EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 48 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Malta Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 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 Foreword General Information Status of second river basin management plan reporting Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 1.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 2.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP 3.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 3.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 4.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 4.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 4.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 5.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 5.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 5.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 6.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 6.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 6.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 7.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle for designation 7.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 7.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions 8.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 8.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 8.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

Topic 9 Programme of measures 9.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 9.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 9.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 10.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 10.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 10.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture 11.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 11.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 12.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 12.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology 13.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 13.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies 14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle and main changes since the 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 the second cycle 15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 15.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 16.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 16.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Acronyms and definitions EQS Directive Environmental Quality Standards Directive FD Floods Directive Km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure PoM Programme of Measures RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Annex 0 Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



Foreword The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) requires in its Article 18 that each Member State (MS) 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 A Map of River Basin Districts Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Malta has a population of 450 000 people and a total surface area greater than 316 km2. Malta is a group of three islands in the Mediterranean Sea - Malta, Gozo and Comino. The terrain is low and rocky with coastal cliffs. Malta has identified one river basin district, which is 712 km2 and covers the whole country’s territory. The Malta RBD does not share catchments with other Member States or with other countries. The information on the national river basin district including sharing countries is provided in Table A. Table A Overview of Malta‘s River Basin Districts RBD Name Size (km2) Countries sharing borders MTMALTA Malta 712 - Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE

Status of second river basin management plan reporting Malta published its RBMP on 16 February 2016. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .



Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of Malta are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation

Malta organised an extensive process for the active involvement of stakeholders, including for the development of measures and the discussion of their implementation (thus implementing a Commission recommendation from the first cycle). Malta prepared a joint plan that incorporated both its RBMP and its Flood Risk Management Plan and thus implemented a Commission recommendation from the first cycle to ensure coordination of these plans. ·Characterisation of the RBD Inland water bodies have been delineated since the first RBMP. However, river, lake and transitional water bodies do not appear to have equivalent intercalibration types and type-specific reference conditions have not been established. Malta considers that such reference conditions cannot be established at this stage and that for inland surface water bodies, the characteristic hydrological intermittency and complexity renders the hydromorphological and physico-chemical evaluations of ecological status extremely difficult and further long-term trend data are necessary. Further characterisation work for groundwater bodies has been undertaken since the first RBMP, with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages with surface water bodies. For surface water and groundwater bodies, significance of pressures is reported as being linked to the potential failure of objectives. However, the significance is not defined in terms of thresholds and it was reported that a relatively high number of significant pressures (14) were not assessed for surface water, including “dams, barriers and locks and physical alterations”, although pressures due to hydromorphological alterations were qualitatively described for inland surface water bodies in the second RBMP. “Anthropogenic pressure – unknown” is reported to affect all surface water bodies and diffuse and point pressures from undefined sources are reported for 47 % of surface water bodies. This shows that the activities and sectors have still not been adequately identified . It was reported that only five Priority Substances were included in the inventory. The RBMP explains that the inventory only covers substances that are relevant in Maltese water bodies, but the criteria for relevance were not provided. No basic estimation of emissions was provided for these substances of minor relevance. This is not in line with the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28. Tier 1 (point source information) was implemented for substances in the inventories (while the Guidance Document recommends implementing at least Tier 1+2 for substances relevant at RBD level). The quality of the input data is reported as uncertain. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status Since the first RBMP, monitoring has been established for all the required quality elements in coastal waters and for most of the required quality elements in rivers, lakes, and transitional waters. Ecological status was reported as unknown for all rivers, lakes and transitional waters and no biological quality elements were classified in those three water categories. Hydromorphological quality elements were not classified in any water category, except morphological conditions in transitional waters. Phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates were monitored in coastal water but not classified on the basis of an intercalibrated method. Five River Basin Specific Pollutants were identified and were monitored, in sediment only, at a frequency lower than the minimum recommended frequency. Environmental Quality Standards were reported for the five River Basin Specific Pollutants in sediment. They were not derived in accordance with the Technical Guidance n. 27 and the analytical methods are not in line with the requirements of Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control Directive (2009/90/EC) for the strictest standard applied. Intercalibration was not done for phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates in coastal waters, nor for any biological quality elements in rivers, lakes and transitional waters. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies For the first RBMP, the chemical status for all water bodies (all coastal water bodies) was unknown. In the second RBMP, Malta has delineated inland surface water bodies and transitional water bodies, and all water bodies have been classified. Approximately half of the water bodies have good chemical status (rivers, lakes and transitional) and half are failing to achieve good status (all coastal water bodies). Water bodies seemed to be classified with medium to high confidence, according to the RBMP. All surface water bodies are monitored with the exception of coastal waters (78 % are monitored). This results from both an increase in monitoring of coastal water bodies and monitoring of the newly delineated freshwater bodies, since the first RBMP.

