EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 35 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Czech Republic 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) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



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

4.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 4.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 5.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 6.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle for designation 7.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 8.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 10.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 11.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 12.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 13.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 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 second cycle 15.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 16.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 16.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Acronyms and definitions EQS Directive Environmental Quality Standards Directive FD Floods Directive Km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure PoM Programme of Measures QA/QC Directive Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE 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 River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then.





General Information Map AMap of River Basin Districts in the Czech Republic Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters The total area of the Czech Republic is 78,866 kilometres squared (km²) and the population is 10.5 m. Manufacturing is still a major economic activity, especially the production of cars, machine tools, and engineering products. Iron and steel industries are important in Moravia in the east of the country. Arable land, other agricultural land and forests cover approximately 39 %, 15 % and 33 % of the country area, respectively. The main crops are maize, sugar beet, potatoes, wheat, barley and rye. The territory of the Czech Republic lies in three international river basin districts (RBDs): Danube River basin, Elbe River basin and Oder River basin. The information on areas of the national river basin districts including sharing countries is provided in Table A. Table AOverview of the Czech Republic’s River Basin Districts RBD Name Size (km2) Countries sharing borders CZ_1000 Dunaj (Danube) 21681 AT, PL, SK CZ_5000 Labe (Elbe) 49936 AT, DE, PL CZ_6000 Odra (Oder) 7248 DE, PL Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE 2016 The share of the Czech Republic in the respective international RBDs is 2.7 % (Danube), 33.7 % (Elbe) and 5.9 % (Oder) (Table B). Table B Transboundary river basins by category and % share in the Czech Republic Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing borders Co-ordination Category 1 km² % Danube CZ_1000 AT, PL, SK 21681 2.7 Elbe CZ_5000 AT, DE, PL 49936 33.7 Oder CZ_6000 DE, PL 7248 5.9 Source: WISE electronic reports Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in place. Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place.

Category 3: International agreement in place. Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Status of second river basin management plan reporting All three RBMPs of the Czech Republic (National Danube River Basin Management Plan, National Elbe River Basin Management Plan, National Odra River Basin Management Plan) were published on 22 December 2015. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency (EEA) EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .



Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of the Czech Republic are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation ·An important degree of international coordination has been followed for all three RBDs. It is also noted that all river monitoring sites are part of an international monitoring network of a river convention. ·Public participation has been strengthened as well as the active engagement of stakeholders in preparing the RBMPs compared to the first planning cycle. ·A national advisory body, the Commission for Water Planning, supports coordination and harmonisation among the Czech Republic’s RBDs. ·Characterisation of the RBD ·Type specific reference conditions have been established for all relevant biological quality elements in 32 out of 35 water types, for all relevant physicochemical quality elements in all river types, but only for some relevant hydromorphological quality elements for rivers. For lakes, type-specific reference conditions have not been established in any type for any of the hydromorphological quality elements . The typology was directly tested for one biological quality element: fish . ·For groundwater bodies, further characterisation work has been undertaken since the first planning cycle with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages with surface water bodies. ·For both surface and groundwater bodies, the significance of pressures has been defined in terms of thresholds and is linked to the potential failure of objectives (surface waters) and to the verified failure of good status (groundwater). Nonetheless, it is noted that the largest share of surface water bodies are reported to be affected by unknown significant anthropogenic pressures. ·There are also gaps in the apportionment of pressures, as no information was found in the RBMPs on which activities/sectors are contributing significantly to the failure of good chemical status in surface waters and to the different impacts causing failure of good ecological status/potential. ·Inventories of emissions including all 41 Priority Substances have been established in 9 of the 10 subunits. The other subunit (CZDUN covering 16 surface water bodies), does not have an inventory for any of the Priority Substances). In accordance with the Guidance Document, Tier 1 of the methodology was applied for substances deemed not relevant at sub unit level, and higher tiers (Tier 1+2 or 1+2+3) were applied for relevant substances. The data quality was very uncertain or not reported. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status ·A change in the monitoring strategy led to a higher proportion of surface water bodies and a higher number of sites in operational monitoring and lower number in surveillance monitoring, compared to the first RBMPs. The reduction of the coverage of surveillance monitoring is particularly notable for water bodies in good and high ecological status, which are especially under-represented.

·In river water bodies, all biological quality elements and all general physico-chemical quality elements are monitored. In lake water bodies, some biological quality elements are not monitored. Hydromorphological quality elements are not monitored at all. ·85 River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored, but no specific methodology for their selection has been reported. The frequency of surveillance and operational monitoring for some River Basin Specific Pollutants was less than the minimum recommended frequency at some sites. Environmental Quality Standards for 90 substances have been derived, but not in accordance with the Technical Guidance n° 27. ·Monitoring data has been used to assess the ecological status/potential of the vast majority of surface water bodies. However, classification is not based on the full range of quality elements and no methodology was developed to implement the non-deterioration principle. Up to 11 % of surface water bodies were classified with no biological quality elements. No surface water body was classified on the basis of hydromorphological quality elements and the assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements are only partly developed for rivers and not developed for lakes. Standards have been reported for the relevant general physicochemical quality elements in lakes and rivers and are reported to be linked to the good‐moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements in lakes, but not in rivers. ·Especially for lakes, the Czech Republic has not developed fully compliant assessment methods (but it is noted that there are no natural lakes, only heavily modified water bodies and artificial lakes). ·There may be an issue with comparability of ecological status/potential classification for a large proportion of surface water bodies due to the lack of intercalibration of national water body types, as around 50 % of river water bodies (mostly natural) are reported not to have a corresponding intercalibration type . ·Concerning the achievement of objectives, all lake water bodies are expected to achieve good ecological status/potential by 2027, but a significant share of river water bodies are not. Approximately 20 % of rivers and lakes are not expected to achieve good chemical status until after 2027. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies ·Between the two RBMPs, there was a small decrease in the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status (from 70 to 69 %). ·This change in status may at least partly result from a more accurate assessment: between the two RBMPs, there has been an increase in the number of sites and water bodies monitored for Priority Substances and an increase in the number of Priority Substances monitored. Metals are now monitored in the dissolved fraction, as required by the directive, and biota standards have been applied. ·However, the number of monitoring sites still appears very limited for some Priority Substances. The Czech Republic highlighted that priority substances were only monitored in surface water bodies subject to the corresponding pressure. However it is unclear whether all relevant pressures have been sufficiently characterised, as unknown anthropogenic pressures are the most significant pressures on river water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status in all three RBDs. ·50-60 % of monitoring sites and water bodies were monitored for chemical status. Expert judgment was used to classify a significant proportion of water bodies (only 0.4 % are in unknown status). Most of the classifications are given a medium level of confidence. The basis for this expert judgement is not entirely clear, as it seems not all significant pressures have been identified for all water bodies (see paragraph above). ·41 Priority Substances were monitored in water (but not in all RBDs). All substances identified as discharged were monitored in each RBD. The monitoring frequencies met the recommended minimum frequencies for surveillance and operational monitoring at some but not all sites. It is not entirely clear how compliance was assessed for non-monitored substances. ·Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were monitored in biota in rivers only, at the recommended minimum frequency. The number of sites monitored appeared to be very limited. Fluoranthene, Pentabromodiphenylether and benzo(a)pyrene were also monitored in biota. ·The Czech Republic did not report any monitoring for long-term trend assessment. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies ·Concerning the assessment of groundwater bodies, the number of quantitative monitoring sites increased significantly, now covering almost the entire country area. ·The number of groundwater chemical monitoring sites has increased significantly. ·However, the number of groundwater bodies with unknown quantitative status has increased since the first RBMPs, which is related to the change in methodology for calculating available groundwater resources. ·Only water balance assessment has been considered in quantitative status assessment, thus not all environmental objectives have been taken into account. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies

·Concerning chemical status assessments, some pesticides have now more stringent threshold values than 0.1 micrograms per litre. ·Although several groundwater bodies are linked to surface waters, no groundwater body is linked to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were not reported to be considered in the status assessment. Czech Republic clarified however, that groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems had been reported as protected areas. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential ·A national methodology on heavily modified water bodies’ designation is in place for rivers and reservoirs. However, it is not detailed enough on all relevant aspects. Especially, for the assessment of significant adverse effects, no criteria are provided. Most of heavily modified rivers are designated due to flood protection and for this use, it is reported that there is currently no better environmental option. A better environmental option was not applied for reservoirs due to the multiple water uses. ·Good ecological potential is reported as defined using the Common Implementation Strategy approach (approach based on biological quality elements as illustrated in Common Implementation Strategy approach Guidance No 4) and new methods for good ecological potential have been developed at national level for rivers and reservoirs. Although good ecological potential is reported as defined in terms of biology, details on the biological quality elements used are provided for rivers but not explicitly for reservoirs. ·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. A significant share of water bodies is expected to achieve its objectives beyond 2027. ·Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported. ·Justifications for exemptions have been provided at water body level. Criteria have been developed for the application of exemptions with regard to technical feasibility and disproportionate costs. A significant number of Article 4(5) exemptions is applied for the first time, whereas the distinction between the difference in the criteria used to justify Article 4(4) and Article 4(5) exemptions are not clear. ·Article 4(7) exemptions have not been applied in the second RBMP, indicating that the impacts of all new modifications on water status have been assessed and no potential deterioration of the status of water bodies was identified. Further information is needed to evaluate whether all the required WFD assessments relevant in relation to Article 4(7) have been performed. ·Programme of Measures ·Concerning the achievement of measures so far, it is noted that a large number of measures from the first RBMPs were not implemented due to lack of funds, land property issues, technical, legal or natural conditions. New legislation required to implement the Programme of Measures in the first cycle has now been adopted for the second cycle. In the second RBMPs, however, only a limited number of pressures are reported to be tackled by Key Types of Measures (KTMs) and a clear financial commitment has not been secured for the implementation of the measures from three of the five relevant sectors identified. ·Although a combination of a qualitative and quantitative cost-effectiveness analysis has been carried out, concrete information of this assessment was only found for measures related to wastewater plants and sewage systems. ·A major gap is the lack of reporting of operational KTMs to address hydromorphological pressures. National measures are mapped against KTMs relevant to hydromorphology, but it is not clear why such measures are not reported as operational for the second planning cycle; this might be an indication that no actions are going to be implemented. In addition, the assessment of significant hydromorphological pressures seems incomplete, as pressures from water flow regulation and morphological alterations are reported as not assessed. ·No KTMs have been reported as linked to individual River Basin Specific Pollutants or Priority Substances. However KTMs have been reported to tackle several chemical pressures. ·In the case of diffuse agricultural pollution which affects 61 % of groundwater bodies and 22 % of surface water bodies, only two national supplementary measures are identified to tackle this pressure. Basic measures are applied but there are differentiated general binding rules (Article 11(3)(h) of the WFD) for addressing diffuse pollution from agriculture at source in different parts of the RBDs. No information was available in the RBMPs on the use of mandatory or voluntary measures. ·Management objectives for nutrient pollution and a gap assessment for nitrogen have been undertaken in all RBDs, but for phosphorus only in some RBDs. ·The overall level of ambition and expected progress resulting from the Programme of Measures of the second RBMPs is low with only small reductions in the gaps to achievement of objectives in the second cycle. No analysis of the gap to reach good chemical status has been made and consequently it is not clear if and how measures to address pollution, beyond basic measures, have been identified (or if they should have been identified). ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity ·Water quantity pressures were not reported as relevant for the Czech Republic. The RBMP does not include a water resource allocation and management plan. Yet, some river basins have been reported to be affected by significant abstractions. No information was provided on uses responsible for water consumption.

·There is a concession, authorisation, and/or permitting regime to control surface and groundwater abstractions and water impoundment. ·Measures on Article 11(3)(c) and 11(3)(f) have been implemented in the previous cycle. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture ·Only two national supplementary measures are identified to tackle diffuse agricultural pollution, which affects 61 % of groundwater bodies and 22% of surface water bodies. Basic measures are applied but there are differentiated general binding rules (Article 11(3)(h) of the WFD) for addressing diffuse pollution from agriculture at source in different parts of the RBDs. No information was available in the RBMPs on the use of mandatory or voluntary measures. According to information subsequently provided by the Czech Republic, both mandatory and voluntary measures related to pollution from agriculture were introduced within the national supplementary measure CZE208002. ·Management objectives for nutrient pollution have been set in all RBDs, but quantification was only done in the Elbe RBD. ·Safeguard zones have been established for abstractions. ·Implementation of basic measures according to Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source is ensured in all RBDs. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ·The Czech Republic reported the application of more than one thousand basic measures linked to KTM1 to construct or upgrade urban waste water treatment plants. ·The Czech Republic reported only a limited number of pressures related to chemical pollution to be tackled by KTMs. Measures were linked to KTMs, in particular KTM 15 and KTM16. KTMs 15 and 16 were not among them, and no KTMs were linked to individual pollutants. ·Little progress has been achieved in analysing the gap to achieve WFD objectives, nor in identifying supplementary measures. ·Measures related to hydromorphology National hydromorphological measures have been linked to KTMs. However, these KTMs have not been reported as explicitly tackling specific types of pressures. The Czech Republic also explained it was not able to quantify and report the gap indicators for this type of measures. At the same time, according to information provided by the Czech authorities during the assessment, the reported hydromorphological measures are planned for implementation in the second cycle and they are funded from the EU's Operational Programme Environment. Ecological flows have been derived and implemented for some water bodies. A new methodology for ecological flow should have been finished at the end of 2016, thus the setting of the ecological flow is in progress. A minimum flows methodology exists and is implemented and measures related to the present minimum flows are applied; however, the minimum flows methodology does not cover all relevant biological aspects. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies Concerning the economic analysis and water pricing policies, little progress has been noted since the first planning cycle. Cost recovery calculations remain limited. Water pricing policies have not been modified to show how ‘adequate incentives’ are provided. No detailed information on the application of the polluter pays principle was reported. A narrow definition of water services has been used. Article 9(4) has not been used. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures)

The Czech Republic has not set objectives for the different types of protected areas, and there are some gaps in the monitoring reported. Monitoring sites are specifically reported as associated with protected areas only for the Habitats and the Nitrates Directives. For the other protected areas (Birds, Urban Wastewater Treatment and Bathing Water Directives), no associated monitoring sites are reported. No data are reported on monitoring sites of groundwater associated with Protected Areas, except for nutrient sensitive areas under the Nitrates Directive. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change Climate change has been assessed and taken into account in the RBMPs. A National Climate Change Strategy has been developed and adopted in October 2015, but it could not be fully included in the second RBMPs.

