EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 55 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Slovenia 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) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 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 Plans Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 1.3 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 3.2 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 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 and Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first 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 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 16.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Appendix A Topic 9 Programme of Measures: Table 1 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 RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Annex 0 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 RBMPs prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then.



General Information There are four major European geographic regions that meet in Slovenia: the Alps, the Dinaric area, the Pannonian plain and the Mediterranean. In the west, it is bounded by the Adriatic Sea. Slovenia is divided into two RBDs: Danube and Adriatic. Slovenia shares catchments with Member States and third countries. The information on areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in Table A. Table A Overview of Slovenia’s RBDs RBD Name Size (km2) Countries sharing borders SIRBD1 Danube 16440 AT, HR, HU, IT SIRBD2 Adriatic 3941 HR, IT Source: WISE electronic reporting The share of Slovenia in the respective international RBDs (Table B) is 2.0% (Danube) and 66.7% (Adriatic). Table B Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Slovenia Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing RBD Co-ordination category 1 2 km² % km² % Danube SIRBD1 AT, HR, HU, IT 16440 2.0 Adriatic SIRBD2 HR, IT 3941 66.7 Source: WISE electronic reporting 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 two RBMPs of Slovenia (Danube, Adriatic) were published on 28 October 2016. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .



Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plans The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMPs of Slovenia are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation Slovenia coordinated the preparation of its RBMP via the international commissions for the Sava and Danube and also via bilateral commissions with neighbouring Member States Slovenia did not adopt and publish the RBMPs in accordance with the timetable in the Water Framework Directive. ·Characterisation of the RBD Both the Danube and Adriatic RBDs are international RBDs. No surface water bodies and only one groundwater body were reported as being transboundary. Although, according to the information subsequently provided by Slovenia, transboundary water bodies were identified where relevant and when preparing a RBMP, possible transboundary pressures were taken into account, nevertheless, the transboundary character of water bodies should be made clear in the future. There are still gaps in the development of reference conditions, particularly for hydromorphological quality elements, which calls into question the robustness of the subsequent classification of ecological status/potential in Slovenia. The Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status and the measures to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2021 have been reported. Inventories of emissions were established in all RBDs, each including all Priority Substances. Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented for all of the substances included in the inventories, while the CIS Guidance Document recommends using Tier 1+2. The data quality was not reported. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status All required biological quality elements were reported to be monitored for surveillance purposes, with the exception of fish in lakes, in the Adriatic RBD and of macrophytes in some river water bodies in the Danube RBD, where Slovenia considers that they are not relevant. Hydromorphological quality elements are reported to not be included in surveillance monitoring in any water category. However, the hydrological regime is included in operational monitoring in all three water categories and morphological conditions in operational monitoring of lakes and rivers but not in coastal waters. Surveillance monitoring was done at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites monitored for phytoplankton in coastal waters and lakes. For lakes, this was also the case for the other four biological quality elements used for the surveillance monitoring. All the other biological quality elements in coastal waters and all biological quality elements used in rivers were not sampled for surveillance purposes at least at the minimum recommended frequency at any of the sites used. In terms of operational monitoring the only biological quality element sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites was phytoplankton in coastal waters and lakes. All other biological quality elements in all three water categories had no sites sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency for operational purposes. In coastal waters, there was no surveillance monitoring of oxygenation conditions. There was a significant improvement in the level of confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential since the first RBMPs.

Assessment methods for all the biological quality elements are developed, with the exception of fish in lakes and angiosperms in coastal waters. Most of the national lake types and some of the national river types are not linked to any intercalibration type. Slovenia reported that, for those types, the assessment methods are the same that are used for intercalibrated types. The hydromorphological methods were reported not to be related to the sensitive biological quality elements. There is still very little monitoring and classification of fish and hydromorphological quality elements in rivers and lakes. The hydrological regime and morphological conditions were not used in the classification of any water body, perhaps indicating some weaknesses in the assessment method for these elements. There are gaps in the standards established for general physicochemical quality elements in rivers and coastal waters and some of those established are not consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies All but one waterbodies are classified for chemical status. Territorial waters are also classified. Between the two RBMPs, there was a large decrease in the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status from 95% to 0.6% and a significant increase in the proportion failing to achieve good status from 5% to 99%. The principal reason for this is the assessment of mercury in biota in the second RBMP. The relevant environmental quality standard is widely exceeded in monitored water bodies and this has been extrapolated to non-monitored water bodies. All territorial waters, all coastal water bodies, and more than 80% of river and lake water bodies were monitored. Only 18% of surface water bodies in Slovenia were classified with high confidence and 82% with low confidence. A low level of confidence was reported for water bodies assessed based on extrapolation of mercury data in biota. However, Slovenia clarified that for most of the waterbodies, the assessment for the other substances was based on monitoring data, and the confidence in this assessment, for these substances, was high. All 41 Priority Substances were monitored in water for status assessment and the frequency of monitoring met the recommended minimum frequency for surveillance, but not for operational monitoring. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were monitored in biota for status assessment, at the recommended minimum frequency. Depending on the substance, monitoring was performed at about 10 to 18% of the sites monitored for chemical status. (This leads to a low confidence in the assessment for many water bodies – see above). Slovenia has monitored all required 14 Priority Substances in sediment for long-term trend assessment, at the minimum recommended frequency. Monitoring was performed in about 10 to 20% of the sites monitored for chemical status. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies All 21 groundwater bodies (100%) are in good quantitative status. ·A third of the groundwater bodies are still not subject to monitoring of quantitative status, but Slovenia subsequently clarified that the assessment of status is based on direct and indirect monitoring, where also hydrological and meteorological parameters are considered. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies ·All groundwater bodies are subject to monitoring. All substances causing risk of deterioration in chemical status are subject to surveillance monitoring. All WFD core parameters (nitrate, ammonium, electrical conductivity, oxygen and pH) are monitored. ·The status situation has improved. The number of groundwater bodies failing good chemical status was reduced from four groundwater bodies in the first RBMP to three. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential

According to information subsequently provided by Slovenia, for the second RBMPs, the characteristics of specific heavily modified water bodies were updated according to new knowledge and available data. Although expert studies that consider the designation tests were prepared for all heavily modified water bodies for the purpose of the first RBMPs, the second RBMPs do not provide specific information on how the significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment (Article 4(3)(a)) have been defined. They also do not provide information on whether the beneficial objectives served by the modifications of the heavily modified water bodies can be achieved by other means. According to information provided by Slovenia, significant effects of measures were considered in terms of costs of measures to achieve good status for the second RBMPs, but further work on this issue is expected as part of specific measures included in the Programme of Measures (PoM). In the first RBMPs, good ecological potential was only defined for rivers (using benthic invertebrates) but not for lakes and coastal waters. According to information subsequently provided by Slovenia, an adapted methodology for ecological potential assessment is used in the second RBMP. The methodology uses relevant biological quality elements for the assessment of the ecological potential of heavily modified and artificial water bodies, for example phytoplankton was used for lakes/reservoirs. However, no specific information could be found in the RBMPs on if and how actual values for biological quality elements for ecological potential are estimated. Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential were reported at RBD level. However, no information could be found on the ecological changes that the mitigation measures are designed to achieve. According to information subsequently provided by Slovenia, the detailed estimation of ecological improvements will be performed in the context of relevant measures included in the PoM. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies have been reported in all RBDs as well as for chemical and quantitative status of groundwater. Objectives have been reported for the period 2022-2027 but not the expected progress until 2021. Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported and justifications for exemptions are provided at the water body level. Article 4(4) exemptions are used more widely in surface waters and groundwater in the second cycle than in the first cycle. No exemptions according to Article 4(7) have been reported in the second RBMPs. There is no specific information available in the RBMPs whether the effects of any planned new modifications on water body status/potential have been assessed and whether an Article 4(7) assessment would be required. ·Programme of Measures The level of implementation of the first PoM in both RBDs (Danube and Adriatic) was reported as “some measures completed”, with the obstacles to progress reported as lack of finance and lack of measures in both RBDs. Some costs were reported in Annex 0 relating to economic analysis and cost recovery for the first cycle, but it is not possible to compare these with investment costs for the second cycle. KTMs have been reported for all significant pressures for groundwater and surface water bodies in the Danube RBD. KTMs have not been reported for all significant pressures in surface water in the Adriatic RBD (no significant pressures were identified for groundwater bodies in the Adriatic RBD). National basic and supplementary measures have been mapped against a limited number of predefined KTMs and a significant number of nationally developed KTMs. The number of KTMs against which national measures have been mapped is much larger than those reported to be tackling significant pressures. Therefore it is not clear if all the national measures are relevant or will be made operational. However, Slovenia subsequently clarified that all measures are relevant and will contribute to achieving environmental objectives. Although the number of groundwater bodies failing to be of good status due to specific substances has been reported for the Danube RBD, no KTMs have been reported to address them, although these may be (though nitrate has been covered by more general KTMs, e.g KTM2 – “Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture for nitrate). Indicator values have been reported for most significant pressures for 2015 and 2021, but little, if any progress is expected by 2021. The RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans have not been integrated. Financial commitments are marked “not relevant” and WFD Article 9(4) has not been applied to impoundments for flood protection. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity Water abstraction pressures were reported as not relevant for Slovenia. There is a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control abstractions of fresh surface water and groundwater, water impoundment and a register of impoundments and register of water abstractions; but small abstractions are exempted from these controls. The reporting of quantitative data on water consumption and trends can be improved.

The RBMPs do not include a water resource allocation and management plan. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. The contribution of the Nitrate Action Program and the Rural Development program to closing the gap is known. Basic measures under Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution are implemented and cover the reduction of pesticide, nitrates and microbiological pollution. Supplementary measures are also applied. Safeguard zones for the protection of drinking water are established The financing of agricultural measures has been secured in both RBDs. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture Measures were reported for all Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants causing non-compliance in Slovenia. Measures were reported to tackle pollutants causing failures in groundwater in the Danube RBD (no pollutant was causing failure of groundwater in the Adriatic RBD). In both RBDs there are several measures that separately deal with wastewater treatment from agglomerations larger or equal to 2000 population equivalent and smaller than 2000 population equivalent. Funding is reported to be secured for agglomerations equal or larger to 2000 population equivalent, but not for smaller agglomerations. Slovenia however expects that the objectives will be achieved in the years 2021 to 2027. ·Measures related to hydromorphology Operational KTMs are clearly reported to deal with significant hydromorphological pressures in both RBDs. From the information reported in WISE, no progress is evident in terms of closing the gap for significant hydromorphological pressures between 2015 and 2021. This raises major concerns on the level of ambition of the second RBMPs in terms of tackling significant hydromorphological pressures. According to information subsequently provided by Slovenia, for the implementation of the basic and supplementary measures included in the PoM to reduce hydromorphological pressures in the time period of 2016 – 2021, different phases are envisaged. In the first phase, prioritisation of technical measures will be performed, while in a second phase, priority technical measures will be implemented. A revision of the most significant water rights is also envisaged as part of two specific measures related to achieving good ecological potential in large hydropower plants and measures for reduction of negative impacts of river/lake/coastal waters engineering works. Ecological flows have been derived partly, i.e. for some relevant water bodies, in the two RBDs but the work is still on-going. The ecological flows which have been derived so far have been implemented only in some relevant water bodies. A study relevant to aligning ecological flows with good status has been completed but further action may be needed in terms of updating the current legislation on ecologically acceptable flows. KTM 23 - "Natural water retention measures" is not reported to tackle any significant pressures. However, according to information subsequently provided by Slovenia, natural water retention measures are considered in the Flood Risk Management Plan and are synergetic to RBMP measures, for instance measures for the reduction of negative impacts of land use in riparian zones, measures for the reduction of negative impacts of river/lake/coastal waters engineering works and measures for the reduction of negative impacts of drainage systems. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies A wide definition of water services has been used. The RBMPs do not provide sufficiently detailed information on the methodologies and approaches used for the calculation of environmental and resource costs and cost recovery rates to allow for an exact assessment of the progress since the first cycle. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures)

The second RBMP provided summarised information on all Surface Drinking Water Protected Areas which were designated in the second cycle. However, Slovenia did not report any specific monitoring programmes for Protected Areas, although this seems to be related to a gap in the information reported to WISE. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change Slovenia has not reported an assessment and consideration of projected climate change in the second RBMP and PoM. However, according to the information subsequently provided by Slovenia, the RBMPs and the PoM include data and analyses that show the impact of climate change, for both surface and groundwater bodies. KTM 24 – “adaption to climate change” is not made operational to address any of the significant pressures and specific sub-plans on climate change aspects are not reported. However, according to the information provided by Slovenia, there is one measure addressing climate change. No drought management plans are established.

· Recommendations ·The preparation of the next RBMPs should be carried out in accordance with the WFD timetable, to ensure the timely adoption of the third RBMPs. ·Clear information should be included in national RBMPs on international coordination efforts in order to increase transparency. ·Slovenia should further strengthen bilateral cooperation with neighbouring countries and continue to improve international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the WFD such as ensuring a harmonized approach for status assessment and a coordinated PoM in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·Slovenia needs to continue to work on reference conditions, in particular for hydromorphological Quality Elements. ·Slovenia needs to complete its review of significant pressures and impacts, in particular to reduce the significant number of pressures currently reported as “anthropogenic pressure – unknown”. ·Slovenia should continue to improve monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories. ·Slovenia should complete the development of assessment methods for all relevant biological quality elements in all water categories. ·The assessment of hydromorphological quality elements should be linked to sensitive biological quality elements, and a hydrological regime and morphological conditions should be used for the assessment of ecological status. Standards for general physicochemical quality elements should be set so that they are consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements and ensure a level of protection which is at least equivalent to that guaranteed by the repealed Freshwater Fish Directive. ·Slovenia should progress in the transfer of the results of intercalibration into all national types, and provide clear information on how boundaries are set for non-intercalibrated methods. ·Slovenia should continue improving the confidence in the assessment of status, in particular by making sure the spatial coverage of monitoring in biota is sufficient. If a different matrix is used, the corresponding explanations should be provided, as required by the Directive. ·Slovenia should report information on trend monitoring of pentachlorobenzene as part of the third RBMPs, and should carry out trend monitoring in lakes in the Adriatic RBD. ·Further efforts are needed to develop a clear and transparent methodology for the designation of heavily modified water bodies. Significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use or wider environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options needs to be evaluated based on clear criteria and made transparent in the RBMPs. A clear distinction needs to be made between the designation of heavily modified water bodies and the application of exemptions, particularly with regard to significant adverse effects on use and costs of measures. Similarly the definition of ecological potential requires improved transparency for objective setting, particularly if and how actual values for biological quality elements are derived at water body level based on a comprehensive set of mitigation measures.

