relevant study commissioned by the General Secretariat for Water (which also defined the water bodies, pressures and impacts) and were updated and finalised in 2010 in the framework of the national project “Development and application of methods and software for the assessment of the water quality related data of the Greek water bodies”. A total of 616 monitoring stations for surface water bodies are defined in the new programme for the whole territory, and 1,387 for groundwater bodies. It is foreseen that the new network programme will be updated periodically in order to better meet the systems’ needs based on the first monitoring results (originally expected at the end of 2013) and the findings of the current RBMPs.

In the RBMPs the typology used for the characterisation of the water bodies changed with regard to the system that was used back in 2008-2009 (shifting from system A to system B). This resulted in the modification of the number, boundaries and characteristics of the water bodies, and the subsequent need to perform a new matching between the established monitoring points of the Ministerial Decree and the latest defined water bodies (in the RBMPs). The matching has been performed, but also additional information from the neighbouring RBDs, the water bodies’ grouping and the identified pressures and impacts has been integrated and led to suggestions on modification of the new monitoring programme to better serve its purpose. These suggestions are presented in all the RBMPs and are basically grouped under three main categories: (i) reallocation of the monitoring stations to neighbouring sites (e.g. upstream or downstream in rivers); (ii) switching of monitoring stations from the surveillance to the operational programme and vice-versa; (iii) inclusion/exclusion of the sampling elements and/or changes in the frequency of sampling. It is acknowledged in some RBMPs that these modifications (especially category ii - additional sites) may be difficult to implement since they would require additional funding, but categories i and iii are deemed feasible.

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

5.2 Monitoring of surface waters

As explained above, the data used in the RBMPs originated from the old monitoring network, which was not compliant with WFD requirements. The available data were fragmented, with many gaps in parameters and time-series which restricted the corresponding assessments in the RBMPs. The data of the old monitoring network were provided by different agencies, mainly the Ministry for the Environment, Energy and Climate Change, the Ministry of Rural Development and Food and the General Chemical State Laboratory. Data from regional authorities and sample monitoring from various existing surveys were also available in some cases. As a result, based on quality assurance, completeness, accuracy, etc. the following quality elements of the old monitoring system have been considered overall for the classification of surface water bodies (yet not in all cases, and not with continuous long time-series) in the current RBMPs:

· BQEs: benthic macroinvertebrates (for rivers); phytoplankton (lakes); macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton and macroalgae (coastal and transitional) –more details in section 7.

· Physico-chemical elements: transparency, thermal conditions, oxygen conditions, salinity, acidification conditions and nutrient conditions –more details in section 7.

· Hydromorphological elements: not clear if they have been considered –more details in section 7.

· Priority substances and other specific pollutants: Ni, Pb, Hg, Cd, Brominated diphenylether, Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Endosulfan, Hexachlorocyclohexane, Chlorfenvinphos, Anthracene, Hexachlorobenzene, considered on a case-by-case basis –more details in section 9.

In assessing the river water bodies (in the current RBMPs), grouping was performed when there was no monitoring station within a certain river water body (of the old network). Groups have been formulated so that each group contains at least one river water body which is being monitored. The grouping was based on the hydromorphological characteristics of the rivers (biogeographical regions, annual discharge, slope, altitude) as reflected in the water bodies’ typology, as well as on the type and intensity of pressures that are identified in the sub-catchment of the water body. The heavily modified and artificial water bodies have been excluded from grouping and are considered individually even when monitoring stations are not present in them.

With regard to the New Monitoring Programme (established by the Ministerial Decree in 2011) it includes both surveillance and operational monitoring programmes including all relevant quality elements. A total of 616 monitoring stations for surface water bodies are defined in the NMP for the whole territory, of which 377 are for surveillance and 239 for operational monitoring. Biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological QEs are defined to be monitored in all of them, priority substances in 326, specific pollutants in 282 and other substances in 29 of them. The relevant elements that are monitored per RBD are shown in Table 5.1 below as reported in the WISE Summary Reports 4.1.7 and 4.1.8 and further corrected by EL in late 2014.

Few of the monitoring stations are part of the International Network Barcelona Convention/Mediterranean Action Plan (MEDPOL). A detailed view of the programmes (surveillance & operational), station locations, elements and frequencies foreseen to be monitored at each water body is provided in the Annexes of the Ministerial Decree, and also on WISE - CDR under the Art. 8 reporting (submitted 26.08.2009), and have been defined in the document “Updated Report of Article 8 of the WFD including the catalogue of elements and parameters to be monitored in each station of the NMP”. The sampling and frequency methodologies are also mentioned there. With regard to the methodologies for selecting the BQEs of the operational programme, the priority substances and other pollutants, it is mentioned that these are developed within the guidance documents of the research project “Development of network and monitoring of the internal, transitional and coastal water bodies of the country – Assessment/Classification of their ecological status” undertaken by the HCMR-EKBY, 2008 (Hellenic Centre for the Marine Research – Greek Biotope/Wetland Centre). As mentioned above, upon the establishment of the RBMPs and their findings additional suggestions were made in the RBMPs regarding modifications to the NMP (inclusion/exclusion of monitoring stations and/or elements) to better accommodate the identified needs.

