EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 50 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: The Netherlands







Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans

{COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of Contents Acronyms and definitions Foreword General Information Status of second river basin management plan reporting Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 2.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 3.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 3.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies

4.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 4.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 4.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 5.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 5.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 5.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 6.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 6.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 6.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 7.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle for designation 7.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 7.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions 8.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 8.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 8.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 9 Programme of measures

9.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 9.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 9.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 10.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 10.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 10.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture 11.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 11.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 12.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 12.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology 13.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 13.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies

14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance 14.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 15.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 15.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 16.1 Requirements in the second cycle 16.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Acronyms and definitions EQS Directive Environmental Quality Standards Directive FD Floods Directive Km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure PoM Programme of Measures QA/QC Directive Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Annex 0 Water Information System for Europe Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



Foreword The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) requires in its Article 18 that each Member State reports its River Basin Management Plan(s) (RBMPs) to the European Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. This Member State Assessment report was drafted on the basis of information that was reported by Member States through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) electronic reporting. The Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported by each Member State to the European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then.





General Information The Netherlands (Map A) cover a total area of 41 526 km² and has 16.4 m inhabitants. Map A Map of River Basin Districts Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters It has four RBDs, which are all parts of international RBDs. The sharing countries are European Union Member States, as well as Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Information on the areas of the national RBD including sharing countries is provided in Table A and the percentage share in the Netherlands is shown in Table B .



Table A: Overview of RBDs in the Netherlands RBD Name Size (km2) Percentage of national territory Percentage of international RBD Countries sharing RBD NLRN Rhine 28 500 69 17.1 AT, BE, CH, DE, FR, IT, LI, LU NLSC Scheldt 3 200 8 5.5 BE, FR NLMS Meuse 7 500 18 21.8 BE, DE, FR, LU NLEM Eems 2 600 6 13 DE Source: RBMPs reported to WISE Table B Transboundary river basins by category and % share in the Netherlands Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing RBD Co-ordination category 1 km² % Rhine NLRN AT, BE, CH, DE, FR, IT, LI, LU 28917 17.0 Scheldt NLSC BE, FR 3200 5.5 Meuse-Maas NLMS BE, DE, FR, LU 7500 21.8 Ems NLEM DE 2600 13.0 Source: WISE electronic reports Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in place. Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. Category 3: International agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.



Status of second river basin management plan reporting A total of four RBMPs for the Netherlands (Rhine, Scheldt, Meuse, Ems) were published on 22 December 2015. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency (EEA) EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/



Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of the Netherlands are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation The Netherlands has long-standing mechanisms for coordination among the many public bodies involved in water management. The RBMPs are linked to other water management plans at international, national and regional levels. The Netherlands cooperates closely on water management with other Member States, via both international river commissions and bilateral agreements. The public and interested parties were informed by a range of mechanisms, including media. Consultations also covered other national and regional water management plans. There was an outreach to the general public via social media. A broad range of stakeholders was actively involved, including via advisory groups. ·Characterisation of the RBD Three of the 18 lake water typologies did not have corresponding intercalibration types: most of these are heavily modified or artificial water bodies . Type specific reference conditions have only been established for some of the relevant hydromorphological quality elements in each water category. This may lead to some weaknesses in the classification of status/potential according to the hydromorphological quality elements. For groundwater bodies, further characterisation work has been undertaken since the first cycle by describing the geological formation and whether they are layered or not. The Netherlands has also included an assessment of linkages with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. The significance of pressures is reported to be defined in terms of thresholds or linked to the potential failure of objectives for all RBDs for both surface water and groundwaters. However, expert judgment was used to assess the significance of water abstraction and water flow pressures on surface waters. 32 of the 41 substances Priority Substances were included in an inventory for each of the RBDs . Tier 1 (point source information) was implemented for a limited number of substances (for most of the others no information was reported). The Guidance Document recommends using at least Tier 1+2 for substances deemed relevant at RBD level. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status

There was an increase in the proportion of lake water bodies included in operational monitoring since the first RBMPs. However, operational monitoring decreased in river and coastal water bodies. Surveillance monitoring decreased in all four water categories. All biological quality elements used for surveillance monitoring were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites at which they were monitored. However, this was not the case for operational monitoring for most biological quality elements. 213 different River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored, only in water. They were monitored in all water categories. All of those monitored for surveillance purposes were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites where they were monitored. In contrast, of those included in operational monitoring only 2 % were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites where they were monitored. Based on the one-out-all-out-approach, there are still only two water bodies in good or high ecological status/potential, although the first RBMPs foresaw that good ecological status/potential would be reached by 2015 for 9-13 % of artificial and heavily modified water bodies and for 28 % of natural water bodies. It should be noted, however, that at the level of the individual biological quality elements there has been some progress between the first and second RBMPs in terms of an increase in the proportion of surface water bodies achieving good ecological status/potential. The confidence in classification of ecological status is reported as high or medium for all water bodies, which is a major improvement since the first RBMPs, which included no information on confidence. Assessment methods have been developed for all relevant biological quality elements in all water categories. A new method for angiosperms has been developed for transitional and coastal waters. Environmental Quality Standards were reported for 96 River Basin Specific Pollutants, of the 213 which were monitored. All standards were derived in accordance with Technical Guidance n° 27 and the analytical methods used meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive (QA/QC Directive). ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies About half of surface water bodies in the second RBMP were failing to achieve good status (52 %) with 39 % at good status and 9 % in unknown status. The Netherlands reported chemical status in the second RBMP based on the more stringent standards in the revised Environment Quality Standards Directive (2013/39/EU). This precludes a direct comparison between chemical status in the first and second RBMPs. Although not reported to WISE, the Netherlands subsequently clarified that territorial waters have been monitored for chemical status. About 60 % of all water bodies were monitored. The overall number of water bodies delineated decreased between the two RBMPs, and according to WISE, the number of sites and waterbodies monitored have also decreased. However it is unclear whether this apparent decrease in monitoring sites / waterbodies results from different approaches to reporting between the first and the second RBMP. 23 % of water bodies were classified by monitoring, 69 % by grouping and 9 % by expert judgement. A majority of water bodies are classified with high confidence. The Netherlands mentioned grouping is applied only when the confidence of the assessment within the group was high. The Netherlands mentioned that all 41 priority substances were taken into account in the assessment of status, and that all substances were monitored, including those assessed as discharged. Monitoring frequencies for the majority of substances met the recommended minimum frequency for operational and surveillance monitoring in water. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were not monitored in biota but in water, for assessment against alternative standards said by the Netherlands to be as protective as the biota standards. For trend assessment, no Priority Substances were monitored in sediment or biota. The RBMPs indicated that trend analysis is undertaken on the basis of water column monitoring. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies All groundwater bodies are covered by monitoring. All groundwater bodies have a clear status with high confidence, still remain in good status and are not at risk. Groundwater associated surface water bodies and groundwater dependent ecosystems have been considered in the assessment of status although they are not related to any risk.