All 41 Priority Substances are monitored, including all priority substances discharged, and all are taken into account in the assessment of status. The monitoring frequency for some Priority Substances in the water column in coastal waters meets the minimum recommended frequency for surveillance but not for operational monitoring. In surface freshwaters, the frequency is less than the minimum recommended. Hexachlorobenzene, mercury and hexachlorobutadiene are not monitored in biota for status assessment. All 14 of the relevant Priority Substances were monitored for trend assessment in sediments and/or biota in all water bodies (14 substances in coastal water bodies, and 13 substances in lake, river, and transitional water bodies). The monitoring frequency is lower than the recommended minimum frequency. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies There is still a gap in quantitative monitoring, but Malta subsequently clarified that it is intending to extend the monitoring framework to all groundwater bodies within the implementation timeframe of the second cycle. The level of confidence of the status results is reported high, but only 3 out of 15 groundwater bodies are monitored, which cover approximately 80 % of the total groundwater body area. Malta subsequently clarified that the existing hydrogeological setting did not allow water level measurements. The groundwater quantitative status was therefore assessed by a water-balance model. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies The coverage of groundwater bodies by surveillance and operational monitoring is complete. Also all WFD core parameters are monitored (in contrast to the conclusions drawn from the electronic reporting). The percentage of the total groundwater body area failing good status is still very high and there is no significant improvement. Terrestrial ecosystems and surface waters were considered in status assessment. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential There is still no consistent description of the methodology for the designation of heavily modified water bodies in the Maltese RBMP. The RBMP only explains why the two main coastal heavily modified water bodies are designated as such, including a description of substantial changes in character and significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use or wider environment. For the five transitional water bodies, which were designated due to historical usage, as well as the two lake and river heavily modified water bodies, no criteria or explanations for the designation were described. In the second RBMP, good ecological potential is reported as defined following the Prague approach, whereas in the first RBMP, good ecological potential had not been defined due to the delay in the implementation of the monitoring programmes. The approach developed to define good ecological potential in the second RBMP only concerns the two coastal heavily modified water bodies. Good ecological potential definition on the basis of biological quality elements and mitigation measures has only taken place for the two coastal heavily modified water bodies, while for the other heavily modified water bodies (rivers, lakes, and transitional waters), no biological quality elements were established/assessed and mitigation measures have been identified. It is explained that due to the unique characteristics of inland surface waters, additional data is required to understand the complex dynamics associated with such water bodies. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives were reported for coastal water bodies and groundwater. However, the dates by when lake, river, and transitional water bodies will achieve good ecological status/potential are reported as unknown. Good chemical status for river, lake and transitional water bodies was reported to be achieved by 2015 but the dates for achieving good chemical status for coastal waters are unknown. 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. Overall the application of exemptions has been reduced between the two cycles. ·Programme of Measures The financing of measures is one area of progress. Clear costs are presented and it is reported that 76 % of the funding for the measures will be provided by European Union funds. Financial commitment for the remaining measures has been obtained from all relevant sectors. Not all the significant pressures identified in groundwater bodies are addressed by KTMs. There is a discrepancy between the national measures mapped to KTMs and the KTMs reported to be addressing significant pressures.

There is a discrepancy between the national KTMs reported as being used to address significant pressures and those against which national measures have been mapped. Very limited information on the gap to good status was reported. Where data was provided, indicators were generally only provided for 2015. Where information is reported for 2021 it was reported that the water bodies concerned were expected to be of good status. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity ·Water abstraction pressures are reported as relevant for Malta; and 13 % of groundwater bodies face water quantity-related problems for achieving good quantitative status. ·The Water Exploitation Index + is 97 % (2014) which is an extraordinarily high figure and might indicate risks of sustainable water use. ·The river basin management plan does not include a water resource and allocation management plan. ·Measurement and monitoring are the basis for calculating urban water consumption. Measures have been implemented to better calculate agricultural water consumption. ·Exemptions for permitting and registering for small abstractions might need to be reviewed and abstractions controls need improvement, as a significant proportion of groundwater bodies does not achieve good quantitative status. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. A gap assessment for nutrients has not been undertaken and management objectives for nutrient pollution have not been set. Safeguard zones have been established for abstractions. Implementation of basic measures Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source is ensured and the same rules apply across the whole RBD. Financing of agricultural measures is secured. The level of ambition is unclear, as the area covered by measures to achieve environmental objectives is not reported. Malta however subsequently clarified that the whole RBD’s area is covered. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture Malta reported KTM to tackle significant chemical pressures. Malta also reported measures specifically to address mercury, the only Priority Substance (mercury) identified as causing failure. There is no specific measure to tackle Zinc.