5.3 Monitoring of groundwater

As explained above, the data used in the RBMPs originated from the old monitoring network, which was not compliant with the WFD requirements. The available data was fragmented, with gaps in parameters and time-series which restricted the corresponding assessments in the RBMPs. The data of the old monitoring network were provided by different agencies, mainly the Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration, the Ministry for the Environment, Energy and Climate Change, the Ministry of Development. Data from regional authorities and sample monitoring from various existing surveys were also available in some cases. As a result, based on quality assurance, completeness, accuracy, etc. the following elements and parameters of the old monitoring programme have been considered overall for the assessment of groundwater bodies (yet not in all cases, and not with continuous long time-series) in the current RBMPs:

· Quantitative status: abstraction per sector (mostly estimated from water demands); water balance (comparison between available groundwater resource by the long-term annual average rate of abstraction), groundwater levels, spring discharges –more details in section 10.

· Chemical status: pH, conductivity, chloride, nitrates, nitrogen dioxide, ammonium, sulphate. Pb, Cr, Ni, Al, Fe, Mg, Mn, B were assessed in a subset of the groundwater bodies. The data series of heavy metals (Pb, Cd, As, Hg) were not systematic – more details in section 10.

· No data were available for trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene. Thus, these parameters have not been considered in the assessments – more details in section 10.

Quantitative, surveillance and operational monitoring programmes are included in the new monitoring network (established with the Ministerial Decree in 2011). It includes monitoring of quantitative status and the all chemical elements considered relevant by the Greek authorities. A total of 1,387 monitoring stations for groundwater bodies are defined in the NMP for the whole territory, of which 294 are for surveillance and 1093 for operational monitoring. Quantity and physico-chemical parameters are defined to be monitored in all stations, nitrates in 867, heavy metals in 844, pesticides in 502, and composite compounds in 284 of them. A detailed view of the programmes (quantitative, surveillance & operational), station locations, elements and frequencies foreseen to be monitored at each groundwater body are provided in the Annexes of the Ministerial Decree, and have been defined in the document “Updated Report of Article 8 of the WFD including the catalogue of elements and parameters to be monitored in each station of the NMP”. The sampling and frequency methodologies are also mentioned there.

With regard to the criteria for defining the monitoring stations of the operational programme the following are listed:

(i) Availability of existing monitoring stations (of the old networks) for which representative samples can be retrieved;

(ii) Possibility to support different programmes and requirements of the Water Framework, Groundwater and Nitrates Directives (e.g. monitoring of both quantitative and chemical elements, monitoring of nitrates pollution, monitoring of drinking water areas);

(iii) Accessibility and capacity to achieve/support the measurement of parameters on a long-term basis.

With regard to the methodologies for selecting the parameters or elements of the operational programme, it is mentioned that these are developed within the guidance documents of the research project “Development of network and monitoring of the internal, transitional and coastal water bodies of the country – Assessment/Classification of their ecological status” undertaken by the HCMR-EKBY, 2008 (Hellenic Centre for Marine Research – Greek Biotope/Wetland Centre). As mentioned above, upon the establishment of the RBMPs and their findings, additional suggestions were made in the RBMPs regarding modifications to the NMP (inclusion/exclusion of monitoring stations and/or elements) to better accommodate the identified need.

BD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

GR01 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR02 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR03 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR04 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR05 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR06 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR07 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR08 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR09 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR10 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR11 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR12 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

GR01 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR02 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR03 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR04 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR05 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR06 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR07 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR08 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR09 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR10 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR11 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR12 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Table 5.1: Quality elements monitored[7]

|| QE Monitored

|| QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE Summary Reports: 4.1.7 and 4.1.8. Note: EL provided an alternative formulation of this Table, but the output from the Annexes and WISE have been used here.

D || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

GR01 || 17 || 19 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 4 || 0 || 27* || 59* || 86*

GR02 || 25 || 11 || 2 || 1 || 0 || 4 || 4 || 5 || 10 || 95* || 105*

GR03 || 12 || 10 || 0* || 0* || 0* || 0* || 3 || 2 || 13 || 113* || 126*

GR04 || 15* || 26* || 10* || 2* || 0* || 5* || 1* || 1* || 23* || 42* || 65*

GR05 || 32 || 5* || 3 || 1* || 0* || 6 || 2 || 5* || 19* || 71* || 90*

GR06 || 4 || 4 || 0 || 1 || 0* || 0* || 3 || 6 || 6 || 74 || 80

GR07 || 37 || 6 || 2 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 3 || 6 || 11 || 154* || 165*

GR08 || 24* || 33* || 2* || 0* || 0* || 0* || 4* || 1* || 33* || 61* || 94*

GR09 || 19 || 11 || 2 || 10 || 0 || 2 || 1 || 0 || 45* || 44 || 89*

GR10 || 22 || 4 || 1 || 4 || 0 || 2 || 3 || 2 || 5 || 108 || 113

GR11 || 26 || 10 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 16 || 35 || 51