All ecosystems have been considered although they are not related to any risk. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies The coverage of groundwater bodies by monitoring remains fully comprehensive. Not all WFD core parameters are monitored. The total groundwater body area failing good chemical status has significantly decreased. This is partly due to changes in the reporting methodology. Groundwater associated surface water bodies and groundwater dependent ecosystems have been considered in the assessment of status although they are not related to any risk. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential In the context of designating heavily modified water bodies, the RBMPs contain brief descriptions of how significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment have been defined (as part of the methodology). The Netherlands has also set up a system of factsheets with detailed information for each water body on the outcomes of assessments of the designation tests of the WFD. These factsheets contain descriptions of the assessment of restoration measures and their significant adverse effects on the use and the wider environment as well as on the assessment of “other means” to achieve the beneficial objectives of the modifications, in order to reach decisions on the designation. Good ecological potential has been defined in terms of biological elements. The good ecological potential definition for biological quality elements is based upon the assessment of biological quality element values for good ecological status of the closest comparable water body type, but with maximum values for good ecological potential that may be lower than those for good ecological status (it is lower for at least one biological quality element). Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been reported in WISE for all four RBDs. The ecological changes expected due to the mitigation measures are described in a qualitative way with reference to biology. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies and chemical and quantitative status of groundwater bodies have been reported in all RBDs. Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported. The low number of water bodies that is in good status by 2015 and the high number of remaining exemptions poses a significant challenge with regard to the timely achievement of the WFD objectives.



·Programme of Measures All measures planned for the first cycle have been completed; significant progress has been made in linking measures to pressures and providing gap analyses with quantitative gap indicators for meeting objectives. It is not clear whether the Programmes of Measures (PoMs) are sufficiently ambitious as in a large number of water bodies some pressures will not be addressed by 2027. An analysis of the planned measures has been carried out, in particular for the preparation of the third plans, but it is acknowledged that a quantitative anaylisis would be difficult with the available scientific knowledge. A clear financial commitment has been secured for the implementation of PoM in all four RBDs.

Most significant pressures on surface waters and groundwaters have been covered by KTMs. The Netherlands have mapped a total of 30 national measures and 71 national supplementary measures against 18 predefined KTMs and 26 of its own KTMs. Priority substances and KTMs to tackle them have been reported for surface water in all four RBDs. Gap analyses have been presented for all significant pressures in all four RBDs for 2015, 2021 and 2027. For groundwater, most gaps are expected to be closed by 2021, and all by 2027. For surface waters, gap values are expected to be reduced in most cases, but few are expected to be closed by 2027. There has been close co-ordination between RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans in all four RBDs. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity Water abstraction pressures have been reported to be relevant for some areas of the Netherlands, but no information has been reported yet on abstractions, the water exploitation index + or in support of the European State of the Environment Report in relation to water quantity. There is a permitting regime and a register of abstractions for surface water and groundwater, and a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water impoundment. No specific water resource allocation and management plans have been developed and only complementary measures associated to “KTM99-Other” are reported to tackle significant abstraction pressures. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. Safeguard zones have been established for abstractions. Implementation of basic measures Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source is ensured in all RBDs and the same rules apply across the whole RBD. Supplementary measures for reducing pollution from agriculture are reported as well as measures to reduce sedimentation from soil erosion and surface runoff. Financing of measures is secured and the costs of the measures are reported. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture KTMs have been reported in all RBDs in the Netherlands for significant pressures from individual Priority Substances causing non-compliance. The reported information indicates that substance-specific measures are in place for each of the Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants reported to be causing failure in surface water bodies, and for each of the pollutants reported to be causing failure of good chemical status of groundwater in all assessed RBMPs. ·Measures related to hydromorphology Significant hydromorphological pressures and operational KTM to tackle these are reported in all RBDs. Basic measures are also in place (authorisation and/or permitting regime to control physical modifications), though there is no register of physical modifications of water bodies.

Ecological flows have been derived and implemented for all relevant water bodies and the national measures include several measures to guarantee ecological flow. Although KTM23 on Natural Water Retention Measures is not specifically reported, reference is made to the inclusion of integrated approaches (including Natural Water Retention Measures and green infrastructure) in several water-related strategies and plans. These will have consequences for the implementation of Natural Water Retention Measures in all RBMPs. ·Between 2015 and 2021, very little progress is expected in terms of closing the gap for hydromorphological pressures in three RBDs (the Ems, Meuse and Scheldt RBDs). The main progress is expected to be achieved between 2021 and 2027. Only in the Rhine RBD, some more progress is expected by 2021 in terms of reducing the number of water bodies failing the objectives due to physical alterations from agriculture, dams and barriers and other hydromorphological alterations. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies ·A broad definition of water services has been used and cost recovery calculations are presented for all water services. ·No detailed information on the application of the polluter pays principle was reported. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) The Netherlands has developed specific plans for a majority of the Protected Areas, but there are still some Protected Areas for which additional measures have not been set in the second River Basin Management Plans. Objectives for protected areas linked to the Birds and Habitats Directives are currently all generic and work is reported to be on-going to determine specific needs. Monitoring has only been reported for Drinking Water Protected Areas related to groundwater but the monitoring was not reported for any other type of protected area (this was only done through the reporting under the other relevant Directives).



·Adaptation to drought and climate change Climate change was considered in several ways in all river basin districts and it is stated that the Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on how to adapt to climate change was used. Specific sub-plans addressing climate are also reported for all river basin districts in the Netherlands. Sub-plans addressing water scarcity and droughts have been reported for all river basin districts in the second cycle.



Recommendations ·The Netherlands should continue to improve international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the Water Framework Directive such as ensuring a harmonized approach for status assessment and a coordinated PoM in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·The Netherlands should complete the assessment of the effectiveness of the existing agricultural measures and identify which additional measures are needed to achieve the objectives of the WFD. ·The Netherlands should make sure that assessment methods for biological quality elements are sensitive to all significant impacts, including chemical pollution. Hydromorphological quality elements should be used for classification of water bodies. ·The chemical status of the remaining water bodies in unknown status should be assessed and the status of territorial water bodies should be reported to WISE. If reduced monitoring frequencies are used, the Netherlands should provide the corresponding explanations, as required by the WFD.

·The Netherlands should continue investigating the possibility to monitor in biota for status assessment, and in a non-water matrix for trend assessment (following on the discussions in the Working Group Chemicals). ·A significant number of exemptions is still applied in the second RBMPs. Efforts need to be continued to ensure the implementation of an ambitious PoM in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. The justifications for the application of exemptions should be reviewed accordingly. ·Specific prioritisation of measures based on cost-effectiveness analysis should be provided. ·It is not clear whether the measures identified are adequate and whether the Programmes are sufficiently ambitious, as many of the pressures are estimated not to be fully addressed by 2027. The Netherlands should define ambitious measures based on the pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment of water bodies. The choice of measures should reflect the significance of the pressure. ·In the third RBMPs the Netherlands should describe in more detail how it is proposed that the “Deltaplan Agrarisch Waterbeheer” can help to reduce pollution from agriculture and characterise additional measures that have been included in this plan. ·As regards chemical pollution from non-agricultural sources, the Netherlands should ensure that the Programmes of Measures are based on reliable assessment of the pressures, and that all relevant pollutants are identified and addressed. ·The Netherlands should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). The Netherlands should continue to transparently present how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the contribution of the different users is ensured. It should also continue to transparently present the water-pricing policy and provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. ·The Netherlands has failed to provide information on the implementation of additional measures for several relevant Protected Areas, with the exception of safeguard zones for the protection of Drinking Water. The Netherlands needs to conclude its on‑going work to determine the needs for measures under the Habitat and Birds Directives..