·Measures related to hydromorphology In the second RBMP, no significant hydromorphological pressure affecting water bodies was identified in Malta, and therefore no related hydromorphological measure was reported. According to the information subsequently provided by Malta, physical alterations have been reported for Heavily Modified Water Bodies rather than under significant hydromorphological pressures. In terms of measures, however, natural water retention measures (KTM23) are planned to tackle significant abstractions or flow diversion pressures from public water supply on groundwater. Ecological flows have not been derived or implemented so far but there are plans to do so during the second cycle. In this context, no specific measure is planned to achieve ecological flows and their establishment is not addressed by specific regulations. However, it is indicated that Malta is still in the phase of establishing the baseline for deriving ecological flows. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies ·Cost recovery calculations remain limited – environmental and resource costs have not been included. ·Pricing policies have not been modified to show how “adequate incentives” were provided. ·The Polluter Pays Principle is not adequately reflected in the water pricing policies. ·A narrow definition of water services has been used. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) Although some explanations on the monitoring of Protected Areas were provided in the RBMP, no monitoring programme was reported to WISE for protected areas under the Bathing Water, Birds and Drinking Water Directives. Additional objectives have already been set in particular for Drinking Water Protected Areas, as well as for some of the Protected Areas under the Birds and Habitats Directives. Work is still in progress for the remaining Birds and Habitats Protected Areas, and no additional objective was reported for Bathing and Nitrates Protected Areas. Safeguard zones have been established around the groundwater bodies associated to Drinking Water Protected Areas. However for other protected areas, it is unclear whether all necessary measures have properly been identified as not all relevant additional objectives have been set. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change ·Climate change was considered and the Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on how to adapt to climate change was used. ·Adaptation measures (KTM24 – “adaption to climate change”) have not been applied to address any of the significant pressures. ·Drought management plans have been reported for Malta.



Recommendations ·Malta should further strengthen monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories, particularly in rivers, lakes and transitional waters. For those water categories, surveillance and operational monitoring should be clearly identified with adequate monitoring strategies. ·Malta should continue to develop reference conditions for Biological Quality Elements in rivers and lakes and for supporting Quality Elements for all water bodies.