GR12 || 36 || 4 || 2 || 3 || 0 || 8 || 3 || 1 || 26 || 53 || 79

GR13 || 21* || 5* || 1* || 2* || 0* || 0* || 5* || 1* || 36* || 76* || 112*

GR14 || 10* || 0* || 0* || 0* || 0* || 4* || 13* || 0* || 24* || 108* || 132*

Total by type of site || 300 || 148 || 27 || 26 || 0 || 35 || 50 || 30 || 294 || 1093 || 1387

Total number of monitoring sites || 448* || 53* || 35* || 80* || 1387*

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category, in accordance with JMD 140384/09-09-2011

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: WISE

*corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014. Some discrepancies between this information and the RBMPs/their Annexes are observed.

5.4 Monitoring of protected areas

Figure 5.2: Map of monitoring stations for protected areas Source: WISE

In the NMP there are monitoring stations located within protected areas and drinking water protected areas (of the Birds, Habitats and Drinking Water Directives). Upon the establishment of the RBMPs and their findings, suggestions were made to place additional stations in more protected areas which are explicitly mentioned. There is no detailed information in the RBMPs on specific monitoring programmes (e.g. drinking water, bathing water) for the protected areas (i.e. name and code of protected area, number and location of monitoring sites, specific monitored parameters, etc.).

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shell- Fish || UWWT

GR01 || 1* || 0 || 6* || 1* || 4* || 13* || 0 || 0 || 0 || 9*

GR02 || 3* || 0 || 5* || 10* || 4* || 13* || 0 || 0 || 0 || 12*

GR03 || 0 || 0 || 4* || 4* || 3* || 6* || 0 || 0 || 0 || 17*

GR04 || 7* || 0* || 3* || 28* || 6* || 25* || 0* || 0* || 61* || 4*

GR05 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 20

GR06 || 1 || 0 || 8 || 3 || 0 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 13*

GR07 || 3 || 0 || 8 || 23 || 0 || 34 || 15 || 0 || 5 || 69*

GR08 || 0* || 0* || 5* || 35* || 0* || 12* || 58* || 0* || 64* || 12*

GR09 || 1* || 1* || 0 || 14 || 2* || 15* || 16* || 0 || 5* || 9*

GR10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 16* || 0 || 11* || 27* || 4 || 4* || 3*

GR11 || 0 || 0 || 1* || 4* || 1* || 6* || 26* || 1 || 6* || 51*

GR12 || 1* || 0 || 3* || 26* || 1* || 17* || 21* || 3 || 12* || 79*

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Total || 17 || 1 || 43 || 164 || 21 || 158 || 163 || 8 || 159 || 298

Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas[8].

Source: WISE

*corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

The ecological status of natural surface water bodies presented in the RBMPs shows that 49 % are in high or good status (7% and 42% respectively). Another 18% are in moderate status, 11% in poor and bad status (10% and 1% respectively) while 21% remain unknown. GR04 presents the lowest percentage of water bodies with unknown status (2%) while GR02 the highest (40%). Variations are observed across the RBDs (see Table 6.1): GR04 and GR05 have the highest percentage of water bodies in high and good status (84% of their surface water bodies), while GR08 and GR09 has the highest percentage of water bodies in poor and bad status (40% and 25% respectively). With regard to the ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies (see Table 6.2), 6% across the RBDs are in good status, 24% in moderate, 25% in poor, 2% in bad and 43% in unknown status. In GR01/02/03/10 more than 60% are in unknown status. It should be taken into consideration that in these classifications, not all relevant quality elements have necessarily been evaluated or considered, and that the available data were limited in many cases. As such the confidence in the classification is not high.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

GR01 || 109 || 9 || 8% || 51 || 47% || 10 || 9% || 4 || 4% || 0 || 0% || 35 || 32%

GR02 || 88 || 13 || 15% || 27 || 31% || 8 || 9% || 5 || 6% || 0 || 0% || 35 || 40%

GR03 || 89 || 10 || 11% || 20 || 22% || 23 || 26% || 6 || 7% || 0 || 0% || 30 || 34%

GR04 || 101* || 3* || 3%* || 82* || 81%* || 13* || 13%* || 1* || 1%* || 0* || 0%* || 2* || 2%*

GR05 || 90 || 10 || 11% || 66* || 73%* || 10 || 11% || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 4* || 5%*