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – river basin districts The Netherlands has four RBDs: the Rhine, which covers 69 % of the national territory; Meuse; Scheldt; and Ems. All four are part of international RBDs. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities The Netherlands reported Competent Authorities across several administrative levels. At national level, the Netherlands reported that the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment has main roles for the enforcement of regulations, economic analysis, pressure and impact analysis, preparation of the RBMPs and PoM, public participation, coordination of implementation and reporting to the European Commission; and it has supporting roles for the monitoring and assessment of status of surface water and for the implementation of measures. The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management has main roles for the preparation of the RBMPs and PoM and the coordination of implementation. The Netherlands informed that in 2017, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment became the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management; the roles of the Ministry of Economic Affairs have been taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. The 12 provinces each have main roles for the monitoring and assessment of status of groundwater, enforcement of regulations, pressure and impact analysis, public participation, implementation of measures and coordination of implementation. The 24 regional water authorities are each responsible for the monitoring and assessment of status of surface water, enforcement of regulations, pressure and impact analysis, public participation, implementation of measures and coordination of implementation. The Association of Dutch Municipalities has a main role for the implementation of measures and a supporting role for the coordination of implementation. In its assessment of the first RBMPs, the European Commission recommended that the Netherlands provide transparency concerning the coordination mechanisms among the many competent authorities.

The second RBMPs explain that coordination takes place under the lead of the Water Steering Group (Stuurgroep Water), chaired by the Minister of Infrastructure and Environment (now the Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management). Bodies represented in the group include Rijkswaterstaat (an Agency of the Ministry in charge of water infrastructure, amongst others), provinces, regional water authorities, municipalities and drinking water authorities. 1.1.3RBMP – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment For all four of its RBDs, the Netherlands reported ( Figure 1.1 ) that separate plans cover the following topics: agriculture, chemical industry, chemical pollution, climate change, coastal erosion, hydropower, nutrient enrichment, rural planning, transport, urban planning and water scarcity and droughts. Figure 1.1Issues, sectors, sub-basins or water categories in the Netherlands supplemented by more detailed sub-plans for the second cycle RBD Agriculture Chemical industry Hydropower Transport Water Scarcity and droughts Climate change Coastal erosion Rural planning Urban planning Nutrient enrichment Chemical pollution Other: Hydromorphology, migration continuity NLEM ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ NLMS ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ NLRN ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ NLSC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Source: WISE electronic reports ✓ Covered by sub-plans The Netherlands reported the following separate plans: the National Water Plan 2016-2021; the Plans of the Regional Water Authorities 2016-2021, the Water Management and Development Plan for the Dutch Main Water System . The Netherlands also cites the international RBMPs related to each of its RBDs and their PoM. A Strategic Environmental Assessment was reported to have been carried out for RBMPs and Programmes of Measures in all four RBDs. 1.1.4Public consultation In all four RBDs, the public and interested parties were informed by: Internet, invitations to stakeholders, local authorities, media (papers, TV and radio) and meetings. Documents were made available (for the requisite six months) either electronically via download or in hard copy in municipal buildings. The following stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the RBMPs: agriculture/farmers, consumer groups, energy/hydropower, fisheries/aquaculture, industry, local/regional authorities, NGOs/nature protection and water supply and sanitation operators. Active involvement used the following mechanisms: establishment of advisory groups, involvement in drafting and regular exhibitions. In addition, there was an outreach to the general public using social media. Public consultation had the following impacts in each of the RBDs: the addition of new information, changes to the selection of measures and changes to the methodology used. The European Commission, in its review of the first RBMPs, recommended that the Netherlands ensure that all relevant documents are easily accessible for public participation. The RBMPs indicate that the public consultation also covered the draft plans of Rijkswaterstaat, the Provinces and the water boards. The Netherlands informed that a national web site was used to provide all these plans; moreover, factsheets, prepared for each water body in the Netherlands, were also available for consultation . 1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive The Netherlands carried out joint consultation of its RBMPs and the Flood Risk Management Plans under the Floods Directive . The Netherlands carried out a joint consultation between the RBMPs and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive . 1.1.6International coordination All four of the RBDs in the Netherlands are part of an international RBD. An international agreement, a permanent co-operation body and an international RBMP are in place for all RBDs (designated as category 1 cooperation). Moreover, explicit links were made with national RBMPs within the international RBMP. Netherlands reported that there was international coordination on public participation only in one RBD, the Rhine .

The Netherlands also cooperates bilaterally on water management with neighbouring Member States: for example, with the Flanders Region of Belgium in the Flemish-Dutch Scheldt Commission and the Flemish-Dutch Bilateral Meuse Commission. For further information see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive. 1.2Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM requested action on the following: •Recommendation: The division of competences between the different authorities results in a complex system with different levels involved in the implementation of the WFD. Furthermore, the background documents with many important details are not easily accessible, and the relevant information, including on pressures, methodologies and measures, may be spread in several plans (national, regional, local). Improved transparency and communication of the coordination mechanisms between competent authorities would be advisable. In addition, easy access to all relevant documents will encourage public participation in both the development and delivery of necessary measures to ensure sustainable water management. Assessment: Regarding coordination, the RBMPs explain that coordination takes place under the lead of the Water Steering Group (Stuurgroep Water), chaired by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (now the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management). Bodies represented in the group include the Rijkswaterstaat, Provinces, regional water management authorities, municipalities and drinking water authorities. Consequently, the Netherlands has fulfilled this part of the recommendation. For the second cycle of RBMPs, public consultation also covered the draft plans of Rijkswaterstaat, the Provinces and the water boards; moreover, detailed factsheets on each water body were available for consultation. Consequently, this part of the recommendation has also been fulfilled.



Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies There has been a reduction in the number of river water bodies in one RBD (the Rhine RBD -6 %) and the others have remained the same ( Table 2.1 ). There has been a reduction in the number of lake water bodies in one RBD (the Meuse RBD -6 %), an increase of only 1 % in one RBD (the Rhine RBD) and the others have remained the same. Fewer coastal water bodies were delineated in the second cycle in all four RBDs (nine compared to fifteen, 40 % reduction) . The numbers of transitional and groundwater bodies ( Table 2.2 ) remained the same. The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes, which is system B in Annex II of the WFD. Table 2.3 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in the Netherlands between the second and first cycles. It is notable that both the maximum and the average size of coastal water bodies have decreased significantly in area . The RBMPs also noted that some small changes in the areas of water bodies in each water category were made, in particular for coastal water bodies. Coastal waters have been limited to one mile from the coast, contrary to the first cycle; this was to avoid overlap with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and was in line with delineations in neighbouring countries . Table 2.1Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in the Netherlands for the second and first cycles Year RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) 2016 NLEM 5 271 14 20 1 175 1 135 2016 NLMS 103 2 288 52 80 1 46 1 84 2016 NLRN 137 2 351 336 2 710 2 170 4 3 159 2016 NLSC 1 16 49 244 1 326 3 717 2016 Total 246 4 927 451 3 055 5 717 9 4 095 2010 NLEM 5 275 14 33 1 176 2 684 2010 NLMS 103 2 117 49 82 1 46 2 496 2010 NLRN 145 2 349 338 2 692 2 134 6 8 682 2010 NLSC 1 16 49 239 1 328 5 2 027 2010 Total 254 4 756 450 3 046 5 684 15 11 889 Source: WISE electronic reports. Table 2.2 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in the Netherlands for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 NLEM 2 330.65 1 981.65 1 156.15 2016 NLMS 5 26.32 6 277.99 2 024.06 2016 NLRN 11 223.48 6 141.16 2 138.20 2016 NLSC 5 47.9 1 773.15 804.16 2016 Total 23 26.32 6 277.99 1 737.98 2010 NLEM 2 331 1 982.00 1 156.50 2010 NLMS 5 26 6 277.00 2 023.80 2010 NLRN 11 223 6 141.00 2 137.91 2010 NLSC 5 47 1 773.00 796 2010 Total 23 26 6 277.00 1 736.04 Source: WISE electronic reports Table 2.3 Size distribution of surface water bodies in the Netherlands in the second and first cycles