Recommendations The Czech Republic should further ensure good coordination between the public administration and other stakeholders to improve the planning and implementation of Programmes of Measures and to monitor their effectiveness. The Czech Republic should continue to improve international cooperation, including inter alia to ensure that information is provided regarding how designation of heavily modified water body has been coordinated, ensure that the definition of ecological potential and the approach to exemptions is harmonised as well as ensure that coordination of river basin specific pollutants and setting of environmental quality standards is further improved. Further work is needed for the apportionment of all pressures/impacts among different sources. The Czech Republic needs to continue its work on inconsistencies between the measures that are planned and the significant pressures identified at the water body level. Monitoring should be strengthened to ensure that the number of water bodies monitored is sufficient and that there is appropriate coverage of all relevant quality elements. In particular, operational monitoring of lakes should be improved and better linked with the pressures and impacts analysis. Hydromorphological quality elements should be monitored in all water categories. The Czech Republic should use a clear and transparent method for the selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and ensure that Environmental Quality Standards meet the minimum requirements for the protection of freshwater and marine ecosystems from possible adverse effects, as well as of human health, following the requirements of the WFD and the Directive on Environmental Quality Standards. The reliability of the assessment of ecological status/potential should be improved by developing WFD compliant assessment methods for all quality elements in all types of water bodies. In particular, further work is needed to develop assessment methods for hydromorphological elements, and to link physico-chemical boundaries to the good/moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements in rivers. Monitoring should be performed in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage in particular in biota, to reach sufficient confidence in the assessment for all water bodies, in combination with a robust methodology to assess the status of non-monitored water bodies. This methodology should be based on a thorough assessment of pressures. If a different matrix or reduced frequencies are used, the corresponding explanations should be provided. Trend monitoring should be performed in sediment and/or biota, to ensure that all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. The Czech Republic needs to continue improving the monitoring and status assessment of groundwater, and further establish links with associated aquatic ecosystems and dependent terrestrial ecosystems, which affect the degree of confidence in assessments. It should ensure that all core parameters are monitored and that operational monitoring is applied to groundwater bodies at risk. The Czech Republic should ensure that in those river basins affected by significant abstractions (e.g. Danube, Elbe) key measures are applied to tackle pressures.

The improvement and subsequent application of the approach for the designation of HMWB should be completed focusing, inter alia, on the establishment of clear criteria and a transparent assessment framework for significant adverse effects of restoration measures and better environmental options for all relevant water categories and uses. The Czech Republic should complete the improvement and subsequent application of the methodology for the definition of ecological potential for the different relevant water categories and uses, including a clear set of mitigation measures, assessment framework for significant adverse effects of mitigation measures and the establishment of objectives for the biological quality elements. A significant number of water bodies are expected to achieve the WFD objectives only beyond 2027 and exemptions according to Article 4(5) are widely applied. This is an issue of concern unless a thorough justification of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions is ensured. Criteria need to be further developed and made transparent in the RBMPs, clearly distinguishing between the justifications for Article 4(4) and 4(5). A thorough assessment of planned new modifications in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified by the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in case C-461/13 should be ensured. 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. Information on the application of Article 4(7) needs to be reported in the RBMPs. The Czech Republic should ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status, and that the Programmes of Measures are designed and implemented to close that gap. In particular, it should ensure that gaps are filled for all significant pressures, especially for hydromorphological pressures, and that KTMs are reported for tackling Priority Substances, River Basin Specific Pollutants and significant abstraction pressures. The Czech Republic should demonstrate that a clear financial commitment exists for the implementation of the measures. In the third RBMPs, the basin-wide impact on ecological status of mitigation measures aimed at agricultural water pollution sources (nutrients, agri-chemicals, particulate matter) should be quantified. RBMPs should identify: the reduction in pollutant load needed to achieve WFD objectives; the extent to which the measures already taken under the ND and UWWTD contribute to the load reduction; which additional measures should be taken to achieve fully the objectives. The Czech Republic should continue to review and develop the strategy for the delivery of WFD objectives, in cooperation with the farming community and Czech CAP delivery authorities, to ensure the third RBMP is technically feasible and all relevant policies and instruments (e.g. RDP, CAP Pillar 1, ND etc.) contribute significantly to RBMPs. It should ensure measures to address agricultural hydromorphological pressures, including a gap assessment, are considered in the strategy. An expert and effective advisory service should support the implementation of the measures in the strategy. Work towards an ambitious approach to combat chemical pollution should continue, by ensuring that adequate measures are in place. This means that basic measures to combat pollution should be clearly identified to allow accurate assessment of the need for supplementary measures. For instance, information should be provided on the level of compliance and on the time needed to reach full compliance with the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC Article 15 and following), and, based on this, on any supplementary measures required to reach good status. The Czech Republic should ensure that the methodology to define the ecological flows covers all relevant biological aspects and is hence compatible with the WFD objectives of good ecological status or potential. The Czech Republic should continue the work on restoration of river continuity in all RBDs. More detailed information should be provided on the specific measures to tackle hydromorphological pressures. Quantification and reporting of the gap indicators for the hydromorphological measures is also needed. The Czech Republic should continue prioritising the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that generally provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, flood protection, habitat conservation, etc.), social and economic benefits compared to grey infrastructure. Cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies should be applied or any exemptions using Article 9(4) justified. It should be transparently presented how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. The water-pricing policy should also be transparently presented and a transparent overview provided of estimated investments and investment needs. The Czech Republic should continue its work on Protected Areas and make sure to set objectives for the different types of Protected Areas. Moreover, it should expand monitoring sites to cover all relevant Protected Areas.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle

1.1.1Administrative arrangements – river basin districts In the Czech Republic three different levels of plans were prepared: (i) international plans for the Danube, Elbe and Oder RBDs (A Plans), co-ordinated by the respective International River Basin Commissions, (ii) national plans for the national Danube, Elbe and Oder RBDs (B Plans), co-ordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment, and (iii) 10 sub-basin plans (C Plans), co-ordinated by the River Boards, state enterprises and Regional Authorities. The Czech Republic is situated within three international river basin districts. Due to the state border geography, small parts of basin districts (Danube and Oder RBDs) are located separately from the main catchment area and in the first cycle plans they were subjoined to the Elbe RBD, which resulted in preparation of eight sub-basin plans (C Plans). However, the national plans (B Plans) include all relevant parts of RBDs, including these small separate areas. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities The following competent authorities are reported: Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic (both responsible for status assessments and monitoring, preparation of Programme of Measures and RBMPs, pressure and impact analysis, public participation and reporting to the European Commission) as well as 14 regional authorities, which are responsible for the implementation of measures, preparation of Programme of Measures and preparation of the RBMP. 1.1.3River Basin Management plans – structure (subplans, SEA) Strategic Environmental Assessments were carried out for all three RBMPs. Sub-plans have been prepared for all three RBDs covering the following issues, illustrated in Figure 1 .1: Agriculture, Chemical industry, Chemical pollution, Climate change, Nutrient enrichment, Hydromorphology and migration permeability, Rural planning, Water Scarcity and droughts. Figure 1.1Issues, sectors, sub-basins or water categories supplemented by more detailed sub-plans for the second cycle. RBD Agriculture Chemical industry Hydropower Transport Water Scarcity and droughts Climate change Coastal erosion Rural planning Urban planning Nutrient enrichment Chemical pollution Other: Hydromorphology, migration continuity CZ1000 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/r ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ CZ5000 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/r ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ CZ6000 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ n/r ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Source: WISE electronic reports. Key: ✓ Covered by sub-plans n/r Not relevant in Member State 1.1.4Public consultation For all three RBDs, the RBMPs were available for consultation for the requisite six months. Stakeholders were actively involved by authorities in all three RBDs. This appears to include stakeholders in the following areas: agriculture, consumer groups, energy, fisheries, industry, local/regional authorities, navigation (and ports), Non-Governmental Organisations/nature protection and water supply. The mechanisms used for active involvement of stakeholders in the development of the RBMPs were via the establishment of advisory groups and involvement in drafting. In all three RBDs, issues raised by stakeholders and impacts on the RBMPs included changes to selection of measures, adjustment of specific measures, addition of new information and few other changes which are not specified. 1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Joint consultation was held on the RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans (the latter being established under the Floods Directive (FD) ).