GR06 || 25 || 2 || 8% || 6 || 24% || 7 || 28% || 4 || 16% || 1 || 4% || 5 || 20%

GR07 || 96 || 12 || 13% || 38 || 40% || 17 || 18% || 7 || 7% || 3 || 3% || 19 || 20%

GR08 || 70* || 5* || 7%* || 11* || 16%* || 19* || 27%* || 28* || 40%* || 0* || 0%* || 7* || 10%*

GR09 || 128* || 3 || 2% || 47 || 37%* || 20 || 16% || 27* || 21%* || 5 || 4% || 26 || 20%*

GR10 || 108 || 7 || 6% || 38 || 35% || 7 || 6% || 20 || 19% || 1 || 1% || 35 || 32%

GR11 || 66 || 0 || 0% || 13 || 20% || 31 || 47% || 3 || 5% || 0 || 0% || 19 || 29%

GR12 || 166 || 4 || 2% || 81 || 49% || 45 || 27% || 11 || 7% || 0 || 0% || 25 || 15%

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Total || 1136 || 78 || 7% || 480 || 42% || 210 || 18% || 116 || 10% || 10 || 1% || 242 || 21%

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE; *corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

GR01 || 19 || 0 || 0% || 1 || 5% || 3 || 16% || 3 || 16% || 0 || 0% || 12 || 63%

GR02 || 9 || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 2 || 22% || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 7 || 78%

GR03 || 11 || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 4 || 36% || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 7 || 64%

GR04 || 19* || 0* || 0%* || 7* || 37%* || 2* || 11%* || 0* || 0%* || 0* || 0%* || 10* || 52%*

GR05 || 16 || 0 || 0% || 3 || 19% || 4 || 25% || 1 || 6% || 0 || 0% || 8 || 50%

GR06 || 4 || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 1 || 25% || 2 || 50% || 0 || 0% || 1 || 25%

GR07 || 8 || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 4 || 50% || 2 || 25% || 2 || 25% || 0 || 0%

GR08 || 12* || 0* || 0%* || 2* || 17%* || 2* || 17%* || 3* || 25%* || 0* || 0%* || 5* || 41%*

GR09 || 40* || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 1 || 2% || 13* || 33%* || 3 || 7% || 23 || 52%

GR10 || 16 || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 1 || 6% || 4 || 25% || 0 || 0% || 11 || 69%

GR11 || 32 || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 12 || 38% || 12 || 38% || 0 || 0% || 8 || 25%

GR12 || 45 || 0 || 0% || 1 || 2% || 19 || 42% || 18 || 40% || 0 || 0% || 7 || 16%

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Total || 231 || 0 || 0% || 14 || 6% || 55 || 24% || 58 || 25% || 5 || 2% || 99 || 43%

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Source: WISE; *corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

The chemical status of natural surface water bodies presented in the RBMPs shows that 44% are good status, 6% in poor status, while 51% remain unknown. GR04 presents the lowest percentage of water bodies with unknown status (yet it reached 29%) while GR02 the highest (91%). Variations are observed across the RBDs (see Table 6.3): among the classified surface water bodies GR04 has the highest percentage of water bodies in good status (72% of its surface water bodies). With regard to the chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies (see Table 6.4), 13% across the RBDs are in good status, 27% in poor, and 60% in unknown status. It should be taken into consideration that in these classifications not all relevant quality elements have necessarily been evaluated or considered (refer to section 9), and that the available data were limited in many cases.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

GR01 || 109 || 10 || 9% || 5 || 5% || 94 || 86%

GR02 || 88 || 5 || 6% || 3 || 3% || 80 || 91%

GR03 || 89 || 6 || 7% || 18 || 20% || 65 || 73%

GR04 || 101* || 72* || 71%* || 0* || 0%* || 29* || 29%*

GR05 || 90 || 54 || 60% || 0 || 0% || 36 || 40%

GR06 || 25 || 6 || 24% || 0 || 0% || 19 || 76%

GR07 || 96 || 34 || 35% || 2 || 2% || 60 || 63%

GR08 || 70* || 25* || 36%* || 5* || 7%* || 40* || 57%*

GR09 || 128* || 50* || 39%* || 9 || 7% || 69* || 54%*

GR10 || 108 || 43 || 40% || 12 || 11% || 53 || 49%

GR11 || 66 || 8 || 12% || 9 || 14% || 49 || 74%

GR12 || 166 || 4 || 2% || 22 || 13% || 140 || 84%

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Total || 1453 || 634 || 44% || 85 || 6% || 734 || 51%

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: WISE

*corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

GR01 || 19 || 5 || 26% || 2 || 11% || 12 || 63%

GR02 || 9 || 1 || 11% || 0 || 0% || 8 || 89%

GR03 || 11 || 0 || 0% || 4 || 36% || 7 || 64%

GR04 || 19* || 9* || 47%* || 4* || 21%* || 6* || 32%*

GR05 || 16 || 8 || 50% || 1 || 6% || 7 || 44%

GR06 || 4 || 1 || 25% || 0 || 0% || 3 || 75%

GR07 || 8 || 1 || 13% || 1 || 13% || 6 || 75%

GR08 || 12* || 3* || 25%* || 2* || 17%* || 7* || 58%*

GR09 || 40* || 0* || 0%* || 12 || 30%* || 28* || 70%

GR10 || 16 || 0 || 0% || 4 || 25% || 12 || 75%

GR11 || 32 || 2 || 6% || 12 || 38% || 18 || 56%

GR12 || 45 || 0 || 0% || 20 || 44% || 25 || 56%

GR13 || || || || || || ||

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Total || 231 || 30 || 13% || 62 || 27% || 139 || 60%

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies.