Year RBD River length (km) Lake area (km2) Transitional (km2) Coastal (km2) Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average 2016 NLEM 12.55 108.35 54.29 0.03 8.99 1.45 174.86 174.86 174.86 135.03 135.03 135.03 2016 NLMS 3.79 104.61 22.22 0.01 63.17 1.55 45.89 45.89 45.89 83.76 83.76 83.76 2016 NLRN 1.67 120.55 17.16 0 1 148.95 8.07 49.8 119.99 84.89 269.81 2 156.22 789.71 2016 NLSC 15.74 15.74 15.74 0 139.31 4.97 326.01 326.01 326.01 0.51 363.49 238.97 2010 NLEM 12.55 108.35 54.95 0.17 8.99 2.37 175.8 175.8 175.8 135.55 548.91 342.23 2010 NLMS 3.87 108.44 20.55 0.01 63.97 1.66 46.23 46.23 46.23 95.74 400.15 247.95 2010 NLRN 0.26 120.57 16.2 0 1 137.43 7.96 48.04 85.87 66.96 256.05 3 077.06 1 446.95 2010 NLSC 15.74 15.74 15.74 0.02 139.02 4.87 327.86 327.86 327.86 0.51 1 300.91 405.47 Source: WISE electronic reports In the second RBMP only 2 % of identified surface water bodies were natural with 42 % being designated as heavily modified and 56 % as artificial. Figure 2.1 shows the proportion of surface water bodies in the Netherlands designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. The decrease in coastal water bodies was mostly in terms of natural water bodies (-45 %), but the only artificial coastal water body was not delineated in the second cycle. For lake water bodies there was an increase in artificial water bodies (1 %), a decrease in heavily modified water bodies (-2 %), whereas the natural lake water bodies remained the same. For river water bodies there was an overall decrease in artificial and heavily modified water bodies (-10 % and -3 % respectively), whilst there was an increase of 17 % in natural river water bodies. Overall in the second RBMP there was a high proportion of heavily modified and artificial water bodies (97 %). Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in the Netherlands designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reports. Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by the Netherlands on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. It shows there were not a significant amount of changes and that there were minimal changes to river and lake water bodies. The changes included both aggregation and splitting, creation and deletion. Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in the Netherlands between the second and first cycles Type of water body change for second cycle Groundwater Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Aggregation 1 3 Splitting 15 Aggregation and splitting 2 Change in code 51 151 Extended area 2 Creation 4 Deletion 2 9 6 No change 23 177 291 5 9 Total water bodies before deletion 23 248 460 5 15 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 246 451 5 9 Source: WISE electronic reports. 2.1.2Identification of transboundary water bodies All four RBDs are international. Two groundwater bodies were identified as transboundary in the Scheldt RBD. No surface water bodies were reported as transboundary in WISE. 2.1.3Typology of surface water bodies In general there was an apparent decrease in number of types from first RBMP to the second RBMP ( Table 2.5 ). It was stated in the RBMPs that the typology remains a working instrument and that it is a compromise between a workable method and the specificities of each water body. It is reported that the Netherlands applied system B and they designated their own categories. Member States were asked to report “Not applicable” if there is no corresponding intercalibration type for national types. Most national types (heavily modified, artificial and natural) have been intercalibrated. However, in each of the RBDs there are lake water bodies that are reported not to have a corresponding intercalibration type. Overall three of the 18 lake water types (type codes M30, M31 and M32) did not have corresponding intercalibration types: most of these are heavily modified or artificial water bodies . There was a second phase of intercalibration that was finalised in 2013. There has been an update of the typologies and intercalibration, but only for natural waters, not for heavily modified or artificial water bodies. The RBMPs reported that compared to the first cycle there was more harmonisation in the biological quality elements used and comparable water types with other European Union Member States. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in the Netherlands for the first and second cycles RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 NLEM 8 (3) 3 16 (5) 5 2 (1) 1 4 (2) 1 NLMS 114 (11) 11 57 (8) 8 2 (1) 1 4 (2) 1 NLRN 6 6 17 16 1 1 4 3 NLSC 2 (1) 1 56 (7) 7 2 (1) 1 8 (3) 2 Total 121 (12) 12 131 (18) 18 4 (1) 1 13 (4) 3 Source: WISE electronic reports. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs. Numbers in brackets were provided by the Netherlands and the differences are based on the changes in reporting. 2.1.4Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Type specific reference conditions have been established for all relevant biological quality elements in most but not all river types ( Table 2.6 ): for one river type (R7), biological quality elements have been established for some but not all . Type specific reference conditions have been established for all relevant physicochemical quality elements in all river types for each water category. Type specific reference conditions have only been established for some of the relevant hydromorphological quality elements in each water category. This may lead to some weaknesses in the classification of status/potential according to the hydromorphological quality elements.



Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in the Netherlands with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of types in each category Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Rivers (12) All 92 % 100 % Some 8 % 100 % None Lakes (18) All 100 % 100 % Some 100 % None Coastal (3) All 100 % 100 % Some 100 % None Transitional (1) All 100 % 100 % Some 100 % None Source: WISE electronic reports. 2.1.5Characteristics of groundwater bodies The geological formation of the aquifer types in which groundwater bodies reside and details of whether groundwater bodies are layered have been reported. Further characterisation work has been reported since the first cycle with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems for all RBDs. 2.1.6Significant pressures on water bodies The reporting of pressure types also changed between the reporting cycles and as a result it is difficult to compare significant impacts because of these changes and the changes in the delineation of water bodies between the cycles. In the second RBMP, diffuse agricultural pressures were reported to affect the largest proportion (78 %) of surface water bodies followed by pressures from dams, barriers and lock from "other" sectors (61 %) ( Figure 2.2 ). In the first RBMP, the Netherlands only reported pressures at an aggregated level with diffuse source pressures affecting 90 % of surface water bodies ( Figure 2.3 ). For most of the Netherlands’ RBDs there was a reported increase in water bodies impacted by diffuse sources, particularly in the Rhine RBD. In the second RBMP, ‘Point source – other’ was reported to affect the largest proportion (57 %) of groundwater bodies followed by the pressure ‘Diffuse – agriculture’ (52 %) ( Figure 2.2 ). It was reported what pressures were excluded from the assessment: ‘Point - Mine waters’ for surface and groundwaters . Figure 2.2 The most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in the Netherlands for the second cycle Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in the Netherlands in the first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 711 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 724 for the first cycle. Source: WISE electronic reports. 2.1.7Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater For surface waters numerical tools were used for defining significant pressures from point and diffuse sources. Other pressures were identified by expert judgment (e.g. abstractions and flow). For surface water bodies significance of pressures has been defined in terms of thresholds and is linked to the potential failure of objectives.