·A significant number of Article 4(4) exemptions are still applied in the second RBMPs, which is an issue of concern. Efforts need to be continued to further improve the required assessments for the justification of exemptions, expected timeframe for the achievement of the objectives and related ambition of the PoM in order to ensure a timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·Slovenia needs to ensure a thorough assessment of any potential planned new modifications in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified by the Judgment of the Court in case C-461/13. The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) needs to be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status/potential of the water bodies. Respective information on the application of Article 4(7) needs to be reported in the RBMPs. ·All KTMs should be operational and all significant pressures addressed. ·Slovenia should make sure the measures reported for individual substances causing failure are sufficient to reach the WFD objectives of good status. Slovenia should also implement and clearly report measures to suppress emissions from priority hazardous substances. ·Work should continue to ensure the implementation of measures to address hydromorphological pressures, if necessary by reviewing permits/concessions and allocating the necessary resources. ·Slovenia should continue to consider river restoration and prioritise the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, increase water infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. ·Slovenia should continue to apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). It should transparently present how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. Slovenia should also transparently present the water-pricing policy and provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. ·Slovenia has set objectives for the most relevant Protected Areas but it still needs to work on the additional objectives related to the Habitat and Birds Directives. Surface Freshwater Fish Protected Areas under the repealed Directive have not been reported. ·Based on the prevalence of local drought in sub-basins, as one of the effects of climate change, Slovenia should consider preparing drought management plans where appropriate.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – RBDs Slovenia has designated two RBDs, the Danube and the Adriatic. Slovenia prepared an RBMP for each of its RBDs. Both are parts of international RBDs – the first part of the Danube River Basin and the second shared with Croatia and Italy. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Slovenia lists one Competent Authority, the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, which is responsible for all main roles: monitoring and assessment of status of groundwater and surface water, enforcement of regulations, pressure and impact analysis, economic analysis, preparation of RBMPs and PoM, public participation, implementation of measures, co-ordination of implementation, and reporting to the Commission. 1.1.3River Basin Management Plans – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment Both RBMPs in Slovenia underwent a Strategic Environmental Assessment. 1.1.4Public participation and active involvement of stakeholders For both RBDs, the public and interested parties were informed by: direct mailing, Internet, invitations to stakeholders, local authorities and media (papers, television and radio). Documents were available by direct mailing (email) and via download. Documents were available for the requisite six months.

The following mechanisms were used for the active involvement of stakeholders: involvement in drafting, workshops for stakeholders (agriculture, energy, and water management operations) and regional workshops for the public, NGOs and small or large industrial companies. Public consultation had the following impacts in both RBDs: adjustment to specific measures, changes to selection of measures, commitment to action in the RBMP and commitment to further research. 1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Slovenia’s RBMPs have a measure for the implementation of the Flood Risk Management Plans, indicating a close link between the plans. Moreover, Slovenia reported that joint consultation was held for the separate RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans. Further information on integration with respect to measures is provided in Chapter 9 of this report. Joint consultation was held for the RBMPs and for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive . 1.1.6International coordination and co-operation For Slovenia's Danube RBD an international agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP are all in place (designated as category 1 cooperation). Explicit links have been made with national RBMPs within the international RBMP. For Slovenia's Adriatic RBD, which has catchments shared with Croatia and Italy, an international agreement and permanent co-operation body are in place (designated as category 2 cooperation). For both RBDs, there was international coordination of public participation. The RBMPs provide information on bilateral international cooperation and, for the Danube RBMP, within the Danube and Sava international IRBDs. As noted, co-operation in the Danube is in category 1: Slovenia is a party to the 1994 Danube River Protection Convention and the 2002 Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin. Under these agreements, Slovenia cooperates with other countries sharing RBDs via the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River and the International Sava River Basin Commission. For further information see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive. Slovenia also has a range of bilateral agreements on freshwater management with neighbouring Member States, including the following: ·With Austria: Agreement between Yugoslavia and Austria Concerning Water Management Questions in respect of the Frontier Sector of the Mura River and the Agreement between the Governments of Yugoslavia and Austria concerning Water Management related to the Drava River, and co-operation via Permanent Commissions for these two rivers (in place from the early 1990s). ·With Croatia: Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the Government of the Republic of Slovenia on the Settlement of Water Management Relations (1996), and co-operation via the Permanent Slovenian – Croatian Commission for Water Management. ·With Hungary: Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the Government of the Republic of Slovenia on the Issues of Water Management, and co-operation via the Permanent Slovenian – Hungarian Commission for Water Management. ·With Italy: Agreement on the activity of Yugoslavian – Italian commission on water management, and co-operation via the Permanent Slovenian – Italian Commission for Water Management. According to information in the second RBMPs: ·Slovenia coordinated the preparation of the second RBMP for the Danube with the international Danube and Sava River RBMPs with officials of the international commissions included as experts, ensuring that content is harmonised. Moreover, this national RBMP took into account planning documents under international commissions. ·Cooperation with neighbouring countries was ensured via the international Commissions as well as bilateral Commissions and working groups. ·Cooperation included participation in international monitoring networks. 1.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle In the first cycle, Slovenia prepared a single document that provided the RBMP for both its RBDs. In the second cycle Slovenia prepared separate RBMPs for the two RBDs. A minor change (at least for the purposes of this assessment) is that Slovenia's national authority for the WFD is again named the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (from early 2012, the authority was the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, and the last reorganisation appears to have restored the original Ministry).

1.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Coordinate the preparation of the next RBMPs with the preparation of the international Danube RBMP and the Sava RBMP and ensure that co-operation with the neighbouring countries extends to all shared catchments. A link should be established to existing international RBMPs and international monitoring networks in the RBMPs. The RBMPs should provide information on key issues (e.g. PoM) subject to international co-ordination. Slovenia should enhance international cooperation with neighbouring countries, mainly for the river basins in the Adriatic RBD. Assessment: The first RBMP did not provide information on international RBDs or RBMPs, nor describe coordination on RBMPs with other Member States: Slovenia was recommended to coordinate the preparation of the second RBMPs with the international Danube and Sava River RBMPs, to ensure co-operation with neighbouring countries and to provide links to existing international RBMPs and monitoring networks in the RBMPs, as well as information on key issues subject to international coordination, such as the PoM. This co-operation has taken place, both on a bilateral basis with Slovenia’s neighbours and for the international Danube and Sava RBMPs: Slovenia’s Danube RBMP, for example, describes Slovenia’s cooperation within these two international RBDs and bilateral cooperation with Austria, Croatia and Hungary. In separate documents, bilateral monitoring networks with neighbouring countries are described . Slovenia has fulfilled this recommendation.