Source: WISE,

*corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

The chemical status of groundwater bodies presented in the RBMPs shows that 83.8 % are in good status, 16.2% in poor, while none remain unknown. Variations are observed across the RBDs (see Table 6.5): GR05 has the highest percentage of water bodies in good status (96.2% of its groundwater bodies), while GR06 has the highest percentage of water bodies in poor status (45.8% of its groundwater bodies).

With regard to the quantitative status of the groundwater bodies, 83.1 % are in good status, 16.9% in poor, while none remain unknown. Variations are observed across the RBDs (see Table 6.6): GR05 has the highest percentage of water bodies in good status (96.2% of its groundwater bodies), while GR06 has the highest percentage of water bodies in poor status (37.5% of its groundwater bodies). It should be taken into consideration that in these classifications the available data were limited in many cases.

RBD || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

GR01 || 24 || 92.3% || 2 || 7.7% || 0 || 0%

GR02 || 22 || 84.6% || 4 || 15.4% || 0 || 0%

GR03 || 17* || 63%* || 10* || 37%* || 0 || 0%

GR04 || 24* || 96%* || 1* || 4%* || 0** || 0%

GR05 || 25 || 96.2% || 1 || 3.8% || 0 || 0%

GR06 || 13 || 54.2% || 11 || 45.8% || 0 || 0%

GR07 || 40 || 87% || 6 || 13% || 0 || 0%

GR08 || 28* || 87,5%* || 4* || 12,5%* || 0* || 0%*

GR09 || 58 || 93.5% || 4 || 6.5% || 0 || 0%

GR10 || 31 || 79.5% || 8 || 20.5% || 0 || 0%

GR11 || 14 || 93.3% || 1 || 6.7% || 0 || 0%

GR12 || 14 || 77.8% || 4 || 22.2% || 0 || 0%

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || -

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || -

Total || 311 || 85% || 55 || 15% || 0 || 0%

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

*corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

RBD || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

GR01 || 24 || 92.3% || 2 || 7.7% || 0 || 0%

GR02 || 24 || 92.3% || 2 || 7.7% || 0 || 0%

GR03 || 22 || 81.5% || 5 || 18.5% || 0 || 0%

GR04 || 23* || 92%* || 2* || 8%* || 0* || 0%*

GR05 || 25 || 96.2% || 1 || 3.8% || 0 || 0%

GR06 || 15 || 62.5% || 9 || 37.5% || 0 || 0%

GR07 || 41 || 89.1% || 5 || 10.9% || 0 || 0%

GR08 || 22* || 68.8%* || 10* || 31.2%* || 0* || 0%*

GR09 || 48 || 77.4% || 14 || 22.6% || 0 || 0%

GR10 || 28 || 71.8% || 11 || 28.2% || 0 || 0%

GR11 || 14 || 93.3% || 1 || 6.7% || 0 || 0%

GR12 || 18 || 100% || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0%

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || -

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || -

Total || 304 || 83.1% || 62 || 16.9% || ||

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE

*corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

A total of 330 surface water bodies (i.e. 24%) are expected to achieve good or better global status by 2015. The most significant increase is observed in GR03 (25% increase between 2009 and 2015). 25% of the surface water bodies are applying exemptions according to Article 4.4. No exemptions according to Art. 4.5 are applied, based on the information provided by EL in late 2014.

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good Global status 2021 || Good Global status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GR01 || 128 || 4 || 3.1 || 20 || 15.6 || 12.5 || 128 || 100 || 128 || 100 || 4* || 0 || 0* || 0*

GR02 || 97 || 2 || 2.1 || 5 || 5.2 || 3.1 || 95 || 98 || 96 || 99 || 4* || 0 || 0* || 0*

GR03 || 100 || 2 || 2 || 27 || 27 || 25 || 100 || 100 || 100 || 100 || 33* || 0 || 0* || 0*

GR04 || 120* || 71* || 59* || 71* || 59* || 0* || 88* || 73* || 116* || 97* || 15* || 0* || 0* || 4*

GR05 || 106 || 52 || 49.1 || 52 || 49.1 || 0 || 67* || 63* || 105* || 99* || 14* || 0* || 0* || 0.9*

GR06 || 29 || 2 || 6.9 || 3 || 10.3 || 3.4 || 10* || 34* || 17* || 58* || 48 || 0 || ||

GR07 || 104 || 27 || 26 || 27 || 26 || 0 || 48* || 46* || 62* || 59* || 33 || 0 || ||

GR08 || 82* || 5* || 6* || 5* || 6* || 0* || 56* || 68* || 80* || 98* || 62* || 0* || 0* || 2*

GR09 || 168 || 45 || 26.8 || 50 || 29.8 || 3 || || || || || 14 || 0 || || 2*

GR10 || 124 || 36 || 29 || 58* || 47* || 18* || || || || || 10 || 0 || ||

GR11 || 98 || 5 || 5.1 || 8* || 8.2* || 0 || - || || - || || 52* || 0 || || 1

GR12 || 211 || 4 || 1.9 || 4 || 1.9 || 0 || - || || - || || 40* || 0 || || 4.3*

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || - || - || ||

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || - || - || ||

Total || 1367 || 255 || 19% || 330 || 24% || 5% || || || || || || || ||

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021and 2027;