·Further work is needed on the apportionment of pressures among sources, so that adequate measures can be identified. ·Malta should provide more precise information on the method used for the selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants especially on how diffuse sources are taken into account. Malta should make sure that the 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. Malta should also make sure that analytical methods are in line with the requirements of Articles 4(1) or 4(2) of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control Directive (2009/90/EC) for the strictest standard applied. ·Malta should develop a complete assessment method for all biological quality elements for lakes, rivers and transitional waters. Assessment methods should also be developed for hydromorphology for all water categories. Moreover, Malta should ensure that the assessment methods for the physicochemical quality elements are linked to the relevant biological quality elements. ·The monitoring frequencies should be at least as high as the recommended minimum frequencies from the WFD and EQS Directive. Priority substances should be monitored in biota where relevant for status assessment, with sufficient spatial coverage to reach sufficient confidence in the assessment. If reduced frequencies or a different matrix are used, the corresponding explanations should be provided, as required by the Directives. ·Monitoring for quantitative status of groundwater is still insufficient, Malta should continue to work on completing the monitoring schemes. ·A consistent methodology needs to be developed for the designation of heavily modified water bodies for all relevant water categories based on sound monitoring performed according to WFD requirements. The designation of heavily modified water bodies needs to comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). Criteria need to be developed for the assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the wider environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options, which need to be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. Further efforts are needed to define ecological potential also in terms of biology for all relevant water categories. ·Progress needs to be continued to further improve the understanding of pressures and effects on water body status, particularly with regard to ecological status of surface water bodies. The assessment of the timeframe until when the WFD objectives will be achieved needs to be completed, taking into account a revised and updated assessment of the justifications of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions. ·No Article 4(7) exemptions were reported to be applied although new physical modifications are planned. Malta needs to ensure a thorough assessment of possible new modifications in line with the requirements of the WFD. ·Malta should prioritise measures and explain in more detail its approach to identifying them in the next RBMP. ·The RBMPs should clearly identify the gap to good status, and the Programme of Measures should be designed and implemented to close that gap. ·Efforts should be made to directly link the status of individual water bodies with measures for the third planning cycle. ·KTMs should address all the significant pressures identified in groundwater bodies. ·The problem of water scarcity and over-abstraction that are significant pressures and cause poor quantitative status should continue to be tackled (results of targeted measures are yet to be assessed). ·Malta should complete a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads from agriculture (nutrients, agri-chemicals, sediment, organic matter) across all waters and link it directly to mitigation measures in the third RBMP (as per WFD Article 11(3)(h)), to facilitate the achievement of WFD objectives. ·In the third RBMPs, Malta should specify, for all measures, the area of agricultural land to be covered by measures for achieving WFD objectives. ·Malta should continue to develop a clear strategy, in cooperation with the farming community, which defines the basic measures that all farmers should adhere to and the supplementary measures that can be financed via the Rural Development or other funding sources. ·Malta should continue to address any remaining instances of the discharge of animal husbandry waste in the sewage collecting system and ensure that there are explicit links in the RBMPs between the WFD and supporting programmes and instruments (e.g. Nitrates Directive, Rural Development, etc.). ·Malta should endeavour to establish the drivers behind Zinc pollution and identify substance-specific measures. ·Malta should use the inventory of emissions to identify the need for measures, including supplementary measures if appropriate. ·Further efforts should be made to ensure that chemical pollutants entering water bodies via urban waste water treatment plants are tackled.

·Malta needs to ensure that the hydromorphological pressures are reported and included in the next RBMP, both for natural and heavily modified water bodies, and that the necessary restoration measures are implemented. ·Malta should continue prioritising the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. ·Malta should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). Malta should transparently present how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the contribution of the different users is ensured. It should transparently present the water-pricing policy, and provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. ·Malta should complete the monitoring programmes for all relevant types of Protected Areas, and should fully report them to the Commission. Malta should set additional objectives where relevant for all the Protected Areas, so as to identify and implement all necessary measures.

Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – river basin districts Malta is a group of three islands. It has designated one RBD, Malta, for which it has prepared one RBMP, entitled the Second Water Catchment Management Plan for the Malta Water Catchment District 2015-2021. This plan also incorporates Malta’s Flood Risk Management Plan. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Malta reports two Competent Authorities for its RBMP: The Environment and Resources Authority and The Energy and Water Agency. Their main roles are: ·The Environment and Resources Authority: monitoring and assessment of surface water, enforcement of regulations, pressure and impact analysis, economic analysis, preparation of the RBMP and Programme of Measures, public participation, implementation of measures, coordination of implementation, and reporting to the European Commission. ·The Energy and Water Agency: monitoring and assessment of status of groundwater, pressure and impact analysis, economic analysis, preparation of the RBMP and Programme of Measures, public participation, implementation of measures, coordination of implementation and reporting to the European Commission. 1.1.3River Basin Management plans – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment Malta’s RBMP contains in its annexes the Flood Risk Management Plan (see section 1.1.5 below) and a Drought Risk Management Plan. Malta reported that a Strategic Environmental Assessment had not been undertaken for the RBMP and Flood Risk Management Plan. Malta subsequently informed that a Strategic Environmental Assessment screening exercise indicated that a Strategic Environmental Assessment is not required. This screening exercise indicated that the RBMP is unlikely to lead to additional significant environmental effects over and above those positive effects which were identified in the Strategic Environmental Assessment carried out for the first RBMP. In addition, the main measures foreseen under the second RBMP were assessed under the Strategic Environmental Assessment process for the Operational Programme for Malta, under which all these main measures are identified. 1.1.4Public consultation According to the information reported in WISE by Malta, the public and interested parties were informed by: the internet, invitations to stakeholders, local authorities, media (papers, television, radio), meetings and printed material. Documents were available by direct mailing (email) and by download. The following stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the RBMP: agriculture/farmers, fisheries/aquaculture, industry, local/regional authorities, navigation/ports, NGOs/nature protection and water supply and sanitation. The mechanism for stakeholder involvement was involvement in drafting and other outreach activities, which included bilateral meetings and workshops with individual stakeholders or groups. The public consultation had the following impacts on the RBMP, according to the information reported by Malta: addition of new information, adjustment of specific measures, changes to the selection of measures, commitment to action in the next RBMP, commitment to further research and understanding of cost effectiveness.