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 Overall, the number of water bodies remained largely the same between the first and second RBMPs ( Table 2.1 ). According to the data reported to WISE, there was one less coastal water body, two less lake water bodies and two additional river water bodies in the second RBMPs. The numbers of groundwater bodies remained the same ( Table 2.2 ). In the second RBMPs, 85% of identified surface water bodies were natural with 12% being designated as heavily modified and 3% artificial. This was also the situation in the first RBMPs ( Figure 1 ). The water uses and physical alterations have been reported for each heavily modified water body category. Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Slovenia for the second and first cycles Year RBD Rivers Lakes 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 2016 Danube 112 4 103 9 30 2016 Adriatic 25 631 3 2 5 85 2016 Total 137 4 734 12 32 5 85 2010 Danube 110 2 226 11 36 2010 Adriatic 25 393 3 2 6 404 2010 Total 135 2 620 14 38 6 404 Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.2 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Slovenia for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 Danube 18 97.2 3357.44 913.48 2016 Adriatic 3 817.67 1589.87 1283.72 2016 Total 21 97.2 3357.44 966.37 2010 Danube 18 2010 Adriatic 3 2010 Total 21 Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Slovenia designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and the first cycle. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category

Source: WISE electronic reporting The minimum size criteria reported for the surface area for lakes was 0.5 km2, but the minimum size for the catchment area of rivers was not reported to WISE. The RBMPs indicate that the criteria for delineation of rivers was catchment larger than 100 km2. The RBMPs also reported that smaller water bodies that were not individually delineated were included as tributaries to delineated larger surface water bodies. For rivers with a catchment area between 10 and 100 km2, and where the water body status was significantly different from the larger water bodies to which they are connected, these smaller water bodies were also delineated separately. Table 2.3 summarises the information provided by Slovenia on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. Table 2.4 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Slovenia between the first and the second cycles. It is notable that both the minimum sizes of rivers and lakes have remained largely the same but the maximum size of rivers has increased. Table 2.3 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Slovenia between the second and the first cycles Type of water body change for the second cycle (wiseEvolutionType) Groundwater Rivers Lakes Coastal Change 21 137 12 5 Aggregation splitting Aggregation and splitting Change in code Extended area Creation Deletion Total water bodies before deletion 21 137 12 5 Delineated for the second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 21 137 12 5 Source: WISE electronic reporting



Table 2.4 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Slovenia in the second and the first cycles Year RBD River length (km) Lake area (km2) Coastal area (km2) Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average 2016 Danube 1.38 168.26 37.3 0.59 19.93 3.33 2016 Adriatic 1.9 84.89 25.25 0.3 0.72 0.53 0.7 34.71 18.12 2010 Danube 1.25 85.04 20.24 0.62 19.93 3.32 2010 Adriatic 1.93 41.02 15.73 0.31 0.75 0.54 0.72 342.38 67.34 Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.2Identification of transboundary water bodies Both the Danube and Adriatic RBDs are international RBDs. No transboundary surface water bodies were reported in WISE and one groundwater body was reported in the Danube RBD. 2.1.3Typology of surface water bodies There was a slight decrease in the number of types between the first and second RBMPs (approximately 15%), mostly for river water bodies, whereas there was an increase in the number of lake water body types, as shown in Table 2.5 . Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Slovenia for the first and the second cycles RBD Rivers Lakes Coastal 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 SIRBD1 52 39 2 7 0 0 SIRBD2 21 13 0 2 2 3 Total 73 52 2 9 2 3 Source: WISE electronic reporting Many national types (heavily modified, artificial and natural) have been intercalibrated. In each of the RBDs there are several river and lake water bodies that were reported not to have corresponding intercalibration types (7 lake water bodies and 20 river water bodies). 2.1.4Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies

Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Slovenia with reference conditions established for the first and the second cycles, as reported in WISE. Type-specific reference conditions have been established for some or all relevant biological quality elements for lakes and almost all rivers. Type-specific reference conditions have only been established for some physicochemical quality elements for lakes (20%), rivers (98%) and coastal (67%). Type-specific reference conditions have not been established for hydromorphological quality elements with the exception of 9% of river water body types. The RBMPs, however, report that reference conditions have been defined for each surface water type for each relevant biological element. Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Slovenia with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Lakes All Some 100% 22% None 100% 78% Rivers All 57% Some 42% 9% 98% None 2% 91% 2% Coastal All 67% Some 67% None 33% 100% 33% Source: WISE electronic reporting The RBMPs also describe how reference conditions were defined for locations in which natural conditions exist. If there were no places with natural conditions, the reference conditions were defined by modelling using historical data or by expert judgment. There is no specific information in the RBMPs or background documents on coordination of the type-specific reference conditions with other Member States and third countries. 2.1.5Characteristics of groundwater bodies The geological formation of the aquifer types in which groundwater bodies reside was reported, along with details of whether groundwater bodies are layered or not. Further characterisation work has been reported since the first RBMPs, with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages to surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems for both RBDs. 2.1.6Significant pressures on water bodies In the second RBMPs, ‘anthropogenic pressure – unknown’ was reported to affect the largest proportion of surface water bodies (99%), followed by ’point - urban waste water’ (73%) ( Figure 2 ). In the first RBMPs, Slovenia only reported pressures at an aggregated level. Overall it appears there was a large increase from the first to the second RBMPs in the reporting of point, diffuse and hydromorphological pressures were reported ( Figure 2.3 ), with a significant decrease in the reporting of “No pressures”, from 99% to 0. For the second cycle, it was reported that 13 pressures were not assessed for surface waters. The RBMPs did not provide any information about why some pressures were excluded from status assessment. For example, significant pressures from community wastewater systems were considered as a diffuse pressure, however, based on available data, it was not possible to assess them with a high level of confidence. In addition, the RBMPs reported that pressures from diffuse urban runoff, abstractions, wastewater discharges, diversion of flood waters, abstraction of alluvial deposits and “mariculture” were considered a significant pressure but data was not available to assess them with a high level of confidence. For groundwater bodies, the majority were reported to have “no significant pressures” (86%), with the only pressures reported to be ‘diffuse – agricultural’ (14%) ( Figure 2.2 ). For groundwater, it was reported that 39 significant pressures were not assessed, many of which were related to surface water specific pressures such as dams and hydrological changes. However, there were some pressures that could impact groundwater which were not assessed, such as contaminated sites and mining. The RBMPs reported that pressures from mining sites were analysed for the first cycle and significant pressures were identified; however, the methodology was not further developed. Landfills and other dumping areas were reported as significant point source pressures in the RBMPs; however, there was limited knowledge on loads and risks of possible contamination and therefore the assessment of risk was not done and is planned for the future. Water abstractions for geothermal energy, which are generally followed by water reinjection, were also reported not to have been assessed because of gaps in data. Figure 2.2 The most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Slovenia for the second cycle Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Slovenia in the first and the second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 155 identified surface water bodies for both the second cycle and for the first cycle Source: WISE electronic reporting