It can be noted that the fact that RBMPs reviewed refer to the objective of reducing pollution flows to marine waters and meeting international objectives in the area of nutrient reduction, is a positive step for a land-locked country. 1.1.6International coordination and co-operation All three Czech RBDs are part of international RBDs. For all three, international agreements are in place and RBMPs and Programme of Measures have been prepared for the overall international RBD. Moreover, there was international co-ordination on public participation. The Czech Republic cooperated under the international commissions for these three IRBDs as well as bilaterally with neighbouring Member States. For example, the ecological status assessment of transboundary surface water bodies between the Czech Republic and Germany is coordinated by experts of the bilateral German-Czech boundary water commission and its standing committees for Transboundary Waters (for further information see the reports on international coordination on the WFD). 1.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle Stakeholders were more actively involved in the preparation of the second RBMPs: via advisory groups and also in drafting. A broad range of stakeholder groups appear to have been involved. This active engagement was not reported for the first planning cycle. The active engagement of stakeholders indicates that the Czech Republic has responded to the Commission recommendation for good coordination between the public administration and other stakeholders. 1.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and Programme of Measures requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Different levels of plans should be better harmonized and cross-referenced in the second RBMP cycle. Assessment: The assessment of the second RBMPs did not provide information on improved harmonization and cross-referencing among different levels (international RBMPs, national RBMPs, and regional sub-plans). The Czech Republic informed however that coordination and harmonization at the national level was done via a special advisory committee, the Commission for Water Planning (Komise pro plánování v oblasti vod). Moreover, a background document reported to WISE outlines the approach for the coordination of water body typology in each of the three international RBDs. Consequently, this recommendation has been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Ensure good coordination between public administration and other stakeholders to improve the planning and implementation of the Programme of Measures and to monitor their effectiveness. Assessment: Stakeholders were more actively engaged in the preparation of the second RBMPs: stakeholders were actively engaged via advisory groups and were also involved in drafting. A broad range of stakeholder groups appear to have been involved. This active engagement was not reported for the first planning cycle. No information was found in the second RBMPs regarding coordination for the planning and implementation of the Programme of Measures and monitoring of their effectiveness. The requirements of this recommendation were partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Responsibilities for the implementation of the measures including its financing, is identified for some specific measures (building and reconstruction of urban wastewater treatment plants and specific hydromorphology measures). However, other types of measures are not linked to any responsible authority. More transparency is needed in this field. Assessment: There are two competent authorities whose main roles are reported to be the implementation of measures and the preparation of the Programme of Measures: the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic informed that competent authorities for implementation of measures are listed in the RBMPs and in the detailed summaries of the measures (listy opatření). The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment are the competent authorities for implementation of national-level measures. Other bodies – including municipalities, regional authorities, river boards and private companies – are identified as responsible for implementation of local measures. With regard to financing, a clear financial commitment (e.g. approved budget or financial mechanism by the Parliament, Ministry of Finance or other financial responsible authority) was reported not to have been secured for the implementation of all components of the Programme of Measures. In all RBDs, a clear financial commitment had been secured for flood protection and urban development, but not for agriculture and industry measures. The Czech Republic informed that hydromorphological measures are funded from the Operational Programme Environment, under the EU Cohesion Policy. It is concluded that this recommendation has been fulfilled.





Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies There has been a reduction in the number of river water bodies in the Danube and Oder RBDs (12 % and 5 %) and an increase (3 %) in the Elbe ( Table 2.1 ). Fewer lakes were delineated in the second cycle in the Oder (seven instead of eight, 13 %) and more in the two other RBDs (increases by 31 % and 4 %). All but four of the 77 identified lakes were designated as heavily modified: the other four were artificial, three more than had been designated in the first cycle ( Figure 2 .1). There has been a significant decrease in the number of river water bodies designated as heavily modified from 16 % in the first to 9 % in the second cycle (especially in two of the three RBDs) accompanied by increases in the number of natural river water bodies. Data on the uses and physical alterations of heavily modified water bodies was not part of the first cycle reporting but the uses and alterations extracted from the first RBMPs are included in those reported in the second RBMPs; more uses and physical alteration types were reported in 2016 than had been the case previously. All designated heavily modified water bodies had at least one water use and at least one physical alteration reported. The minimum size criteria for rivers in the first RBMPs were tributaries with a Strahler order of greater than four and for lakes a minimum surface area of 0.5 km2. The criteria used in the second RBMPs were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes. Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies for the second (2016) and first (2010) cycles. Year RBD Lakes Rivers Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) 2016 CZ1000 21 60 277 4,905 2016 CZ5000 49 196 636 11,358 2016 CZ6000 7 19 131 1,879 2016 Total 77 275 1,044 18,142 2010 CZ1000 16 51 316 5,207 2010 CZ5000 47 178 615 11,418 2010 CZ6000 8 20 138 1,971 2010 Total 71 249 1,069 18,596 Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in the Czech Republic designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first RBMPs. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category. Source: WISE electronic reports Table 2.2 Size distribution of surface water bodies in the second (2016) and first (2010) RBMPs. Year RBD Lake area (km2) River length (km) Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average 2016 CZ1000 0.45 14.69 2.86 1.84 69.05 17.71 2016 CZ5000 0.36 45.03 4 1.69 69.89 17.86 2016 CZ6000 0.51 8.51 2.75 1.83 45.84 14.34 2016 CZ 0.36 45.03 3.58 1.69 69.89 17.38 2010 CZ1000 0.45 14.68 3.2 0.1 87.64 16.48 2010 CZ5000 0.28 45.04 3.79 0.21 105.5 18.57 2010 CZ6000 0.47 8.4 2.46 0.1 45.83 14.28 2010 CZ 0.28 45.04 3.51 0.1 105.5 17.4 Source: WISE electronic reports. Table 2.3 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies for the second (2016) and first (2010) RBMPs. Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 CZ1000 54 25.07 2569.40 434.91 2016 CZ5000 100 12.47 5832.37 564.72 2016 CZ6000 20 20.69 2775.71 406.14 2016 Total 174 12.47 5832.37 506.21 2010 CZ1000 54 25.07 2568.94 435.75 2010 CZ5000 99 12.5 5786.70 570.41 2010 CZ6000 20 20.7 2776.20 406.27 2010 Total 173 12.5 5786.70 509.4 Source: WISE electronic reports. Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by the Czech Republic on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. The majority of changes were changes in the codes of groundwater, lake and river water bodies but there were also aggregation, creation and deletion of water bodies.





Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies between the two cycles Type of water body change for second cycle Groundwater Body Lake Water Body River Water Body Aggregation 1 61 Splitting 2 23 125 Aggregation and splitting 1 30 Extended area 1 Creation 6 5 Deletion 1 16 Change in code 172 46 822 Total water bodies before deletion 174 78 1060 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 174 77 1044 Source: WISE electronic reports 173 groundwater bodies were identified in the first cycle. One of these (in the Elbe RBD) was subsequently split into two giving 174 groundwater bodies for the second cycle. There have been some changes in the reported characteristics of groundwater bodies in that they were reported to be layered in the first but not in the second cycle. The other reported characteristics of groundwater bodies (main geological formation of the aquifer type and linkages to terrestrial ecosystems) were the same as reported in the first cycle. However, in 2010 no linkages were reported with surface water bodies whereas in the second cycle, 40 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be linked with surface water bodies. Therefore, further groundwater characterisation work has been undertaken since the first cycle; this is further discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. 2.1.2Identification of transboundary water bodies Transboundary river water bodies have been identified in all international RBDs. However, no transboundary groundwater bodies have been identified. 2.1.3Typology of surface water bodies There has been a significant decrease in the number of types of rivers and lakes reported in the second compared to the first cycle; for example 54 river types were reported in the Danube RBD in the first cycle compared to 11 in the second cycle ( Table 2.5 ). Though there were shared lake types between the three RBDs in the second cycle, the river type codes were specific to each RBD. An assessment of the description of the types shows that there may be 51 different types of rivers and lakes. In the first cycle, the typology had been derived using abiotic criteria which had not been validated against biological data, and it was expected that the typology would be revised and WFD compliant type-specific reference conditions would be used for the second RBMPs. Table 2.5 Number of Surface water body types at RBD level for the first and second cycles. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal 2010 2016 2010 2016 CZ_1000 54 11 10 7 0 0 CZ_5000 35 15 22 13 0 0 CZ_6000 31 9 8 5 0 0 TOTAL 89 35 33 16 0 0 Source: WISE electronic reports. The Czech Authorities indicated during bilateral meetings with the European Commission on the first RBMPs that they would be refining their typology for the second cycle, including making it biologically relevant. Assessment of the second RBMPs and relevant background documents showed that the typology has been made biologically relevant for some, but not for all. Types and the typology were only tested for one biological quality element: fish . 2.1.4Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies For rivers, type specific reference conditions have been established for all relevant biological quality elements in 32 out of 35 water types ( Table 2.6 ). Only three river water body types had some biological quality elements established. Type specific reference conditions have been established for all relevant physicochemical quality elements in all river types but only for some of the relevant hydromorphological quality elements. For lakes, type-specific reference conditions have not been established in any type for any of the hydromorphological quality elements. Most lakes are heavily modified water bodies as they are reservoirs/impoundments which were originally rivers ; this is discussed further in Chapter 7 of this report. The remainder are artificial, and type specific reference conditions for hydromorphological quality elements would be required for the definition of maximum and good ecological potential. Type specific reference conditions for some but not all biological quality elements, and for all relevant physicochemical quality elements, have been established. Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of types in each category Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Lakes (16) All 100% Some 100% None 100% Rivers (35) All 91% 100% Some 9% 100% None Source: WISE electronic reports Most national types (heavily modified and natural) have been intercalibrated. However, around 50 % of river water bodies are reported not to have a corresponding intercalibration type: most of these are natural river water bodies . A question arises as to if and how the ecological status of these water bodies has been intercalibrated (this is discussed further in Chapter 3 of this report on the assessment and classification of ecological status/potential). In terms of type-specific reference conditions for the first RBMPs, there were no reliable reference conditions available and they had only been established in a few cases for rivers, using expert judgment, and had a limited scope.

2.1.5Significant pressures on water bodies It was reported that significant pressures from water flow regulation and morphological alterations and from water abstractions were not assessed in terms of surface waters, due to sufficient legislation and control of abstractions. In terms of pressures from water flow regulation and morphological alterations this seems to be inconsistent, as many water bodies have been designated as heavily modified and water bodies were reported to be subject to this type of significant pressure. The only other significant pressure was “natural background”. The most significant pressures in the second cycle in terms of proportion of affected surface of water bodies were Anthropogenic pressure – Unknown (70% of surface water bodies), Point - Urban waste water (38 %), Diffuse Agricultural (22 %) and Diffuse Atmospheric deposition (22 %). 31 different pressure types were reported for surface water bodies: the “top 10” pressures in relation to the largest proportion of affected water bodies are illustrated in Figure 2.2. Seven different significant pressure types were reported to be affecting groundwater in the Czech Republic for the second cycle: Diffuse – Agricultural (61 % of groundwater bodies), Anthropogenic pressure – Unknown (49 %), Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition (30 %), Point - Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites (24 %) and Abstraction or flow diversion – Public water supply (9 %). Because of the changes in the reporting of pressures between the two cycles, it is difficult to compare the pressures, and the numbers of affected water bodies. In general terms, for surface waters, similar point source, diffuse source pressures and pressures from hydromorphological alterations were reported in both cycles ( Figure 2.3 ). Pressures from abstraction or flow diversion for Agriculture were reported to be significant for one water body in one RBD (the Elbe). Abstractions were not identified as significant pressures for any surface water bodies in the Czech Republic in the first cycle. Figure 2.3 shows an apparent decrease in the number of water bodies affected by hydromorphological pressures. The reason for this is unclear and could relate to differences in the aggregation of the data between cycles or changes to the methodology for defining significant pressures. As for surface waters, it is difficult to compare the pressures on groundwater bodies, and the number affected, between the two cycles, also because in the first cycle pressures were only reported at an aggregated level. But in general terms the same broad types of pressures seem to have been reported for both cycles. Figure 2.2 The 10 most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies for the second cycle Source: WISE electronic reports



Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in the first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 1121 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 1140 for the first cycle. Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.6Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater In the first cycle, the tools that were used to define significant pressures from water flow regulation and morphological alterations, point sources and water abstractions were a combination of numerical tools and expert judgment. Expert judgment was used for agriculture and transport diffuse sources and a combination of numerical tools and expert judgment for abandoned industrial sites and atmospheric deposition. Expert judgment was used for other significant pressures e.g. introduced species and fishing. The assessment of the second RBMPs and linked background documents provided information on the exclusion of pressures from the risk assessment of surface water bodies. Abstractions and flow diversions were not identified as significant pressures for surface water due to sufficient legislation and control of abstractions. Also morphological alterations could not be identified as a significant pressure (but an inventory of barriers and other morphological alterations was prepared) because of the unclear link between the pressures and the status of the biological quality elements. In terms of groundwater, most pressures were considered as not relevant (e.g. hydromorphological alterations) or were assessed as non-significant (e.g. direct discharges to groundwater). Diffuse pollution from transport is a significant pressure, which is included in the atmospheric deposition pressure category.