The RBMP highlighted that a series of stakeholder consultation activities led to the formulation of the measures for the draft Programme of Measures. These consultation meetings discussed the issues faced by the respective sectors, and stakeholders were involved in the development of specific measures. The general public, agriculture, public sector, utilities and the commercial sector are named as groups involved. Following the drafting of the Programme of Measures, further consultation meetings were undertaken to discuss the measures identified with stakeholders, focusing on issues related to the implementation of these measures. The consultation process was initiated in March 2014 with a National Conference, which discussed the Significant Water Management Issues. This national conference was open to the general public and was extensively advertised in the local press. Following this national conference, a series of national workshops were held between March and October 2014, focusing on specific issues: (i) the Significant Water Management Issues; (ii) efficient use of water resources; (iii) water use by the industrial and commercial sectors; (iv) optimising groundwater management; (v) energy-water nexus; and, (vi) development of a Water Management Plan (Programme of Measures). These public consultation workshops were followed by a second phase of the consultation process which focused on informal meetings with representatives of the main water use categories in the Maltese islands. No more than 20 participants were invited to each of these meetings, to ensure dynamic discussions. During this second consultation phase, 12 consultation meetings were held with representatives of the agricultural sector (including a meeting in Gozo) during the period November to March 2015. The total attendance to these meetings reached around 300 full time farmers, around 25 % of the total full time farming population in the Maltese islands. These consultation meetings were organised in cooperation with the Assocjazzjoni tal-Bdiewa (Farmers Association). The consultation process was concluded with a National Stakeholder Consultation Workshop, jointly organised by the two WFD competent authorities. This workshop presented the updated draft RBMP to stakeholders and provided an opportunity for a final discussion on the second RBMP. 1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Malta prepared a single plan that incorporated both its second RBMP and its first Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) under the Floods Directive . As noted above, the FRMP is presented in an annex to the RBMP. Moreover, the FRMP and RBMP share measures and common sections, such as the discussion of potential climate impacts. In addition, Malta held a joint consultation for the RBMP and FRMP and for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive . 1.1.6International coordination Malta does not share its RBD with any other Member States or countries. 1.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle In the first cycle, Malta's competent authorities were the Maltese Resource Authority, and the Maltese Environment and Planning Authority. In the second cycle, the competent authorities are the Environment and Resources Authority, and the Energy and Water Agency (reflecting a reorganisation of government bodies). 1.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and first Programme of Measures requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Ensure good coordination between public administration and other stakeholders to improve the planning and implementation of Programme of Measures and to monitor their effectiveness. Assessment: Based on information available in the RBMP, Malta carried out an extensive process for stakeholder involvement, including the planning and implementation of measures. Consequently, this recommendation has been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Ensure effective coordination between WFD and Floods Directive , especially in the elaboration of flood risk and hazard maps. Assessment: Malta has prepared a joint RBMP and Flood Risk Management Plan for the second cycle. On this basis, this recommendation has been fulfilled.



Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies

The same number of coastal and groundwater bodies was delineated in the second RBMP as there were in the first RBMP ( Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 ). Overall there was an increase in the total number of surface water bodies from 9 to 19 ( Table 2.1 ). There were no inland surface water bodies delineated in the first cycle, but they were reported to be delineated in the second cycle. There were two new lake water bodies, three river water bodies, and five transitional water bodies. The RBMP explained that they were delineated on the basis of technical information which has become available during the course of the implementation of the first cycle. In the second cycle, 53 % of identified surface water bodies were natural with the remainder designated as heavily modified. There were no artificial water bodies. Overall there was an increase in the number of heavily modified bodies between the first and second cycles, from two to nine surface water bodies, which included one newly delineated lake, one river and the five transitional water bodies ( Figure 2.1 ). The water uses and physical alterations have been reported for each heavily modified water body category. Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Malta for the second and first cycles Year RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2016 MTMALTA 3 3.75 2 0.04 5 0.12 9 399 2010 MTMALTA 0 0 0 9 398 Source: WISE electronic reporting