2.1.7Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface waters For surface waters, a combination of numerical tools and expert judgement were used for defining significant pressures from point sources, diffuse and other significant pressures. Expert judgement was used for defining significant pressures from abstraction and water flow pressures. For surface water bodies, significance of pressures was reported as being linked to the potential failure of good status, meaning that if a significant pressure is identified, a water body is failing, or at risk of failing, good status. The RBMPs do not provide any information on changes in the methodology or the criteria for the assessment of significance between the first and second RBMPs, but they describe the methods and thresholds for the second cycle. For point sources, significant pressures from industrial discharges are defined for rivers and lakes when: (1) excessive loading is assessed based on monitoring results; or (2) the concentration of pollutants exceeds the values for the environmental quality standard in the catchment. For diffuse pressures, significant pressures of nutrients from agriculture for rivers and lakes are identified when: (1) the quantity of nitrate or phosphorus in the catchment exceeds 23% of the quantity of nitrate or phosphorus from the area of Slovenia, or (2) when the quantities are smaller, but there is more than 14% of the RBD covered by irrigation systems. Significant hydrological pressures due to abstractions were considered when abstraction of water from a water body exceeds: (1) 50% of medium-low flow at the bottom part of a water body if the ratio between medium flow and medium-low flow is more than 20; or (2) 50% of medium flow at the bottom part of a water body in other cases. An example of how the significance of hydromorphological pressures were determined is for morphological pressures from transverse barriers, when: (1) the passage of aquatic organisms is not ensured; or (2) due to a barrier, an accumulation has been formed on the main flow of a water body that is larger than 0.5 km2 or is more than 10 km long. Significant hydromorphological pressures due to river regulation were identified when at least 30% of the length of a water body is heavily regulated. 2.1.8Definition and assessment of significant pressures on groundwater A combination of expert judgement and numerical tools were used for defining significant pressures on groundwater from point sources and artificial recharge. For diffuse and abstraction pressures, numerical tools were used. For groundwater bodies, the significance of pressures was reported to be linked to the potential failure of objectives and is defined in terms of thresholds, but further details were not provided in the RBMPs. The RBMPs do not provide any information on changes in the methodology or the criteria for the assessment of significance for the second RBMPs, but did describe the methods. Quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus from point sources were considered in discharges of wastewaters into the ground from industry, landfills, community wastewater treatment plants and roads. The calculated data from monitoring (or data from literature) was taken and integrated into the overall mathematical model used to calculate nutrients on a groundwater body level. Diffuse pollution of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) was modelled using data on land use and use of nutrients in agriculture. The model for calculation of diffuse pollution from pesticides has not been updated for the second cycle. A preliminary assessment of 25 areas of ecosystems that are dependent on groundwater was undertaken and showed that these pressures are mainly local pressures and therefore require more detailed analysis. 2.1.9Significant impacts on water bodies In the second RBMPs, the most significant impact on surface water bodies is chemical pollution (affecting 99% of surface water bodies), followed by organic pollution (73%) and nutrient pollution (72%) ( Figure 2.4 ). For groundwater “no significant impacts” were reported for 86% of groundwater bodies, followed by nutrient pollution (14%) ( Figure 2.4 ). Slovenia did not report on impacts in the first RBMPs. Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Slovenia for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.10Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures The Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status and the measures to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2021 has been reported. The indicator of the gap to achieve good chemical status by 2021 was reported. However, for mercury and its compounds the reported indicator shows no reduction of the gap in 2021, which could indicate that the link between measures and pressures is not sufficiently strong in this instance.

2.1.11Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status In the Danube RBD, 17% of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good chemical status. For the Adriatic RBD, no groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing good chemical status. For the groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status, the pollutants causing this risk have been reported. It was reported that no groundwater bodies in either RBD are at risk of failing to meet good quantitative status. 2.1.12Inventories 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 of the 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 (or suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances. Slovenia reported inventories for each RBD. All priority substances were included in each of the inventories,. The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 was not reported to have been used (except for two substances in both RBDs). Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented for all of the substances included in the inventories. The data quality was not reported. The Adriatic RBMP provides a list of substances and information from an inventory of emissions, discharges, and losses of chemical substances for the period 2009-2012. It was also reported that available data in an inventory was used to perform a trend analysis for 19 Priority Substances and 29 specified certain other pollutants. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle Overall the number and characterisation of water bodies remained largely the same between the first and second RBMPs. There was a slight decrease in the number of types between the first and second RBMPs (approximately 15%), mostly for river water bodies, whereas there was an increase in the number of lake water bodies types. In the first cycle, Slovenia reported pressures at an aggregated level. Overall it appears there was a large increase from the first to the second RBMPs in the reporting of point, diffuse and hydromorphological pressures, while the reporting of “No pressures” dropped from 99% to none. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Determine (as a priority) which stretches between 10 and 100 km2 deserve delineation as water bodies (to ensure that significant impacts are not being overlooked). Assessment: In the first RBMPs, small rivers with a catchment area between 10 and 100 km2 were not delineated as stand-alone surface waters bodies. In the second RBMPs a minimum size was not reported for the catchment area of rivers. The RBMPs indicate that the criteria for delineation of rivers was catchment larger than 100 km2. The RBMPs also reported that smaller water bodies that were not individually delineated were included as tributaries to delineated larger surface water bodies. For rivers with a catchment area between 10 and 100 km2, and where the status was significantly different from the larger water bodies to which they are connected, these smaller water bodies were also delineated separately. Significant impacts on smaller river water bodies are therefore addressed. This recommendation can be considered as fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Review the pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment in the second RBMPs and ensure that the measures are based on the updated pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment of water bodies. Assessment: The RBMPs do not provide information on any changes in the methodology or the criteria for the assessment of significance of pressures and impacts. For both surface water and groundwater bodies, the significance of pressures was reported to be linked to the potential failure of objectives and is defined in terms of thresholds. Since the first cycle, it appears that there has been progress in the identification of pressures, as there is a large increase in the reporting of point, diffuse and hydromorphological pressures. In addition there was a significant decrease in the reporting of “No pressures”, from 99% to 0. Significant pressures have been reported and measures mapped against most of these. For Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status, measures to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2021 have been reported. However, for mercury and its compounds the reported indicator shows no reduction of the gap in 2021, which could indicate that the link between measures and pressures is not sufficiently strong in this instance. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled.