For the assessment of significant pressures on groundwater bodies, a combination of numerical tools and expert judgment was used for point source, diffuse source and water abstraction pressures, and expert judgment for artificial recharge and “other” pressures. There was no information available on these aspects from the first RBMPs. For both surface water bodies and groundwater bodies significance of pressures has been defined in terms of thresholds and is linked to the potential failure of objectives (surface waters) and to the verified failure of good status (groundwater). 2.1.7Significant impacts on water bodies The reporting of impact types also changed between reporting cycles and as a result it is not possible to compare quantitatively the reporting of the impacts on groundwater bodies for the two cycles ( Figure 2.4 ). The types of impacts are more comparable between the two cycles in terms of surface water bodies ( Figure 2.4 ). In terms of chemical pollution, there was an apparent increase in the second cycle in the number of impacted surface water bodies in all three RBDs, although in the first cycle the “equivalent” impact type was defined as “Contamination by Priority Substances or other specific pollutants”. The reasons for this apparent increase is not clear but could relate to improved monitoring or changes in the methodology for defining impacts. In contrast, the number of surface water bodies impacted by Nutrient pollution and Organic pollution decreased between the first and second cycles in all three RBDs. The most significant difference between the two cycles was in terms of ‘altered habitats due to hydrological changes’ and ‘altered habitats due to morphological changes (includes connectivity)’ which were not reported as an impact at all in the second RBMPs: in the first RBMPs, 56 % of surface water bodies were reported to be impacted by ‘altered habitats as a result of hydromorphological alterations.’ The data for the second cycle does not seem consistent with the degree of designation of heavily modified water bodies or with the reporting of significant hydromorphological pressures. Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies for the second cycle. Percentage of numbers of water bodies. Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.8Quantification and apportionment of pressures For the first RBMPs, quantitative source apportionment was used mainly for nutrients and organic pollutants from point (discharges) and diffuse sources. It was not clear if quantitative apportionment was used for other types of impacts/pressures. For the second cycle, there was no information in the RBMPs on the apportionment of impacts/pressures between the responsible activities/sectors that are causing failure of good ecological status/potential or good chemical status in surface water bodies, nor for failure to reach good status for groundwater status; there was a reported lack of data, implying that a quantitative source apportionment has not been undertaken for the second RBMPs. 2.1.9Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status In the second RBMPs, almost all groundwater bodies in all RBDs were reported to be at risk. The pollutants putting groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status have been reported for all RBDs. 2.1.10Quantification of gap to be filled for pressures causing failure of status objectives The links between the pressures for which measures are planned and the significant pressures reported at the water body level are not always clear . For example, in the Danube RBD, “abstraction or flow diversion – public water supply” has been reported at the groundwater body level, but this pressure does not seem to have been tackled in the programme of measures. Also in the Danube RBD, for surface waters, pressures Point - Storm overflows, Point - Non IED plants, Point – Other, Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Flood protection and Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore – Other were reported at the water body level but they also do not seem to be addressed in the programme of measures. There are similar examples in the other two RBDs. Similarly, 20 Priority Substances are reported as causing failure of good chemical status of surface water bodies in the Czech Republic, and 41 River Basin Specific Pollutants as causing failure to achieve good ecological status/potential. No measures to tackle these substances causing failure seem to have been reported. 2.1.11Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive 2008/105/EC (EQS Directive) requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I EQS Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from Priority Substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (or suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances. In the first RBMPs, the Czech Republic had prepared an inventory of sources, including E-PRTR and non-E-PRTR facilities and diffuse sources of priority pollutants (e.g. pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals). For the second RBMPs, the Czech Republic reported that all Priority Substances were included in inventories for 9 of the 10 sub-units in the Czech Republic. The other sub-unit (CZDUN Other tributaries of the Danube), covering only 16 surface water bodies, does not have an inventory for any of the Priority Substances.

The two-step approach defined in the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. In accordance with the Guidance Document, Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented for substances assessed as not relevant at subunit level. Higher tiers of the methodology were applied for substances relevant at sub-unit level (either a combination of Tier 1 (point source information) and Tier 2 (riverine load) or a combination of Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 (pathway-oriented approach)). The data quality was assessed as very uncertain for substances relevant at sub-unit level, and it was not reported for the other substances. 2.2Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and Programme of Measures requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Links between status and responsible specific pressures should be made clear. Assessment: The Czech Republic has reported that for both surface water bodies and groundwater bodies significance of pressures has been defined in terms of thresholds and is linked to the potential failure of objectives (surface waters) and to the verified failure of good status (groundwater). The gaps to be filled to achieve objectives have been reported for some (but not all) pressures and the apportionment between different sources has not been carried out for all pressures/impacts. There is also no clear link between measures and individual substances causing failure. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status, and that the Programme of Measures is designed and implemented to close that gap. The identified impacts have to be clearly apportioned between the sources and sectors/drivers responsible for the pressures for all significant water management issues. Assessment: The gaps to be filled to achieve objectives have been quantified for some but not all pressures, and the Key Types of Measures to be made operational to fill the gaps have been reported. However, there are some inconsistencies in the pressures for which measures are planned and the significant pressures reported at the water body level . Examples are discussed in Section 2.1.10. Therefore, it can be concluded that this part of the recommendation has been partially fulfilled. The apportionment of impacts to all responsible pressures/sectors is missing: it is not clear whether all responsible pressures have been identified as some of the impacts could arise from more than one pressure. Information has not been found in any of the RBMPs assessed on which activities/sectors are contributing significantly to the failure of good chemical status in surface waters and to the different impacts causing failure of good ecological status/potential. This part of the recommendation has not been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Present in the second RBMPs a clear assessment of the number of water bodies failing to reach good status due to agriculturally derived pressures because diffuse sources of pollution from nitrogen and pesticides were identified as the main significant pressures from agriculture in the Czech Republic. Assessment: Measures including “Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture” and “Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture” have been reported to tackle significant diffuse pressures from agriculture. The indicator of the gap to be filled has been reported in terms of number of water bodies failing environmental quality standards for pesticides originating from diffuse agricultural sources, for nitrogen or pesticides originating from diffuse agriculture sources and the load of nitrogen to be reduced to achieve objectives. This recommendation has been fulfilled. Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1.Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs 3.1.1.Monitoring 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. The Czech Republic reported separate operational and surveillance monitoring programmes for surface waters (lakes and rivers) in each RBD. Monitoring sites Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the first and second RBMPs and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. There has been a decrease in the number of surveillance monitoring sites from the first to second RBMP in rivers and lakes in the Danube and the Elbe: there are only small differences in the Oder. The number of sites in operational monitoring of rivers in the Danube has almost doubled from the first to the second RBMP with a smaller increase in the Elbe and a small decrease in the Oder. There are fewer surveillance monitoring sites in the second RBMP compared to the first in lakes in Danube and Elbe, and fewer sites used for operational monitoring in all three RBDs. Overall in the Czech Republic there has been an increase from 885 to 999 monitoring sites in rivers from the first to second RBMPs and a decrease from 76 to 62 sites in lakes. There has been a decrease in the number of identified river water bodies and an increase in number of identified lake water bodies between the first and second RBMPs. In the first RBMPs, 10 % of river water bodies in the Czech Republic were included in surveillance monitoring, this decreased to 8 % in the second RBMPs. 38 % of lake water bodies were included in surveillance monitoring in the first RBMPs and only 10 % for the second. For operational monitoring, 65 % of river water bodies in the Czech Republic were included in the first RBMPs, increasing to 95 % in the second: the biggest increase occurred in the Danube where the number increased from 127 (40 %) in the first RBMPs to 271 (98 %) in the second. 92 % of lakes were included in operational monitoring in the first RBMPs, decreasing to 78 % for the second ( Figure 3.1 ).

Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in 2010, the 2016 data does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring. Rivers Lakes Surv. Op Surv. Op second RBMP CZ_1000 26 272 0 16 CZ_5000 48 596 3 39 CZ_6000 11 129 5 7 Total by type of site 85 997 8 62 Total number of monitoring sites 999 62 first RBMP CZ_1000 32 137 6 22 CZ_5000 67 528 16 41 CZ_6000 12 170 5 13 Total by type of site 111 835 27 76 Total number of monitoring sites 885 76 Source WISE electronic reports Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in the Czech Republic. Monitoring Purpose Lakes Rivers CHE - Chemical status 35 589 ECO - Ecological status 62 999 HAB - Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v 12 278 INT - International network of other international convention 81 NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 326 OPE - Operational monitoring 62 999 QUA - Quantitative status RIV - International network of a river convention (including bilateral agreements) 69 SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 134 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 8 85 Total sites irrespective of purpose 62 999 Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring for the first RBMPs (2010) and second RBMPs (2016). Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring. Source: WISE electronic reports Surveillance monitoring should include “sufficient surface water bodies to provide an assessment of the overall surface water status within each catchment or sub-catchments within the river basin district”. Overall in the Czech Republic, only 2 % of the river water bodies classified as good ecological status/potential are included in surveillance monitoring compared to 22 % at bad status/potential ( Figure 3.2 ). The four river water bodies classified as high status/potential are not included in surveillance monitoring.



Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring. Note: Standard colours and class descriptors for ecological status based on WFD Annex V, Article 1(4)2(I) used for illustration purposes. Source: WISE electronic reports. Transboundary surface water body monitoring All three RBDs reported that there are river monitoring sites that are part of the international network of a river convention (including bilateral agreements) and/or of the international network of other international conventions. Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) Ecological status or potential is assessed on the basis of the results from the monitoring of a range of quality elements. These are primarily biological quality elements with supporting hydromorphological and chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. This latter group comprises some general physico-chemical parameters and River Basin Specific Pollutants. Some of the quality elements are specific to the different surface water categories (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters). Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of lakes and rivers for the second RBMP: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring.

In terms of surveillance monitoring, none of the lakes included in surveillance monitoring were monitored for all the required biological quality elements nor for all the general physico-chemical quality elements. No lakes in the Danube RBD are included in surveillance monitoring. Phytoplankton is sampled for surveillance purposes in lakes in both the Elbe and the Oder RBDs, and fish is sampled in lakes in the Oder RBD. Aquatic flora, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates are not monitored for surveillance purposes in lakes: this is a significant gap in the surveillance monitoring of lakes. In contrast, all of the required biological quality elements are included in some river water bodies in all three RBDs. All required biological quality elements were included in surveillance monitoring in 73 % of river water bodies in the Danube, 59 % in the Elbe and 55 % in the Oder. All required general physico-chemical quality elements were monitored in all river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring in the Danube and the Elbe, but only in 73 % of river water bodies in the Oder. In terms of operational monitoring, the biological quality element phytoplankton is predominantly used in lakes: 100 %, 92 % and 100 % of lakes used it in operational monitoring in the Danube, the Elbe and the Oder, respectively. The only other biological quality element to be used in operational monitoring of lakes is fish, in 38 %, 35 % and 29 % of lakes used it for operational monitoring in the Danube, the Elbe and Oder, respectively. All the relevant biological quality elements are used in operational monitoring of rivers with benthic invertebrates being the most used (95 %, 84 % and 95 % in the Danube, the Elbe and the Oder, respectively). The least applied biological quality element (of those relevant) for operational monitoring of rivers was macrophytes (17 %, 22 % and 13 % of rivers included in operational monitoring in the Danube, the Elbe and the Oder, respectively). This may reflect the distribution of the different types of pressures on rivers but may also indicate the predominance of biological quality elements that were used in monitoring before WFD implementation i.e. phytoplankton in lakes and benthic invertebrates in rivers. Hydromorphological quality elements are not monitored in the second RBMP in any water body and unknown status is reported for each water body for these quality elements: this is a major gap in the monitoring and status assessment methods. Hydromorphological quality elements were reported to be monitored in the first RBMP though there was no status assessment method developed. Information found in the RBMPs and linked background documents indicated that the methods for hydromorphological quality element monitoring and assessment was finished at the end of first cycle, but had not been used yet: the reason for this is not known.



Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in the Czech Republic (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note: quality elements may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring. Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Lakes Yes No No No Yes No No Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No General physico-chemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: WISE electronic reports Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a RBMP i.e. six years. For phytoplankton, this 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. Of the seven biological quality elements used for the surveillance monitoring of rivers and lakes, all but phytoplankton in lakes, were sampled at least at the minimum guidance frequency at all of the sites where they were monitored. In contrast, of the seven biological quality elements used for operational monitoring of rivers and lakes, none was sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency at all of the sites where they were monitored. The category with the smallest proportion of water bodies sampled at least at the minimum frequency is fish in rivers (18 % of sites) and that with the largest proportion is phytoplankton in lakes (86 % of sites). River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored 85 River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in water in the Czech Republic. 44 River Basin Specific Pollutants cause failure of good ecological status/potential in at least one water body. In lakes, 59 River Basin Specific Pollutants are monitored, 9 of these cause failure of good ecological status/potential in at least one lake water body. Bisphenol-A is causing failure in one lake water body though it seems it is not monitored. Copper was monitored in the largest number of water bodies in the Czech Republic (141 in the Elbe and 112 in the Danube). All substances were measured in water for status assessment. 69 % of river water bodies and 62 % of lake water bodies in the Czech Republic are monitored for at least one River Basin Specific Pollutant. In more than half of lake and river water bodies in the Danube and in the Oder, more than 11 River Basin Specific Pollutants are monitored. Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements: once every three months is recommended for 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 four times for the surveillance year, and for operational monitoring to four times a year for each year of the cycle. Of the 85 River Basin Specific Pollutants included in surveillance monitoring, 66 were sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency at all of the sites where they were monitored. Of the 85 River Basin Specific Pollutants included in operational monitoring, two were sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency at all of the sites where they were monitored, and five pollutants at none. Annex V, section 1.3.4 of the WFD does not explicitly define the matrices to which the recommended minimum frequency of monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants (“Other Pollutants”) applies. Recommended monitoring frequencies are specified for Priority Substances in biota and sediment in Article 3(2)(c) of the EQS Directive: this is once per year for operational and surveillance monitoring purposes. For consistency this frequency of once per year has been applied to the monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants in biota/sediment. Table 3.4 compares the number of sites used for the monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants for the two RBMPs. On the face of it, it would seem that there has been a decrease in the number of sites used in lakes and rivers for the second RBMPs compared to the first. However, the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions of the substances to be considered were used (in the first RBMP, some Member States sometimes reported more than just the river basin specific pollutants).

Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMP and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants reported in the first RBMP. Note the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used RBMP Lakes Rivers second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 48 718 first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants 76 869 Sources: WISE electronic reports 3.1.2.Ecological Status/potential of surface water The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in the Czech Republic for the second RBMP is illustrated in Map 3.1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status.



Map 3.1Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies based on the most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies. Note: Standard colours for ecological status based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). High status or maximum potential Good status or potential Moderate status or potential Poor status or potential Bad status or potential Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside the European Union Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders). A detailed breakdown of ecological status/potential in each RBD and water category can be viewed in the WISE electronic reports. Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. Most of the classifications are given a medium level of confidence. For the first RBMP, all classifications were given a low confidence indicating an improvement in assessment and classification for the second RBMPs. Figure 3.3 Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies based on the most recently assessed status/potential. Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.4 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in the Czech Republic in the first RBMP with that in the second RBMP, and that expected by 2015 according to the second RBMP. Figure 3.4 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in the Czech Republic for the second RBMPs, for the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. Note: the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2006 to 2013. The period of the assessment of status for the first RBMPs is not known. Source: WISE electronic reports

In the second RBMP, 19.2 % of surface water bodies were at good (18.8 %) or high status (0.4 %). In the first RBMP, 17 % of surface water bodies were at good or high status. Note that in the first RBMP 1140 surface water bodies were delineated compared to 1121 in the second and assessment methods changed: this adds some uncertainty to the validity of the comparison. Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for the Czech Republic is shown in Figure 3.5 . Figure 3.5 Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in the Czech Republic The number in parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category.



Source: WISE electronic reports Around 20 % of rivers are expected to be at least good status/potential by 2015 but 100 % achievement is not expected until after 2027. For lakes, 35 % are expected to be at least good by 2015 with full achievement expected by the end of 2027. Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element The classification is mainly based on a few quality elements: biological quality elements (benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos), general physico-chemical quality elements and River Basin Specific Pollutants in rivers; biological quality element phytoplankton, general physico-chemical quality elements and River Basin Specific Pollutants in lakes. Figure 3.6 illustrates the biological quality elements used in the classification of ecological status/potential. Figure 3.6 Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of lakes and rivers in the Czech Republic. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential, and those that are monitored but not classified or not applicable, are not presented Source: WISE electronic reports A differentiated presentation of this data between ecological status and potential and including all types of quality element can be viewed here Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for water bodies that have not changed from the first to the 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 and because the assessment methods changed.

Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes in the Czech Republic for the second RBMP. 88 % of rivers and 68 % of lakes are classified using three of the four types of quality elements (biological; hydromorphological, general physico-chemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants) that might be used in the classification ( Figure 3.8 ): no water body was classified according to hydromorphological quality elements ( Figure 3.9 ). Figure 3.7 Comparison of ecological status/potential according to classified biological quality elements in rivers and lakes water bodies that have not changed from the first to the second RBMPs. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential have been excluded from the presentation. Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.8 The classification of the ecological status or potential of rivers and lakes in the Czech Republic using one, two, three or four types of quality element. Note: The four types are: biological; hydromorphological, general physico-chemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.9 The percentage of river and lake water bodies where no biological quality element or no hydromorphological (HYMO) or no general physico-chemical (PHYSCHEM) or no River Basin Specific Pollutant (RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential Source: WISE electronic reports None of the biological quality elements were used in the classification of ecological status of 26 % of lakes and 10 % of rivers indicating weaknesses in the assessment methods for these water categories. The basis of the classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.10 . Figure 3.10 Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential. The percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category.

Source: WISE electronic reports Overwhelmingly, the results of monitoring have been used in the classification of rivers and lakes. Expert judgement was only used for the classification of River Basin Specific Pollutants in lakes and rivers. In lakes grouping has only been used for River Basin Specific Pollutants in one water body. Grouping has been used in classification to a small extent in rivers. Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements There are now biological quality element assessment methods developed for lakes (reservoirs) for phytoplankton, macrophytes and fish, but not for benthic invertebrates. Reference conditions are only available for some water bodies in each type of lake (reservoir). However, even though it was reported that an assessment method for macrophytes was developed for all lake types, this quality element is not monitored in lakes and not used for the subsequent classification of lakes. The Czech Republic therefore has not developed fully compliant assessment methods for lakes. The new lake biological quality element assessment methods should be checked for compliance concerning intercalibration, as the information was not reported. There are no lake assessment methods for macroinvertebrates. Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems Information in WISE indicates that most national surface water body types (heavily modified and natural) have been intercalibrated. However, around 54 % of river water bodies in the Czech Republic are reported not to have a corresponding intercalibration type: most of these are natural river water bodies. Most water bodies of the non-intercalibrated types have an ecological status classification and so the question arises as to how the status of these water bodies has been intercalibrated. The second RBMPs and background documents were examined for any information on how the results from the intercalibrated types have been translated to all other national types. The documents indicate that the national classification systems were checked against the intercalibration results and if necessary, updated (update was necessary only for fish in Central Baltic lakes). However, 42 % of rivers are not included in any intercalibration type (50 % calculated from reported data), but it was expected that the national methodologies were compliant with the intercalibration results also for the other Czech Republic rivers. The conclusion is that there may be a serious lack of comparability of ecological status/potential classification for a large proportion of water bodies in the Czech Republic . Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements The assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements are only partly developed in rivers, and not at all in lakes (reservoirs); no hydromorphological quality elements have been classified. Assessment methods for general physico-chemical quality elements Standards have been reported for the relevant general physico-chemical quality elements in lakes and are consistent with the good‐moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. Standards have also been reported for all relevant general physico-chemical quality elements in rivers but are reported not to be consistent with the good‐moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. For rivers this is an important issue as standards should be linked to the good-moderate status/potential classification boundaries of the biological quality elements. Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards According to the second RBMPs, the list of River Basin Specific Pollutants was elaborated by the Czech Republic on the basis of the pollutants in WFD Annex VIII that could be potentially discharged into or have entered the aquatic environment, but no details on the specific methodology could be found in the second RBMPs. The Czech Republic reported Environmental Quality Standards for more substances than those monitored. None of the standards are reported to be derived in accordance with the 2011 Technical Guidance Document N° 27 . For the large majority of the substances the analytical methods used met the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC) . For the remaining substances, the analytical method met the criteria from article 4.2. Use of monitoring results for classification Overwhelmingly in the Czech Republic, monitoring data has been used to classify the status of the quality elements used to assess the overall ecological status/potential of surface water bodies: at least 94 % for all quality elements except for River Basin Specific Pollutants in lakes (77 %). Expert judgement and grouping was also used to classify 21 %, and 2 % of lakes, respectively, for River Basin Specific Pollutants. Grouping has at most been used for 6 % of water bodies classified according to the different quality elements. A comparison has been made between the numbers of water bodies classified using monitoring results with those directly monitored. By and large there is good agreement between the two, other than for macrophytes where 195 surface water bodies were directly monitored and subsequently only 90 classified. Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle) The one-out-all-out principle has been used for assessing the overall classification of ecological status in all RBDs (information reported to WISE). The second RBMPs indicated that no methodology was developed for applying the no-deterioration principle, but that it would be prepared for the third RBMPs, if necessary. Also there is no information in the second RBMPs on how the spatial extent of any ecological impacts within water bodies has been taken into account when deriving the overall status of a water body. 3.2.Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs In the first RBMP, there were no assessment methods for biological quality elements in lakes (reservoirs), but now methods have been developed for phytoplankton, macrophytes (though macrophytes are not monitored in lakes and are not used in the classification of status of lakes) and fish in lakes (reservoirs), although reference conditions have only been set for some water bodies.

The confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential has improved since the first RBMP. For the first RBMP, all classifications were given a low confidence whereas for the second RBMP most of the classifications are given a medium level of confidence. Overall ecological status has improved in all the RBDs since the first RBMP with considerably fewer water bodies in poor/bad status and more water bodies in moderate status. In the Danube there is also an increase in the number of good status water bodies, but only a minor increase is seen in the Elbe and a decrease in good status water bodies in the Oder. For biological quality element status, however, change is reported mainly for a few water bodies concerning benthic invertebrates and fish in rivers, and these changes are not consistent, due to changes in monitoring and assessment methods. 3.3.Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and Programme of Measures requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Status assessment should be reliable. (The assessment of ecological status was simplified in the first plans with only benthic invertebrates and sometimes fish, and chlorophyll a used as biological quality elements in rivers. There were no biological assessment methods for lakes.) Assessment: Concerning the reliability of status assessment, there has been little progress on these recommendations for lakes which still do not have WFD compliant assessment methods. There has been progress in terms of the biological assessment methods but a major gap exists in terms of monitoring and assessment of hydromorphological quality elements. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Focus better the operational monitoring of water bodies on verification of results from the pressures and impacts analysis, e.g. the link between impacts on water bodies and hydromorphological pressures should be addressed. A clear description should be provided on how the biological quality elements were selected in relation to all potential pressures and impacts in both rivers and lakes (reservoirs), and in particular those arising from hydromorphological alterations where fish might be considered as one of the most sensitive biological quality elements to this pressure in rivers and lakes (reservoirs). Assessment: Some of the information to assess this recommendation is not available in WISE and would have to be sought from the RBMPs. Fish have been included in the monitoring of rivers and for a few lakes indicating some progress. No hydromorphological quality elements have been assessed in view of classification. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Base the assessment of measures for River Basin Specific Pollutants on appropriate Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) in the second RBMPs cycle. (The identification of River Basin Specific Pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, ho