Table 2.2 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Malta for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 MTMALTA 15 0.39 220.4 23.79 2010 MTMALTA 15 0.4 217 23.69 Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Malta designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.3 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Malta between the second and first cycles. The minimum size and maximum size of coastal water bodies have remained largely the same. The minimum size criteria were not reported to WISE for the catchment area for rivers or the surface area for lakes. However, it is evident that small water bodies have been delineated in the second cycle . Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Malta on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. It also shows that coastal waters and groundwater have remained the same and that new river, lake, and transitional water bodies have been delineated. Table 2.3 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Malta in the second and first cycles Year RBD River length (km) Lake area (km2) Transitional area (km2) Coastal area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average 2016 MTMALTA 0 0 0 0.01 0.04 0.02 13.34 96.95 44.33 2010 MTMALTA 11.4 98 44.21 Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Malta between the second and first cycles

Type of water body change for second cycle (wiseEvolutionType) Groundwater Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal aggregation changeBothAggregationAndSplitting changeCode changeExtendedArea noChange 15 9 creation 2 3 5 deletion splitting Total water bodies before deletion 15 2 3 5 9 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 15 2 3 5 9 Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.2Typology of surface water bodies The numbers of water body types for coastal waters has remained the same between the first and second cycles. There are an additional three types in the second cycle for the newly delineated rivers, lakes, and transitional water bodies ( Table 2.5 ). For coastal waters, the typology has been made biologically relevant by using phytoplankton as the single biological quality element. Member States were asked to report “Not applicable” if there is no corresponding intercalibration type for national water body types. The coastal water body national types (heavily modified and natural) have been intercalibrated, but the river, lake, and transitional water bodies have no equivalent intercalibration types. For inland waters, the RBMP states that the physical descriptors in System A and System B were used but are insufficient to precisely characterise the unique waters. Malta is, therefore, attempting to use alternative means to characterise the waters where possible. The description of the characteristics of these water bodies is provided but that types have not been fully established for inland waters. No further information was provided. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Malta for the first and second cycles RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 MTMALTA 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 4 Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.3Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Malta with reference conditions established for the first and second cycles. Type-specific reference conditions have been established for relevant biological quality elements for all coastal water bodies, but not for rivers, lakes, or transitional water bodies. Physico-chemical quality elements and hydromorphological quality elements reference conditions do not appear to have been established for any water body categories. This may lead to some weaknesses in the classification of status/potential for inland waters .

Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Malta with reference conditions established for all, some, and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of types in each category Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physico-chemical quality elements Rivers (1) All Some None 100 % 100 % 100 % Lakes (1) All Some None 100 % 100 % 100 % Transitional (1) All Some None 100 % 100 % 100 % Coastal (4) All 100 % Some None 100 % 100 % Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.4Characteristics of groundwater bodies The geological formation of the aquifer types in which groundwater bodies reside, along with the details of whether groundwater bodies are layered, have been reported. Further characterisation work has been reported since the first cycle with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems, however there was no link identified with terrestrial ecosystems . 2.1.5Significant pressures and impacts on water bodies In the second RBMP, “anthropogenic pressure – unknown” was reported to affect the largest proportion of surface water bodies (100 %) followed by “point – other” (47 %), and “diffuse - other (47 %)” ( Figure 2.2 ). In the first RBMP, Malta only reported pressures at an aggregated level. Overall, there was a decrease in point source, diffuse source, and hydromorphological pressures ( Figure 2.3 ). For the second RBMP, it was reported that 14 significant pressures were not assessed for surface water, including “dams, barriers and locks, and physical alterations”, although hydromorphological alterations were qualitatively described. In addition, the main pressure reported was “anthropogenic pressure – unknown” .