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. Slovenia reported 10 monitoring programmes. Monitoring programmes were reported for each RBD with separate ones for surveillance and operational monitoring covering all water categories in the RBD. Monitoring sites Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the first and the second RBMPs, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. Overall in Slovenia there was a decrease in the number of surveillance sites and an increase in the number of operational sites from the first to the second RBMPs: more sites are used for operational monitoring than for surveillance monitoring. There are two fewer surveillance sites in coastal waters and 23 fewer in rivers for the second RBMPs compared to the first. In lakes there were two fewer in the Danube RBD and two more in the Adriatic RBD. In contrast to surveillance monitoring, there was a 20% increase in the number of operational monitoring sites in Slovenia from the first to second RBMPs. Most sites are in rivers and hence the largest increase was in river sites though there was an increase by one site in coastal waters and a decrease by one in lakes . Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Slovenia for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in the first RBMP, the second RBMP data does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring Rivers Lakes Coastal Territorial Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op second RBMP Danube 19 208 2 11 Adriatic 6 40 2 3 2 6 1 1 Total by type of site 25 248 4 14 2 6 1 1 Total number of monitoring sites 260 15 8 1 first RBMP Danube 36 172 4 12 Adriatic 12 28 0 3 4 5 Total by type of site 48 200 4 15 4 5 0 0 Total number of monitoring sites 248 19 9 0 Sources: WISE electronic reporting Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Slovenia Monitoring Purpose Rivers Lakes Coastal Territorial OPE - Operational monitoring 248 14 6 1 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 25 4 2 1 Total sites irrespective of purpose 260 15 8 1 Source: WISE electronic reporting Monitored quality elements (except for River Basin Specific Pollutants) Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of lakes, rivers and coastal waters for the second RBMPs: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMP in Slovenia (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note; quality element may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring

Biological quality elements Hydro morphological 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 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Coastal Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinant for nutrient conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Source: WISE electronic reporting There have been some changes in the monitored quality elements between the two RBMPs. Fish were reported not to be monitored in lakes for the first RBMPs but were reported for the second RBMPs. Angiosperms are not monitored in coastal waters for the second RBMPs. Morphological conditions were not monitored in coastal waters in for both the first and second RBMPs. Morphological conditions were not monitored in lakes for the first RBMP but were for the second RBMPs. River continuity was not reported as being monitored in both the first and second RBMPs. Oxygenation conditions were monitored in coastal waters for the second RBMPs but not used for status assessment. All required biological quality elements are reported to be monitored in water bodies subject to surveillance monitoring in coastal waters, and in lakes and rivers in one of the two RBDs. Fish are not included in any of the lakes in the Adriatic RBD and macrophytes are not monitored in some river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring in the Danube RBD. Hydromorphological quality elements are reported to not be included in surveillance monitoring in any water category. However hydrological regime is included in operational monitoring in all three water categories and morphological conditions in operational monitoring of lakes and rivers but not in coastal waters. All required general physicochemical quality elements are monitored in rivers and lakes included in surveillance monitoring. In coastal waters oxygenation conditions are not monitored in water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different biological 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 equates to twice during the monitoring year and the other biological quality elements once during the year. As a guideline, operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. Monitoring was done at least at the minimum recommended frequency for all monitored quality elements. Monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants Slovenia reported 36 different River Basin Specific Pollutants to be monitored only in water. River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored at five sites in coastal waters, eight sites in lakes, 151 sites in rivers and one site in territorial waters. Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements: once every three months is recommended for 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 this would equate to for times for the surveillance year, and for operational monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle. Of the 22 River Basin Specific Pollutants included in surveillance monitoring of coastal waters, 12 were sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency at all sites, and nine pollutants were sampled at lower frequency than the recommended minimum at all sites. Of the 36 River Basin Specific Pollutants included in surveillance monitoring of rivers 12 were sampled at least at the minimum frequency at all sites and three substances were sampled at lower frequency than the recommended minimum at all sites. No River Basin Specific Pollutant was reported to be monitored in lakes for either surveillance or operational purposes. In terms of operational monitoring River Basin Specific Pollutants were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at almost all sites . Table 3.4 shows the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in the first and second RBMPs. Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMPs and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants reported in first RBMPs in Slovenia. Note the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used RBMP Rivers Lakes Coastal Territorial second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 151 8 5 1 first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants 131 5 3 0 Source: WISE electronic reporting Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies Overall in Slovenia the same proportion (20%) of surface water bodies were included in surveillance monitoring for the first and second RBMPs, though there were two fewer coastal water bodies and two more lake water bodies in the second RBMPs.

In contrast there was an increase from 88% to 99% of surface water bodies included in operational monitoring from the first to the second RBMPs, largely due to a 13% increase in the number of river water bodies included though there was also one more in coastal water and one fewer in lakes . Figure 3.1 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance and operational monitoring. Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance monitoring. Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Slovenia for the first RBMP and second RBMP. Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring

Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that is included in surveillance monitoring in Slovenia Source: WISE electronic reporting Operational monitoring of surface water bodies Most relevant biological quality elements are included in the operational monitoring of lakes though fish is included in only one water body. Phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates were the predominantly used biological quality element in rivers though macrophytes and fish were used to a lesser extent. Phytoplankton, macroalgae and benthic invertebrates were equally used in coastal waters. Transboundary surface water body monitoring Slovenia did not report any monitoring sites that are part of international networks. Slovenia subsequently indicated that bilateral monitoring is done with neighbouring countries and that Slovenia is involved in transnational monitoring networks according to the Danube and Barcelona Conventions. 3.1.2 Ecological Status/potential of surface water The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Slovenia for the second RBMPs is illustrated in Map 1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status. Map 3.1 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Slovenia 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). Source: WISE electronic reporting The ecological status/potential is good or better in most of the natural lakes and rivers, and in all coastal water bodies. There are very few unknowns (five artificial or heavily modified water bodies). The confidence in lake assessment is mostly high or medium, which is a major improvement since the first RBMP. Figure 3.3 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Slovenia for the first RBMPs with that for the second (based on the most recent assessment of status/potential) and that expected by 2015.

Figure 3.3 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Slovenia 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 2015. The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMPs is not known Source: WISE electronic reporting The total number of surface water bodies remained the same between the first and second RBMPs though there were small differences within the water categories e.g. 135 river water bodies for the first RBMP, 137 for the second. The proportion of surface water bodies at less than good status/potential (38%) was the same for the first and second RBMPs. There was an increase in the proportion at good or better status/potential from 52% to 58% which was mirrored by a decrease in the proportion with unknown status from 10% to 3% from the first to the second RBMPs. There is a small improvement in the proportion of lakes in good or better status/potential from 55% to 60% from the first to the second RBMPs. Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Slovenia is shown in Figure 3.4 . Further improvement is only expected in 2022-2027. Figure 3.4 Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Slovenia. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category Source: WISE electronic reporting Confidence in ecological status assessment Figure 3.5 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. There was a significant improvement in the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential from the first to the second RBMPs. For example, 3% of surface water bodies were classified with high confidence for the first RBMPs but this increased to 54% for the second. Figure 3.5 Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Slovenia based on the most recently assessed status/potential Source: WISE electronic reporting Classification of ecological status at the quality element level Figure 3.6 shows the percentage of water bodies in terms of the biological quality element used for classification. Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. 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 from the first to the second RBMPs. Figure 3.9 illustrates the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of surface waters in Slovenia for the second RBMPs.