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE, corrections provided by EL in late 2014. For this and the following tables of this chapter, there are some discrepancies between this information and the RBMPs/their Annexes. *corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GR01 || 109 || 60 || 55% || 74 || 68% || 13% || 109* || 100%* || 109* || 100%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%*

GR02 || 88 || 40 || 45% || 53 || 60% || 15% || 88* || 100%* || 88* || 100%* || 2%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%*

GR03 || 89 || 30 || 34% || 59 || 66% || 32% || 89* || 100%* || 89* || 100%* || 17%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0% *

GR04 || 101* || 85* || 84%* || 85* || 84%* || 0%* || 92* || 91%* || 96* || 95%* || 7%* || || || 5% *

GR05 || 90 || 76* || 84%* || 76* || 84%* || 0% || 86* || 96%* || 89* || 99%* || 11% || || || 1%*

GR06 || 25 || 8 || 32% || 8 || 32% || 0% || || || || || 48% || || ||

GR07 || 96 || 50 || 52% || 50* || 52%* || 0%* || || || || || 28%* || || ||

GR08 || 70* || 16* || 23%* || 16* || 23%* || 0%* || 61* || 87%* || 69* || 99%* || 64%* || || || 1%*

GR09 || 128* || 50 || 39%* || 92* || 72%* || 33%* || || || || || 6%* || || || 2%

GR10 || 108 || 45 || 42% || 65* || 60%* || 18%* || || || || || 10% || || || 0.02%*

GR11 || 66 || 13 || 20% || 19* || 29%* || 9%* || || || || || 41%* || || || 2%

GR12 || 166 || 85 || 51% || 90* || 54%* || 3%* || || || || || 27%* || || || 4%*

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || - || || || -

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || - || || || -

Total || 1136 || 558 || 49% || 687 || 60% || 11% || || || || || || || ||

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Source: WISE

*corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GR01 || 109 || 10 || 9% || 15 || 14% || 5% || 109* || 100%* || 109* || 100%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%*

GR02 || 88 || 5 || 6% || 8 || 9% || 3% || 88* || 100%* || 88* || 100%* || 2%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%*

GR03 || 89 || 6 || 7% || 24 || 27% || 20% || 89* || 100%* || 89* || 100%* || 17%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0% *

GR04 || 101* || 72* || 71%* || 72* || 71%* || 0%* || 79* || 78%* || 97* || 96%* || 5%* || || || 4% *

GR05 || 90 || 54 || 60% || 54 || 60% || 0% || 54* || 60%* || 89* || 99% * || 0%* || || || 1%*

GR06 || 25 || 6 || 24% || 6 || 24% || 0% || || || || || || || ||

GR07 || 96 || 34 || 35% || 34 || 35% || 0% || || || || || 2% || || ||

GR08 || 70* || 25* || 36%* || 25* || 36%* || 0%* || 30* || 43%* || 68* || 97%* || 7%* || || || 3% *

GR09 || 128* || 50* || 40% || 51* || 40% || 0% || || || || || 5%* || || ||

GR10 || 108 || 43 || 40% || 48 || 44% || 4% || || || || || 9%* || || ||

GR11 || 66 || 8 || 12% || 8 || 12% || 0% || || || || || 14% || || ||

GR12 || 166 || 4 || 2% || 4 || 2% || 0% || || || || || 13% || || ||

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || - || || ||

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || - || || ||

Total || 1136 || 317 || 28% || 349 || 31% || 3% || || || || || || || ||

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027

Source: WISE

*corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GR01 || 26 || 24 || 92.3 || 24 || 92.3 || 0 || 24* || 92.3* || 26 || 100% || 7.7%* || 0%* || ||

GR02 || 26 || 22 || 84.6 || 22 || 84.6 || 0 || 22* || 84.6* || 26 || 100% || 15.4%* || 0%* || ||

GR03 || 27 || 17* || 63* || 17* || 63* || 0 || 17* || 63* || 27 || 100% || 37%* || 0%* || ||

GR04 || 25* || 24* || 96* || 24* || 96* || 0* || 24* || 96* || || || 4%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%*