For groundwaters a combination of numerical tools and expert judgment was used for defining significant pressures from point and diffuse sources. The significance of pressures has been defined in terms of thresholds and is linked to the potential failure of good status. The RBMPs did not highlight any major changes in the methodology or criteria for the identification of pressures since the first cycle. 2.1.8Significant impacts on water bodies In the second RBMP, the most significant impact on surface water bodies was nutrient pollution (86 %) followed by altered habitats due to morphological changes (includes connectivity) (75 %), altered habitats due to hydrological changes (68 %), chemical pollution (50 %) and organic pollution (48 %) ( Figure 2.4 ). For groundwater bodies the most significant impacts were nutrient and organic pollution each with 61 % of groundwater bodies affected. The Netherlands did not report on impacts in the first RBMP. Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in the Netherlands for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.9Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status No groundwater bodies in any of the RBDs were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good chemical status in the second RBMP. The pollutants putting groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status have been reported for two RBDs (the Meuse RBD and the Rhine RBD). No groundwater bodies in any of the RBDs were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good quantitative status in the second RBMP. 2.1.10Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures There are some inconsistencies in the pressures for which measures are planned and the significant pressures reported at the water body level. For example, in the Meuse RBD, ‘Diffuse - urban runoff’ and ‘Diffuse – agricultural’ have been reported at the groundwater body level but this pressure has not been reported as being tackled in the PoM . 14 Priority Substances are causing the failure of good chemical status in surface waters in the Netherlands, and two pollutants (total phosphorus and nitrogen) causing the failure. Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS Directive) requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I EQS Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (respectively suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances (respectively priority hazardous substances). The Netherlands reported inventories for each of their four RBDs. Of the 41 Priority Substances 33 were included in an inventory for each of the RBDs. The following Priority Substances and groups of priority substances and other pollutants were not included in any of the inventories: trifluralin; alachlor; atrazine; chlorpyrifos; chlorfenvinphos; pentachlorobenzene total cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin + dieldrin + endrin + isodrin) and total DDT (DDT, p,p' + DDT, o,p' + DDE, p,p' + DDD, p,p'). The Rhine RBMP reported that these substances were not included in the emission inventory because the production of the substances has ceased and the application of these substances as pesticides is no longer allowed and therefore there are zero emissions. The two-step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. For a limited number of substances Tier 1 (point source information) was implemented (for most of the others no information was reported). The Guidance Document recommends using at least Tier 1+2 for substances deemed relevant at RBD level. The data quality was not reported. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle There has been a reduction in the number of river water bodies in the Rhine RBD (-6 %) and the others have remained the same. There has been a reduction in the number of lake water body in one RBD (the Meuse RBD -6 %), an increase of 1 % in one RBD (the Rhine RBD) and the others have remained the same. Coastal waters have been limited to one mile from the coast, contrary to the first cycle; this has been to avoid overlap with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The numbers of transitional and groundwater bodies remained the same. It is difficult to compare significant impacts because of changes in delineation of water bodies between the cycles and in the definition of impact types. For most of the Netherlands RBDs an increase was reported in water bodies impacted by diffuse sources, particularly in the Rhine RBD between the first RBMP and the second RBMP. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations There were no Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM for this topic.





Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 3.1.1Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. Territorial waters are not a water body category under WFD. However, it should be noted that under Article 2(1) of the WFD, territorial waters are included for the assessment and reporting of chemical status. Separate monitoring programmes were reported for surface waters and for groundwater including both surveillance and operational monitoring. Monitoring sites Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the first and second RBMPs, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring between the first and second RBMPs. Overall there was a small increase in the number of sites used for operational and/or surveillance monitoring of surface waters in the Netherlands, 854 for the first plan and 857 for the second. However, there were significant decreases in the numbers of sites used for the surveillance monitoring of all four water categories from the first to the second RBMPs. Proportionally the largest decrease was in coastal waters where numbers decreased from 26 for the first RBMP to 10 for the second RBMP. There were also significant decreases in numbers of operational sites in coastal (44 %) and transitional waters (30 %) but small increases in operational sites in lakes (2 %) and rivers (1 %) from the first to the second RBMPs.



Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in the Netherlands for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in the first RBMPs, the data for the second RBMPs does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op second RBMP NL_EM 2 6 5 14 2 2 1 1 NL_MS 38 129 7 70 1 4 1 1 NL_RN 29 208 54 359 4 5 5 7 NL_SC 0 1 14 22 4 3 3 1 Total by type of site 69 344 80 465 11 14 10 10 Total number of monitoring sites 354 475 16 12 first RBMP NL_EM 2 5 5 14 4 4 2 1 NL_MS 48 140 11 51 3 5 4 2 NL_RN 31 193 67 359 3 7 13 10 NL_SC 0 1 12 30 4 4 7 5 Total by type of site 81 339 95 454 14 20 26 18 Total number of monitoring sites 342 462 23 27 Surv. = Surveillance monitoring, Op. = Operational Monitoring Sources: Member States electronic reports to WISE Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in the Netherlands Monitoring Purpose Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Chemical status 184 298 9 8 Ecological status 322 444 14 11 Operational monitoring 344 465 14 10 EIONET State of Environment monitoring 35 26 16 12 Surveillance monitoring 69 80 11 10 Total sites irrespective of purpose 355 475 16 12 Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in the Netherlands for the first RBMP (2010) and second RBMP (2016). Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring Source: WISE electronic reporting To add context to the assessment of the number of water bodies used in monitoring, there was a 40 % reduction in the number of identified coastal water bodies from the first to the second RBMPs. There was also a small decrease in the numbers of river water bodies (254 to 246) and an increase of one in the number of lakes. Overall five transitional water bodies were identified for both periods. There was a small reduction in the proportion of coastal, lake and river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring from the first to the second RBMP. For example, for river water bodies 82 (18 %) were included in surveillance monitoring for the first RBMP compared to 72 (16 %) for the second RBMP. All five transitional water bodies were included in surveillance monitoring for the second RBMP compared to four of the five for the first RBMP. In terms of river and coastal water bodies, there was a reduction in the proportion included in operational monitoring between the two RBMPs, and an increase in the proportion of lakes and all transitional water bodies were included for both RBMPs. The largest proportional change (reduction) was for rivers with 249 (98 %) being included in operational monitoring for the first RBMP and 221 (90 %) for the second RBMP. Monitored water bodies used for ecological status/potential Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance monitoring within each ecological status class. Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in the Netherlands Source: WISE electronic reporting Transboundary surface water body monitoring The Netherlands did not report any transboundary surface water bodies, but did report two transboundary groundwater bodies in the Scheldt RBD. The Netherlands did not report any monitoring sites that were part of international networks even though it is likely that some are used for this purpose. Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of water bodies for the second RBMP. No differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in the Netherlands (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note: quality element may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Angiosperms Macroalgae Other aquatic flora Other species Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Lakes Yes No (Yes) No (Yes) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rivers Yes No (Yes) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes No (Yes) No Yes Yes Yes Coastal Yes Yes No No (Yes) No Yes No No General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinand for nutrient conditions Lakes No (Yes) No (Yes) Yes No (Yes) No (Yes) Yes Yes No No Rivers No (Yes) Yes No (Yes) No (Yes) Yes Yes No No Transitional No No (Yes) Yes No No Yes Yes No No Coastal No No (Yes) No (Yes) No No Yes Yes (No) No No