Figure 3.6 Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of surface waters in Slovenia. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential and Territorial Waters, and those that are monitored but not classified or not applicable, are not presented Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 3.7 Comparison of ecological status/potential in Slovenia according to classified biological quality elements in surface waters between the first and second RBMPs Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.8 The classification of the ecological status or potential of surface waters in Slovenia using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element. Note: The four types are: biological; hydromorphological, general physicochemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants. Types for territorial waters were not reported. Source: WISE electronic reporting Most rivers are classified with “other aquatic flora” and benthic invertebrates, as well as nutrients and oxygenation conditions. Most of the lakes are classified with phytoplankton and some for “other aquatic flora” and benthic invertebrates, as well as nutrients, transparency, oxygen, and acidification. Coastal waters are classified with phytoplankton, macroalgae and benthic invertebrates and nutrients. Most of the classified quality elements are in good or better status. Fish and hydromorphological quality elements have not been classified in lakes. Many quality elements are classified in quite few water bodies, e.g. fish in rivers, and several others are missing: angiosperms in coastal waters, hydromorphological quality elements in all water categories, (although a few are monitored), some physicochemical quality elements, e.g. transparency and oxygenation in coastal waters. Physicochemical quality elements are not classified in artificial and heavily modified lakes. There are also a few quality elements with changes in status/potential from the first to the second RBMPs, with slightly more changing to a better class than to a worse class. A few of these changes are consistent, but most are due to changes in monitoring and assessment systems. Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements An assessment method for macroalgae in coastal waters has been developed, in line with recommendations arising from the assessment of the first RBMPs. There are still some biological quality element methods missing: fish in lakes and angiosperms in coastal waters. All the other biological quality elements are developed. The sensitivity of several of the biological quality element methods to different impacts have been reported with logical combinations of biological quality elements and impacts. Intercalibration of biological assessment methods Most of the national lake types and some of the national river types are not linked to any intercalibration type. Slovenia reported that, for those types, the assessment methods are the same that are used for intercalibrated types. Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements Methods for the hydromorphological quality element methods have been developed for all quality elements in rivers, thus partly addressing a recommendation arising from the first RBMPs. Hydromorphological methods were reported not to be related to the sensitive biological quality elements. There is still very little monitoring and classification of fish and hydro morphological quality elements in rivers and lakes.

Classification methods for physicochemical quality elements Physicochemical standards are only established for oxygenation conditions and nutrients in rivers which were reported to be consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. There are standards for transparency, oxygenation conditions, acidification status and nutrients in lakes: only the nutrient standards were reported to be consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. The only physicochemical quality element standards established for coastal waters are for nutrients which were reported to be consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. In conclusion, there are gaps in the standards established for physicochemical quality elements in rivers and coastal waters and some of those established are not consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. The nutrient standards for coastal waters are given as 35 micrograms nitrogen per litre for nitrate, 13 micrograms phosphorus per litre for total phosphorus and 4.6 micrograms phosphorus per litre for orthophosphate, defined as the geometric mean of the values of nutrients measured at different depths. Methods for transparency and oxygenation conditions are missing in coastal waters. Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards There is no information in the RMPs on how the River Basin Specific Pollutants have been selected. Slovenia subsequently stated that the methodology is available in a document published in the Ministry’s website. Environmental quality standards for water have been set for 33 River Basin Specific Pollutants, both metals and many organic substances, but the 2011 Technical Guidance Document No 27 has not been used for 31 of the substances. The values of the environmental quality standard are the same for coastal waters and for freshwater. However there is an on-going national process to improve this. The analytical methods used for 31 substances meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4.1 of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive (2009/90/EC) for the strictest standard applied. For the other two substances the analytical methods comply with the requirements laid down in Article 4.2 of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive for the strictest standard applied. Use of monitoring results for classification The classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.9 . Generally the results of monitoring are used in the classification of the ecological status/potential of the various quality elements. There are also examples of grouping (e.g. benthic invertebrates in rivers) and expert judgement (e.g. River Basin Specific Pollutants in lakes) being used. Often more water bodies were monitored for particular quality elements than were subsequently used in their classification. Not all quality elements were used in the classification: angiosperms were neither monitored nor classified in coastal waters. More physicochemical quality elements were monitored than used in the classification (just nutrient conditions) perhaps indicating a lack of assessment methods (e.g. environmental quality standards) for some elements in coastal waters. In lakes, the classification of "aquatic flora" was reported rather than the two component elements which have been reported as being monitored. Fish in lakes are not used in the classification though they are monitored again indicating some potential weaknesses in the assessment methods. A greater number of physicochemical quality elements were used in the classification of lakes compared to coastal waters. River Basin Specific Pollutants have been used in the classification of coastal waters, lakes and rivers. Other aquatic flora were again reported for the classification of rivers even though the component quality elements are monitored: it is therefore not clear which of the two component elements have been used in the classification in each case. Fewer river water bodies were monitored for fish than the other biological quality elements and even fewer were subsequently classified, again perhaps indicating some weaknesses in the assessment method. Figure 3.9 Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Slovenia. The percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category. Source: WISE electronic reporting Hydrological regime and morphological conditions were not used in the classification of any water body perhaps indicating some weaknesses in the assessment method for these elements. River continuity was used in the classification of water bodies based on monitoring results even though it was not reported to be monitored. Only two types of physicochemical quality elements (oxygenation and nutrient conditions) were used in the classification of lakes even though three other types were extensively monitored. Overall classification of ecological status Figure 3.10 illustrates the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Slovenia for the second RBMPs.





Figure 3.10 The percentage of surface water bodies in Slovenia 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 one-out, all-out principle has been used in both RBDs, but the details on combination rules applied for the biological quality elements versus the supporting quality elements are not clear. 3.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs The confidence in classification of ecological status has improved significantly from the first RBMPs when only 3% of surface water bodies were classified in high or medium confidence to the second RBMPs when all the lakes, 85% of the rivers and 67% of the coastal water bodies are classified with high or medium confidence. The number of water bodies with unknown status/potential has also decreased from 15 to 5 water bodies from the first to the second RBMPs. The time for achieving the objective has been postponed from 2015 to 2022-2027 for around 30% of the surface water bodies. Overall there was a decrease in the number of surveillance sites and an increase in the number of operational sites from the first to the second RBMPs: more sites are used for operational monitoring than for surveillance monitoring. There are two fewer surveillance sites in coastal waters and 23 fewer in rivers for the second RBMPs compared to the first. In lakes there were two fewer in the Danube RBD and two more in the Adriatic RBD. In contrast to surveillance monitoring, there was a 20% increase in the number of operational monitoring sites from the first to second RBMPs. Most sites are in rivers and hence the largest increase was in river sites though there was an increase by one site in coastal waters and a decrease by one in lakes. There have been some changes in the monitored quality elements from the first to the second RBMPs. Fish were reported not to be monitored in lakes for the first RBMP but were reported for the second RBMP. Angiosperms are not monitored in coastal waters for the second RBMPs. Morphological conditions were not monitored in coastal waters in for both the first and second RBMPs. Morphological conditions were not monitored in lakes for the first RBMP but were for the second RBMP. River continuity was not reported as being monitored in the first and second RBMPs. Oxygenation conditions were not reported to be monitored in coastal waters for the second RBMP . There was an increase from 88% to 99% of surface water bodies included in operational monitoring from the first to the second RBMPs, largely due to a 13% increase in the number of river water bodies included though there was also one more in coastal water and one fewer in lakes. 3.2Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: The assessment methods for the classification of ecological status are not fully developed for all biological quality elements in all water categories. All assessment methods for the status assessments should be developed. Assessment: Assessment methods for macroalgae in coastal waters have been developed. However, an assessment method for fish in lakes is missing. All the other biological quality elements are developed. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Include the standards related to the repealed Freshwater Fish Directive in the ecological status parameters in the second RBMPs. Assessment: Standards for some of the physicochemical quality elements relevant to the repealed Freshwater Fish Directive have been reported for river and lakes. Standards were reported for Oxygen saturation (%), pH and Total Phosphorous in lakes. The standard for oxygen saturation was expressed as annual average % saturation whereas the Directive specifies a standard as mg/l O2. The reported pH standard is expressed as an annual average whereas in Freshwater Fish Directive it is a 95%ile. The standards cannot therefore be compared. The standards for oxygen saturation and pH were reported not to be related to the sensitive biological quality element. The total phosphorus standards in lakes seem to be compliant with the Directive and are related to the sensitive biological quality element. Three relevant standards were reported for rivers, total phosphorus, nitrates and 5-day biochemical oxygen demand. The biochemical oxygen demand standard is expressed as a 90%ile whereas the Directive is a 95%ile. The values for Total Phosphorus standard seem to be compliant with the repealed Directive. All standards were reported to be related to the sensitive biological quality element.