GR05 || 26 || 25 || 96.2 || 26 || 100 || 3.8 || 25 || 96 || || || 4% || 0% || 0%* || 0%*

GR06 || 24 || 13 || 54.2 || 13 || 54.2 || 0 || || || 24 || 100% || 46% || 0% || ||

GR07 || 46 || 40 || 87 || 40 || 87 || 0 || || || 46 || 100% || 13% || 0% || ||

GR08 || 32* || 28* || 87.5* || 28* || 87.5* || 0* || 28* || 87.5* || 28* || 87.5* || 12.5* || - || 0%* || 0% *

GR09 || 62 || 58 || 93.5 || 58 || 93.5 || 0 || || || || || 6% || 0% || ||

GR10 || 39 || 31 || 79.5 || 31 || 79.5 || 0 || || || || || 18% || 0% || || 3%

GR11 || 15 || 14 || 93.3 || 14 || 93.3 || 0 || 14 || 93 || 15 || 100 || 7% || 0% || ||

GR12 || 18 || 14 || 77.8 || 14 || 77.8 || 0 || 14 || 78 || 17 || 94 || 28% || 0% || ||

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || - || - || ||

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || - || - || ||

Total || 366 || 310 || 85% || 311 || 85% || 0.3% || || || || || || || ||

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027

Source: WISE

*corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GR01 || 26 || 24 || 92.3 || 24 || 92.3 || 0 || 24* || 92.3* || 26 || 100% || 7.7%* || 0% || ||

GR02 || 26 || 24 || 92.3 || 24 || 92.3 || 0 || 24* || 92.3* || 26 || 100% || 11.5%* || 0%* || ||

GR03 || 27 || 22 || 81.5 || 22 || 81.5 || 0 || 22* || 81.5* || 27 || 100% || 33.3%* || 0% || ||

GR04 || 25* || 23* || 92* || 23* || 92* || 0* || || || 25* || 100%* || 8%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%*

GR05 || 26 || 25 || 96.2 || 25 || 96.2 || 0 || 25 || || 26* || 100%* || 4% || 0% || 0%* || 0%*

GR06 || 24 || 15 || 62.5 || 15 || 62.5 || 0 || 19* || 79* || 24 || 100% || 38% || 0% || ||

GR07 || 46 || 41 || 89.1 || 41 || 89.1 || 0 || || || 46 || 100% || 11% || 0% || ||

GR08 || 32* || 22* || 68.87* || 22* || 68.87* || 0* || || || 32* || 100%* || 31%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%*

GR09 || 62 || 48 || 77.4 || 48 || 77.4 || 0 || || || || || 23% || 0% || ||

GR10 || 39 || 28 || 71.8 || 28 || 71.8 || 0 || || || || || 28% || 0% || || 5%

GR11 || 15 || 14 || 93.3 || 14 || 93.3 || 0 || 14 || 93 || 15 || 100 || 7% || 0% || ||

GR12 || 18 || 18 || 100 || 18 || 100 || 0 || || || || || 0% || 0% || ||

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || ||

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || ||

Total || 366 || 304 || 83.1 || 304 || 83.1 || 0 || || || || || || || ||

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027

Source: WISE

*corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GR01 || 19 || 1 || 5% || 7 || 37% || 32% || 19* || 100%* || 19* || 100%* || 16%* || 0%* || 0% * || 0% *

GR02 || 9 || 0 || 0% || 2 || 22% || 22% || 7* || 78%* || 8* || 89%* || 22%* || 0%* || 0% * || 0% *

GR03 || 11 || 0 || 0% || 4 || 36% || 36% || 11* || 100%* || 11* || 100%* || 55%* || 0%* || 0% * || 0% *

GR04 || 19* || 7* || 37%* || 7* || 37%* || 0%* || 9* || 47%* || 19* || 100%* || 10%* || - || || -

GR05 || 16 || 3 || 19% || 3 || 19% || 0% || 8* || 50%* || 16* || 100%* || 31%* || || ||

GR06 || 4 || 0 || 0% || 1 || 25% || 25% || || || || || 50% || || ||

GR07 || 8 || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 0% || || || || || 100% || || ||

GR08 || 12* || 2* || 17%* || 2* || 17%* || 0%* || 7* || 58%* || 12* || 100* || 42%* || - || || -

GR09 || 40* || 0* || 0%* || 5* || 12%* || 12%* || || || || || 30%* || || ||

GR10 || 16 || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 0% || || || || || 31%* || || ||

GR11 || 32 || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 0% || || || || || 75% || || ||

GR12 || 45 || 1 || 2% || 1 || 2% || 0% || || || || || 80% || || || 2%

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || - || - || || -

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || - || - || || -

Total || 231 || 14 || 6% || 32 || 14% || 8% || || || || || || || ||

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Source: WISE

*corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

GR01 || 19 || 5 || 26% || 7 || 37% || 11% || 19* || 100%* || 19* || 100%* || 16%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%*

GR02 || 9 || 1 || 11% || 1 || 11% || 0% || 7* || 78%* || 8* || 89%* || 22%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%*

GR03 || 11 || || 0% || 4 || 36% || 36% || 11* || 100%* || 11* || 100%* || 55%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%*

GR04 || 19* || 9* || 47%* || 9* || 47%* || 0%* || || || || || 21%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%*