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets provided by the Netherlands subsequent to WISE reporting. Two RBDs have one coastal water body each, which were reported not to be monitored. The expected biological quality elements are monitored in the other two RBDs within coastal waters. All the expected biological quality elements are monitored in some lake water bodies. There is only one reported river water body in one RBD, which in terms of biological quality elements was only monitored for other aquatic flora. In the other three RBDs with rivers, all the expected biological quality elements were monitored in some water bodies. In none of the RBDs with transitional water bodies are all the expected biological quality elements monitored. Fish and benthic invertebrates are not monitored in transitional water bodies in two RBDs. Hydromorphological quality elements were not reported to be monitored in any coastal water body in the Netherlands and in the transitional water bodies in two of the four RBDs with transitional water bodies. Hydrological regime is not monitored in lakes in one RBD but the expected elements are in the other three RBDs. Continuity and hydrological regime are monitored in rivers in three of the four RBDs with rivers; morphological conditions are monitored in rivers in three of the four RBDs. In general, only two types of general physicochemical quality elements are monitored in the Netherlands: nutrient and oxygenation conditions. The other groups (transparency, thermal conditions, salinity and acidification status) are not reported to be monitored . Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a RBMP i.e. six years. For phytoplankton this should be done twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements once during that year. As a guideline, operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. All biological quality elements used for surveillance monitoring in all four water categories were sampled at, or more than, the minimum WFD recommended frequency at all sites at which they were monitored. In coastal waters two of the three, in transitional waters three of the four and in rivers one of the five biological quality elements used for operational monitoring were sampled with a compliant frequency at all of the sites where they were monitored. In lakes none of the biological quality elements were reported as having been sampled at this frequency at all sites. River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements: once every three months is recommended for “other pollutants” which are taken here to equate to river basin specific pollutants. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a river basin management plan i.e. six years. For river basin specific pollutants the frequency should be four times for the surveillance year, and for operational monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle. 213 River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in water (only) in the Netherlands including 102 reported as "other chemical substances". 212 of these were included in surveillance monitoring of water, all were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites where they were monitored. Of the 213 River Basin Specific Pollutants included in operational monitoring only four (2 %) were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites where they were monitored. For 25 substances (12 %) none of the sites were sampled at this frequency. Table 3.4 shows the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in the Netherlands for the first and second RBMPs. A small reduction in monitoring of rivers (six sites) is observed with a greater reduction for lakes (49 sites, a 16 % reduction). Transitional and coastal water have remained the same. Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMP and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants reported in the first RBMP in the Netherlands. Note, the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also not all Member State reported information at the site level meaning that there were no equivalent data for the first RBMP RBMP Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants 176 315 8 8 second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 170 266 8 8 Sources: WISE electronic reporting Use of monitoring results for classification Grouping was not used in the classification of ecological status/potential at the quality element level. However, the Netherlands also reported that the grouping of water bodies has been used in extrapolating the assessment and classification of ecological status from monitored water bodies to those water bodies with no monitoring sites. Monitoring results were solely used in coastal and transitional waters, and overwhelmingly used in lakes (~95 % of total lake water bodies) and rivers (~95 % of total river water bodies). Expert judgement was used to approximately the same extent in rivers and lakes where around 1 % of water bodies were classified by this means. There is a mismatch between the number of water bodies monitored for different quality elements (fewer) and the number of water bodies classified based on monitoring results (more) for the same quality elements. 3.1.2Ecological Status/potential of surface water The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in the Netherlands for the second RBMPs is illustrated in Map 3.1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status. Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential and Figure 3.4 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in the Netherlands for the first RBMPs with that for the second (based on the most recent assessment of status/potential) and that expected by 2015).

Map 3.1Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in the Netherlands based on the most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1(4)(2)(i). High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown RBDs Countries outside the European Union Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) Figure 3.3 Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in the Netherlands based on the most recently assessed status/potential Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.4 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in the Netherlands for the second RBMPs, for the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2009 to 2014. The year of the assessment of status for first RBMPs is not known Source: WISE electronic reporting Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Netherlands is shown in Figure 3.5 . Figure 3.5 Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in the Netherlands. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category Source: WISE electronic reporting All water bodies have been classified, except three artificial/heavily modified lakes in the Rhine RBD. This is an improvement for the two saline water categories since the first RBMPs, when 25 % of transitional and coastal water bodies were of unknown status/potential. Based on the one-out-all-out approach, there are still only two water bodies in good or better ecological status/potential for the second RBMP in spite of the first RBMPs objective to achieve good ecological status/potential by 2015 for 9-13 % of artificial and heavily modified water bodies and for 28 % of the natural water bodies. The achievement of the good status objective has now been postponed to 2027 or later for most of the water bodies. For the first RBMP there were three water bodies at good status/potential. There was a small reduction in the proportion of water bodies with unknown status/potential from 1.1 % (eight water bodies) in the first RBMP to 0.4 % (three water bodies) for the second. At the level of the individual biological quality element there has been some progress between the two RBMPs in terms of an increase in the proportion of surface water bodies achieving good ecological status/potential. For example, in terms of benthic invertebrates the proportion of surface water bodies at good status/potential for the first plan was 19 % (724 water bodies) increasing to 25 % (711 water bodies) for the second. The RBMP for the Rhine RBD reports that ecological status/potential has improved significantly since 2009; the improvement is due to improvements in most biological quality elements, except fish, which remained more or less stable. The improvement is still not sufficient to improve the overall status/potential to good or high.

A comparison with the status in 2009 in the Scheldt RBMP shows a mixed picture: water bodies in good or high status have decreased for algae, while there is an increase of water bodies in good/high status for benthic invertebrates, fish and macrophytes. There are still no water bodies with good/high ecological status/potential. A similar comparison in the Ems RBMP shows that the ecological status has improved since 2009; overall improvements are still not enough to move the ecological status from good to high. It is stated in the Meuse RBMP that there is a significant improvement compared to 2009 for all quality elements. However, this is still not sufficient to improve the overall ecological status to good or high. Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element Figure 3.6 shows the percentage of water bodies in terms of the biological quality element used for classification. Figure 3.6 Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of surface waters in the Netherlands. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential, and those that are monitored but not classified or not applicable, are not presented. Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements for the first and second RBMPs for rivers and lakes. It should be noted that this comparison should be treated with some caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements between the first and second RBMPs and slight changes due to adaptation to Intercalibration and technical improvement of biological metrics. In general for the elements provided in Figure 3.7 the percentage of rivers and lakes at high/good status has increased. Figure 3.7 Comparison of ecological status/potential in the Netherlands according to classified biological quality elements in rivers and lakes between the two RBMPs Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of water bodies in the Netherlands for the second RBMPs. The classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.10 . Figure 3.8 The classification of the ecological status or potential of water bodies in the Netherlands using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element. Note: the four types are: biological; hydromorphological, general physicochemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.9 The percentage of water bodies in the Netherlands where no biological quality element or no hydromorphological (HYMO) or no general physicochemical (PHYSCHEM) or no river basin specific pollutant (RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential

Source: WISE electronic reporting. The Netherlands noted that hydromorphology has, in fact, been used in classification. Figure 3.10 Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in the Netherlands. The percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category. Source: WISE electronic reporting Several quality elements are reported to be in good status/potential in a large proportion of water bodies in all or some of the RBDs: These are phytoplankton in coastal and transitional waters and oxygenation conditions in all the water categories. There are also several other quality elements in good status/potential in many water bodies in most of the RBDs, e.g. all biological quality elements in lakes, transparency and nutrients in lakes, benthic invertebrates in rivers and other aquatic flora and benthic invertebrates in transitional waters. For many water bodies, a change in class is reported for several quality elements, but there is no clear pattern for the different quality elements, some changes are to the better and others to the worse. Some of the changes are reported as consistent, others are due to changes in monitoring and/or assessment systems. Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements Assessment methods are developed for all biological quality elements in all water categories except macroalgae in transitional and coastal waters . A new method for angiosperms has been developed for transitional and coastal waters. Reference conditions are set for all types and all the biological quality elements where methods are developed. The sensitivity of several of the biological quality element methods to different impacts have been reported as impact-specific. The methodology document referenced in the RBMPs was examined for major changes in assessment methodologies for the biological quality elements. There did not appear to be any major changes in methodology, except for a reference to the calculation of confidence levels of the overall ecological assessment and the fact that a new method had been developed for angiosperms in transitional and coastal waters, compared with the first RBMP. Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems A number of water body types are reported to have been linked to the common intercalibration types, but it is not clear which biological quality element methods have been intercalibrated, and how the class boundaries have been set for national types not linked to the common intercalibration types. All national types are linked to an intercalibration type, except three brackish water lake types. Surprisingly, two national river types with calcareous geology, R17 and R18, have been linked to a siliceous intercalibration type: R-C1 . Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements The use of hydromorphological quality elements in the classification of ecological status/potential is generally lacking even though certain hydromorphological quality elements (hydrological or tidal regime, river continuity conditions and morphological conditions) are reported to be supporting sensitive biological quality elements. Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements Common standards are reported for all types of water bodies in all water categories for thermal conditions, oxygenation conditions and nutrient conditions, for transparency in lakes, and for salinity and acidification in rivers and lakes. The nutrient standards are higher than the saturation level for nutrient sensitive biological quality elements, although they are indicated to support these biological quality elements. Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards

It is reported in the methodology paper (cited in the RBMPs) that there is a list of substances with significant emissions (diffuse and point) that have been added to the list of substances to be monitored. Environmental Quality Standards were reported for 96 different River Basin Specific Pollutants; all standards were for water only. All standards have been derived in accordance with the 2011 Technical Guidance Document Number 27 and the analytical methods used meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC ) for the strictest standard applied for all substances. Overall classification of ecological status The Netherlands reported that the one-out-all-out principle has been used in all RBDs. 3.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs Overall there was a small increase in the number of sites used for operational and/or surveillance monitoring of surface waters in the Netherlands between the two plans. However, there were significant decreases in the numbers of sites used for the surveillance monitoring of all four water categories between the two RBMPs in the Netherlands. Proportionally the largest decrease was in coastal waters where numbers decreased from 26 for the first RBMP to 10 for the second RBMP. There were also significant decreases in numbers of operational sites in coastal (44 %) and transitional waters (30 %) but small increases in operational sites in lakes (2 %) and rivers (1 %) from the first to the second RBMPs. The confidence in classification of ecological status/potential is given as high or medium for all water bodies, which is a major improvement since the first RBMP, where no information was given on confidence. All water bodies have been classified, except three artificial/heavily modified lakes in the Rhine RBD. This is an improvement for the two saline water categories since the first RBMP, when 25 % of transitional and coastal water bodies were unknown. For many water bodies, a change in class is reported for several quality elements, but there is no clear pattern for the different quality elements, some changes are to the better and others to the worse. Some of the changes are reported as consistent, others are due to changes in monitoring and/or assessment systems. River Basin Specific Pollutants are monitored in all RBDs, the methodology for analysis and assessment is well described, and the water bodies and substances causing exceedances of the Environmental Quality Standard values are reported. 3.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM requested action on the following: •Recommendation: The identification of River Basin Specific Pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place. Assessment: The Netherlands reported details of the specific River Basin Specific Pollutants monitored in each RBD. River Basin Specific Pollutants were also used in the classification of ecological status/potential and the River Basin Specific Pollutants causing the failure of status were also given. Environmental quality standards were also reported for 96 River Basin Specific Pollutants for the Netherlands and the standards were all reported to have been derived in accordance with the 2011 Technical Guidance Document Number 27. In these aspects, it is clear that the Netherlands has met this recommendation.

Topic 4Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 4.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 4.1.1Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for monitoring of chemical status

Member States have to implement surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in accordance with the requirements of the WFD and of the EQS Directive, for the assessment of ecological status/potential and chemical status. Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate the impact assessment procedure, to efficiently and effectively review the design of their monitoring programmes, and to assess the long-term changes in natural conditions and those resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity. For operational purposes, monitoring is required to establish the status of waterbodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such waterbodies resulting from the PoM. Section 3.1.1 of this report summarises the characteristics of the surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in the Netherlands for the second RBMP. Figure 4.1 summarises the proportion of sites used for the monitoring of chemical status in surface waters for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. More detailed information can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency . Up to 67 % of monitoring sites are used for the monitoring of chemical status in surface waters. Although not reported to WISE, the Netherlands clarified that territorial waters have been monitored for chemical status.

Figure 4.1 Proportion of sites used for monitoring of chemical status and, for comparison, ecological status, in the Netherlands. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of monitoring sites irrespective of their purpose Source: WISE electronic reporting A large proportion of the monitoring sites in each water category are used for the monitoring of ecological status (88-93 %) with a smaller proportion (52-67 %) used for chemical status ( Figure 4.1 ). According to WISE, for surface water bodies across all RBDs in Netherlands, a higher proportion of sites was monitored for chemical status under operational monitoring (58 % of total sites monitored) than under surveillance monitoring (14 % of total sites monitored). For water bodies, similar percentages were reported respectively for operational and surveillance monitoring (58 % and 16 % respectively). However, the Netherlands subsequently informed that all sites monitored for chemical status were included in the surveillance monitoring programme with a proportion of these also included in the operational monitoring programme. Between the two RBMPs, according to WISE, there was a net decrease in monitoring sites and surface water bodies monitored for operational purposes (an increase of four sites and decrease of 26 water bodies), the increase was associated with an increase in lake monitoring sites. For surveillance monitoring the number of sites has decreased by 43, and for water bodies the decrease was 21 since the first cycle. This comparison should however be taken with caution as there may be issues with reporting of sites for surveillance/ operational monitoring as mentioned above. The apparent overall reduction in the number of sites and water bodies monitored may at least partially result from a reduction in the number of water bodies delineated in the second RBMP. Figure 4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in surface waters for the second RBMP. For this figure, no distinction is made between water bodies used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. Also given is the proportion of water bodies monitored for any purpose and, for comparative purpose, those for ecological status. Figure 4.2 Proportion of total water bodies in each category which are monitored, monitored for chemical status and monitored for ecological status, in the Netherlands. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of water bodies in that category Source: WISE electronic reporting A high proportion of surface waterbodies were monitored for ecological status in the second cycle in all water categories with fewer surface freshwater water bodies monitored for chemical status; higher proportions were monitored in transitional and coastal water bodies where the total numbers are fewer. All transitional water bodies failing to achieve good status were covered by operational monitoring in the Netherlands. This was also the case for 57-78 % of lake water bodies failing to achieve good status, 67 % for coastal water bodies failing to achieve good status in the Rhine RBD, the Scheldt RBDs and all coastal water bodies in the Ems RBD and the Meuse RBDs. For river water bodies, 67-78 % failing to achieve good chemical status were monitored in the Ems RBD, the Meuse RBD and the Rhine RBDs. This is consistent with the use of grouping and expert judgement in the assessment of chemical status in the absence of monitoring data. Long-term trend monitoring and monitoring of Priority Substances in water, sediment and biota for status assessment