No standards were reported for river and lakes for the other relevant physicochemical quality elements: temperature, suspended solids, nitrates, non-ionised ammonia, and total ammonium. Fish were reported to be monitored in two lake water bodies and 26 river water bodies. two river water bodies were classified as high ecological status, two as good ecological status and the remaining 133 classified water bodies as unknown status/potential. It is not known whether any of the lakes or rivers was formally designated as Freshwater Fish waters under the repealed Directive. However, no surface water bodies were reported to be associated with Freshwater Fish Protected Areas. Based on Slovenia’s electronic reporting to WISE, and given that a full comparison of the level of protection guaranteed by the former Freshwater Fish Directive and the one guaranteed by the standards being used for the WFD was not reported by Slovenia, this recommendation cannot be considered as having been fulfilled ·Recommendation: Include the monitoring of fish in the monitoring of ecological status in the second RBMPs. Assessment: In the first RBMP, surveillance monitoring of fish in lakes was missing. Fish were reported to be monitored in the Danube RBD for the second RBMP but not in the other RBD (Adriatic). In addition macrophytes are not monitored in all river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring and angiosperms are reported not to be monitored in coastal waters at all. Therefore there has been some progress with regards to monitoring of fish but there are still gaps in the required monitoring. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: The national EQSs for specific pollutants in transitional and coastal waters have been set at the same level as those for freshwaters, which may not be appropriate in the light of the latest technical guidance. Reference should be made to the latest version of the Technical Guidance Document on the Derivation of Environmental Quality Standards published under the Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD Assessment: Slovenia reported EQS for 33 River Basin Specific Pollutants in water in rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters. Slovenia did not report any transitional water bodies for the second RBMPs. The type and values of the standards were the same for each water category. None of the standards have been derived in accordance with the 2011 Technical Guidance Document No 27. However there is an on-going national process to improve this. This recommendation has not been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Complete the development of hydro morphological methods for the status assessment of water bodies and definition of reference conditions and apply them through the implementation of robust monitoring programmes (start monitoring hydromorphological parameters in lakes and coastal waters). An adequate WFD compliant assessment and monitoring framework is a necessary pre-requisite to design effective Programmes of Measures and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives. Assessment: Methods for the assessment of hydromorphological quality element have been developed for all quality elements in rivers. Hydromorphological quality elements are not included in surveillance monitoring in any water category. However hydrological regime is included in operational monitoring in all three water categories and morphological conditions in operational monitoring of lakes and rivers but not in coastal waters. Hydrological regime and morphological conditions were not used in the classification of any water body perhaps indicating some weaknesses in the assessment method for these elements. River continuity was used in the classification of water bodies based on monitoring results even though it was not reported to be monitored. It appears that whilst monitoring of some but not all hydromorphological quality elements is undertaken for the second RBMPs, there are still weaknesses in using the results of monitoring to assess and classify the status/potential of water bodies using these elements. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled.

Topic 4 Monitoring, 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 Slovenia for the second RBMP.

Figure 4.1 summarises the proportion of sites used for the monitoring of chemical status in lakes and rivers for the second RBMP. Sites used for monitoring of ecological status are provided for comparison. 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. There are relatively few lake and coastal water monitoring sites overall (15 and 8 respectively, reflecting the small number of water bodies in these water body categories) but 67%, 88% and 100% of these sites are used for monitoring of chemical status. Of the 260 river monitoring sites, around half are monitored for chemical status. There is also one monitoring site in territorial waters. Figure 4.1 Proportion of sites used for monitoring of chemical status and, for comparison, ecological status, in Slovenia. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of monitoring sites irrespective of their purpose Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in lakes and rivers for the second RBMPs. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. Also given is the proportion of water bodies monitored for any purpose and, for comparison, those for ecological status. All five coastal water bodies and the territorial waters were reported to be monitored for chemical status. The majority of the 12 lakes (83%) and the 137 river water bodies (82%) are monitored for chemical 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 Slovenia. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of water bodies in that category Source: WISE electronic reporting With regard to water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status, 83% of these water bodies were reported to be monitored as part of the operational monitoring programme in Slovenia as a whole. 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 56% of lake water bodies in the Danube RBD were monitored for more than ten Priority Substances and this was the case for 33% of lake water bodies in the Adriatic RBD. The remainder of the lake water bodies in the Adriatic RBD were not monitored for any Priority Substances, whereas the remainder of the lake water bodies in the Danube RBD were monitored for three, four or six to ten Priority Substances. In the Adriatic RBD, 80% of coastal water bodies were monitored for more than 10 priority substances whereas the remainder were not monitored for any Priority Substances. The number of substances monitored in river water bodies in both RBDs varied considerably from 0 to more than 10.

Where monitored, up to 41 Priority Substances were reported to be monitored in water at the monitoring site level in water bodies across Slovenia. Slovenia has reported monitoring of the required three Priority Substances in biota for status assessment in river and lake water bodies in the Danube RBD and in coastal and river water bodies in the Adriatic RBD. The highest number of sites monitored for biota in Slovenia as a whole is 26 for mercury. The lowest number of sites monitored was 16, for both hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene. Frequencies The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the RBMP cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment should take place at least once every year according to the EQS Directive. In all cases greater intervals can be applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. A large range of monitoring frequencies are reported in WISE, for biota and water. These frequencies are sometimes below the recommended minimum frequencies from the WFD. However Slovenia subsequently clarified that Priority Substances were monitored in water 12 times per year once per cycle. While this meets the requirements for surveillance monitoring, it does not meet the requirements for operational monitoring (12 times per year