GR05 || 16 || 8 || 50% || 8 || 50% || 0% || || || || || 6% || 0%* || 0%* || 0%*

GR06 || 4 || 1 || 25% || 1 || 25% || 0% || || || || || || || ||

GR07 || 8 || 1 || 13% || 1 || 13% || 0% || || || || || 13% || || ||

GR08 || 12* || 3* || 25%* || 3* || 25%* || 0%* || || || || || 17%* || 0%* || 0%* || 0%*

GR09 || 40* || 0* || 0%* || 1* || 3%* || 3%* || || || || || 27%* || || ||

GR10 || 16 || || 0% || 0 || 0% || 0% || || || || || 25% || || ||

GR11 || 32 || 2 || 6% || 2 || 6% || 0% || || || || || 38% || || ||

GR12 || 45 || || 0% || 0 || 0% || 0% || || || || || 44% || || ||

GR13 || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || - || || ||

GR14 || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || - || || ||

Total || 231 || 30 || 13% || 37 || 16% || 3% || || || || || || || ||

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Source: WISE

*corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Less than good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat and corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Less than good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat and corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat and corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) and corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) and corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) and corrections/additions provided by EL in late 2014

7. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

It seems that the different projects commissioned for the development of the different RBMPs were centrally coordinated by the Special Secretarial for Water; thus, generally a national approach is followed. At the same time, for GR01/02/03 the actual classification was done (partly) based on a specific sampling study. For the different RBMPs the information is provided in a very different way, so it remains unclear if a national approach is transparently used for all RBDs (it is also unclear due to the lack of national published guidance on different issues, although EL has stated that internal guidelines have been provided to the different consultants). Out of the 14 RBMPs that should have been approved by 2009, only 12 RBMPs have been approved so far. The 12 RBMPs that have recently become official should implement the Programmes of Measures in the following very short period as the second round of revised Plans should be submitted by 2015, according to the WFD, taking into account the implementation of the first RBMPs. A PoM-Implementation Progress Report (national level) has been submitted by EL to the Commission as a reply to an EU enquiry in December 2014, and was uploaded on WISE on 22.01.2015. It has not been assessed by the Commission to date.

7.1 Ecological status assessment methods

The assessment methods for the classification of ecological status are only partly developed for some BQEs and are explicitly described in the Annexes A/6 (Reference conditions of SWBs). For rivers only the benthic fauna was used; it is stated that "in agreement with the managing authority, for the classification of rivers in the current RBMPs cycle it was decided to rely only on the biological quality element (BQE) of benthic macroinvertebrates”. Accordingly, phytoplankton is the only BQE that is able to produce reliable assessment methods of the ecological status in lakes. For most of the BQEs specified in the WFD, national methods for assessing ecological status have not been developed. This is due to the insufficiency of available data to describe reference conditions, due to the lack of development of indicators for the parameters estimation for each BQE, or due to inadequate experience and knowledge on the biology of specific BQEs to link the status of the habitats with the condition of the water bodies. There are therefore important gaps in the assessment system.

The overall approach of classification according to the WFD is described, and was principally based on the One-Out-All-Out principle. It is clearly mentioned that “for water bodies where there are measurements of priority substances, the One-Out-All-Out principle was followed among the qualitative data, regardless of the number of parameters for which data have been available; that is, if a priority substance exceeded the boundaries set, the water body was classified in a lower than good status”. Similarly, in cases where, based on the available data, the BQEs resulted a good status but physicochemical parameters failed, the ecological status has been classified as moderate. In cases where correlation in the monitoring data was not evident, at the time and the position of the sampling for physicochemical parameters, and the BQEs exhibited discrepancies, the physicochemical data were not used for the classification of the water bodies (mainly in the RBDs GR06 and GR07). At the same time, and based on the way the classification was done, it is not possible to say if this principle was followed in practice.

It is highly questionable whether the classification system is responsive to all pressures as relevant information is insufficient. In some RBMPs there is a brief mention of the different pressures addressed by the classification system (e.g. the phytoplankton increases eutrophication in a lake system), but not sufficient information on which BQEs are detecting which pressures. For GR09 the same applies for the information from the Prespa plan as well. In the case of GR11/12, it is explicitly mentioned that at this stage the system is not using calibrated measurements of the BQE to determine whether there is a correlation between the abstraction levels from rivers and their ecological status assessed by the measurements of the BQE. In the case of river water bodies for which no data are available from monitoring programmes, a process of grouping of the water bodies was followed for GR04/05/08/09/10 in relation to the different pressures. The main idea of grouping is that water bodies of the same type which are subject to similar levels of anthropogenic pressures are likely to have the same ecological quality. The purpose was to minimise the number of water bodies that would be characterised as of unknown ecological status. As this approach is indirect, this type of assessment has a low level of confidence.

In general, it is mentioned that the classification of water bodies in terms of physico-chemical QEs was supplementary to the assessment of the BQEs (respecting the One-Out-All-Out (OOAO) principle); that is these QEs are used to assist in determining the ecological status of surface water bodies. The elements that are assessed include the transparency, thermal conditions, oxygen conditions, salinity, acidification conditions and nutrient conditions. For the RBMPs of GR01/02/03, regarding the classification, there was very limited monitoring information available. O