Monitoring for status assessment Requirements Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order to provide inter alia a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of Priority Substances, frequency and numbers of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009), mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene have to be monitored in biota for status assessment, unless Member States derived a standard for another matrix, which is at least as protective as the biota standard. Spatial Coverage Overall in the Netherlands, according to WISE, all substances are monitored, except total DDT, brominated diphenylethers, and hexachlorocyclohexane which are not monitored in any RBD, and nonylphenol which is not reported to be monitored in the Scheldt and Meuse RBDs. However, the Netherlands subsequently clarified that hexachlorocyclohexane, brominated diphenylethers and 4-nonylphenol are monitored, unless in areas where no emissions, discharges or losses are identified. According to WISE, in all RBDs in the Netherlands, 25 % or more coastal water bodies were monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances in water. The Netherlands subsequently informed that all coastal waters were monitored for 10 or more Priority Substances. 64 % of lake water bodies are monitored for 10 or more Priority Substances in the Ems RBD, but for the remaining RBDs only 6 to 10 % of lakes were monitored for this number of Priority Substances. In the Ems RBD, 80 % of river water bodies were monitored for 10 or more Priority Substances; for the other RBDs less than 15 % were monitored for this number of Priority Substances. The majority of transitional waters across all RBDs were monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances, with the exception of the Ems RBD where four Priority Substances were monitored. The Netherlands subsequently mentioned that in coastal waters all Priority Substances are monitored, but most Priority Substances are found in concentrations below the limit of quantification. This should however be treated with caution, as it seems there may be issues with the reporting (in particular for substances such as hexachlorocyclohexane, brominated diphenylethers andnonylphenol). Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were not monitored in sediment or biota. The Netherlands monitors for these substances in water for status assessment. Frequencies The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances in water, the frequency of monitoring should be, respectively,at least monthly for one year during the RBMP cycle and at least monthly every year. Monitoring in biota for status assessment should take place at least once every year according to the EQS Directive. In all cases greater intervals can be applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. Monitoring frequencies in water are reported for between 35 and 38 Priority Substances at site level (depending on the RBD) with a frequency of 12 times per year and once per cycle. This meets the requirement for surveillance monitoring. Between 29 and 38 Priority Substances (depending on the RBD) were monitored with a frequency of 12 times per year and each year in the cycle. This meets the requirement for operational monitoring. 18 Priority Substances were monitored with frequencies ranging from zero to six times per year and from at least once to twice per cycle. These frequencies do not meet the recommended minimum frequencies for either surveillance or operational monitoring. It could not be determined whether these reduced frequencies resulted from a reporting mistake or whether they were chosen based on expert judgment or technical knowledge. In the Danube RBD in particular, several substances are reported to be monitored every three RBMPs in at least some sites, which is likely to be the implementation of Annex V section 1.3.1, for cases where the previous surveillance monitoring exercise showed that the body concerned reached good status and there is no evidence that the impacts on the water body have changed. Monitoring for long term assessment Requirements Article 3.3 of the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 14 Priority Substances that tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota, for the purpose of long-term trend assessment.



Spatial coverage The Netherlands does not monitor any Priority Substances in sediment or biota for trend assessment. No information was reported regarding whether arrangements were in place for the long-term trend analysis of concentrations of those Priority Substances in the Netherlands. However, the RBMPs indicate that monitoring in the water column is used for trend assessment as well as for status assessment. The sampling locations for the trend monitoring consist of one monitoring site per water body (the same as for status monitoring). The chemical trend monitoring network consists of locations in river mouths in the RBDs, at borders and at representative locations in important water bodies or large lakes. Frequencies

Monitoring should take place at least once every three years, unless technical knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval. The Netherlands does not report monitoring frequencies for trend assessment. Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in each RBD Annex V of the WFD states, in Section 1.3.1 (Design of surveillance monitoring), that “Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a river basin management plan for [inter alia]: priority list pollutants which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin.” Section 1.3.2 (Design of operational monitoring) of the Directive states that “In order to assess the magnitude of the pressure to which bodies of surface water are subject Member States shall monitor for those quality elements which are indicative of the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. In order to assess the impact of these pressures, Member States shall monitor as relevant [inter alia]: all priority substances discharged, and other pollutants discharged in significant quantities.” Member States are therefore required to monitor all Priority Substances which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin. The Netherlands reported that 32 Priority Substances were included in an inventory and discharged for each of the RBDs (the Netherlands clarified that for substances not included in the inventories no emission has been identified). Between 90 and 94 % of Priority Substances discharged were monitored in the RBDs in the Netherlands. However, according to WISE, in all four RBDs the following two substances were in an inventory and discharged but were not monitored: hexachlorocyclohexane and brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154) but in two RBDs (the Meuse RBD and the Scheldt RBD) this was the case for a third substance, 4-nonylphenol. The Netherlands subsequently clarified that these substances are monitored where emissions, discharged or losses have been identified. Performances of analytical methods used In the Netherlands, for all monitored Priority Substances the analytical methods used meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC ) for the strictest standard applied. The method of dealing with measurements of Priority Substances lower than the limit of quantification is as specified in Article 5 of the QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC) for all four RBDs in the Netherlands. 4.1.2Chemical Status of surface water bodies Member States are required to report the year on which the assessment of chemical status is based. This may be the year that the surface water body was monitored. In case of grouping this may be the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies within a group that are used to extrapolate results to non-monitored surface water bodies within the same group. For the Netherlands, the assessment of chemical status was undertaken between 2009 and 2014. The Netherlands subsequently clarified that monitoring data from 2012, 2013 and 2014 was used preferentially for the status assessment in the second RBMP but where data was missing from one of these years then it was supplemented with data from previous years. The chemical status of surface water bodies in the Netherlands for the second RBMP is illustrated in Map 4.1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status. Map 4.1Chemical status of surface water bodies in the Netherlands based on the most recently assessed status of the surface water bodies Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3 Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The chemical status of surface waters in the Netherlands for the first and second RBMPs is given in Table 4.1 . The Netherlands reported chemical status in the second RBMP based on the environmental quality standards laid down in the revised EQS Directive (2013/39/EU) and therefore direct comparison with chemical status in the first RBMP is not possible.

Table 4.1 Chemical status of surface water bodies in the Netherlands for the second and first RBMPs. Note: the number in parenthesis next to the water category is the number of water bodies. Note: chemical status assessment is based on the standards laid down in EQS Directive 2013/139/EU (version in force on 12 August 2013). Some Member States did not fully implement the Directive in the first RBMPs as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs Category Good Failing to achieve good Unknown Number % Number % Number % second RBMP Rivers (246) 103 42 % 96 (134) 39 % (54 %) 47 (9) 19 % (4 %) Lakes (451) 176 (175) 39 % 259 (265) 57 % (59 %) 16 (11) 4 % (2 %) Transitional (5) 5 100 % Coastal (9) 8(9) 89 % (100 %) 1 (0) 11 % (0 %) Total (711) 279 39 % 368 52 % 64 9 % first RBMP Rivers (254) 153 60. % 71 28. % 30 12 % Lakes (450) 352 78 % 89 20 % 9 2 % Transitional (5) 5 Coastal (15) 1 7. % 14 93. % Total (724) 506 70 % 179 25 % 39 5 % Source: WISE electronic reporting(the numbers in parenthesis were subsequently provided by the Netherlands, who clarified they could not report to WISE the failure of chemical status according to the 2013 environmental quality standards for some of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and hexachlorocyclohexane). Overall the number of surface water bodies has decreased from 724 in the first cycle to 711 in the second cycle. The majority of surface water bodies in the second RBMP are failing to achieve good status (52 %) with 39 % at good status and 9 % in unknown status. In the Netherlands as a whole, 23 % of water bodies were classified by monitoring, 69 % by grouping and 9 % by expert judgement . The approach described in the RBMPs indicates that, where monitoring data is available, the one-out-all-out principle has been applied. Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMP. Figure 4.3 Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies in the Netherlands based on the most recently assessed status/potential Source: WISE electronic reporting Overall 91 % of surface water bodies in the Netherlands were classified for chemical status with high confidence and 9 % with medium confidence (the high confidence reported in WISE for water bodies in unknown status probably results from a reporting mistake). The Netherlands subsequently clarified that grouping is only applied when the confidence of the classification within the group is high. Confidence in the classification of chemical status for the first RBMPs was not reported. Figure 4.4 compares the chemical status of surface water bodies in the Netherlands for the first RBMPs with that for the second cycle (based on the most recent assessment of status) and that expected by 2015. The direct comparison of chemical status between the first and second RBMP is not possible because the assessment of chemical status in the second RBMP was undertaken based on the more stringent environmental quality standards in the revised EQS Directive (2013/39/EU). More information on the chemical status in each RBD and water category can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency . Figure 4.4 Chemical status of surface water bodies in the Netherlands for the second RBMP, for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for both cycles. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2009 to 2014. The year of the assessment of status for first RBMP is not known. Note also that the assessment of chemical status in the second RBMP was based on the more stringent standards in the revised Environmental Standards Directive (2013/39/EU). The use of th