For groundwater bodies, “diffuse – agricultural” was reported most frequently (100 % of groundwater bodies) ( Figure 2.2 ). There were no significant pressures for groundwater that were not assessed reported by Malta. Figure 2.2 The most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Malta for the second cycle Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Malta in the first and second cycles. Pressures are presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 19 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and nine for the first cycle. Source: WISE electronic reporting In the second RBMP, the most significant impact on surface water bodies was “anthropogenic pressure - unknown” in all water body categories ( Figure 2.4 ). It was the only impact reported for rivers, lakes, and transitional water bodies. Chemical pollution was reported to be impacting 87 % of groundwater bodies. Malta did not report on impacts in the first RBMP. Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Malta for the second cycle. Percentages of number of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.6Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater For surface waters, numerical tools and expert judgement were used to define significant pressures from point and diffuse sources, but only expert judgement was used for abstraction and water flow pressures. For surface water bodies, the significance of pressures is reported as being linked to the potential failure of objectives, but they were not defined in terms of thresholds. For groundwaters, numerical tools and expert judgement were used to define significant pressures from point and diffuse sources, abstraction and artificial recharge, and other pressures. The significance of pressures is reported to be linked to the potential failure of objectives, but the significance of pressures has not been defined in terms of thresholds. There is no detailed information available on the criteria for the identification of pressures, nor for the determination of their significance in the second RBMP . 2.1.7Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 87 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good chemical status. The pollutants putting groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status have been reported for all RBDs. 13 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good quantitative status. 2.1.8Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures

No information was found in the second RBMP relating to which activities/sectors are contributing significantly to the different impacts that are causing failure of good ecological status/potential. One priority substance (mercury and its compounds) was reported to be causing failure of good chemical status in Malta. Malta has not reported to WISE the values of the gap to good status for this substance for 2021 (or 2027) . 2.1.9Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (resp. suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances (resp. priority hazardous substances). Malta has established an inventory of emissions, however only five Priority Substances were included, namely: tributyltin-cation, benzene, lead, nickel, and cadmium. The RBMP explains that the “National Inventory of Emissions, Discharges and Losses” for Priority Substances and other substances of concern to the surface water environment only covers substances that are relevant in Maltese water bodies. Criteria for relevance were not provided, but the second RBMP explains that the inventory was based on an assessment of available ambient monitoring data, the use of E-PRTR emissions and statistics on the import of chemical substances to Malta during a specified time period. This does not seem to be entirely in line with the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28, which recommends that “For the substances discarded (i.e. for substances of minor relevance) MS [Member States] should try to provide a basic estimation of emissions, discharges and losses from available data. This is especially important for PHS [priority hazardous substances – for which emissions must be phased out]”. The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances included in the inventories. For these substances, Tier 1 (point source information) was implemented (while the Guidance Document recommends implementing at least Tier 1+2 for substances relevant at RBD level). The quality of the input data is reported as uncertain. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle Overall, there was an increase in the total number of surface water bodies from 9 to 19. There were no inland surface water bodies delineated in the first cycle, but they were reported to be delineated in the second cycle. There were two new lake water bodies, three new river water bodies, and five new transitional water bodies. There are an additional three water body types in the second cycle for the newly delineated river, lake, and transitional water bodies. For coastal waters, the typology has been made biologically relevant by using phytoplankton as the single biological quality element. In the second RBMP, “anthropogenic pressure – unknown” was reported to affect the largest proportion of surface water bodies (100 %) followed by “point – other” (47 %), and “diffuse - other (47 %)”. In the first cycle, Malta only reported pressures at an aggregated level. Overall, there was a decrease in point source, diffuse source, and hydromorphological pressures. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and first Programme of Measures requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Delineate inland surface water bodies in the second RBMPs cycle and develop reference conditions. Assessment: In the second cycle, two lake water bodies, three river water bodies, and five transitional water bodies had been delineated. This resulted in a significant increase in the total number of surface water bodies from 9 to 19. Type-specific reference conditions have been established for relevant biological quality element for all coastal water bodies, but not for river, lake, or transitional water bodies. Physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements reference conditions do not appear to have been established for any water body categories. This may lead to some weaknesses in the classification of status/potential. The Maltese RBMP explains why such reference conditions cannot be established at this stage. For inland surface water bodies, the characteristic hydrological intermittency and complexity renders the hydromorphological and physico-chemical evaluations of ecological status extremely difficult and further long-term trend data are necessary. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle. Assessment: For surface waters, numerical tools and expert judgement were used to define significant pressures from point and diffuse sources, and only expert judgement was used for abstraction and water flow pressures. For groundwaters, numerical tools and expert judgement were used to define significant pressures from point and diffuse sources, abstraction and artificial recharge, and other pressures. For surface and groundwater bodies, significance of pressures are reported as being linked to the potential failure of objectives, but they were not defined in terms of thresholds. Therefore, there does not appear to be progress towards the part of the recommendation requiring the methodologies to use concrete thresholds or criteria . In terms of apportionment of sources of pressures to economic sectors, this appears to have been done for groundwaters with the main significant pressures being “diffuse – agricultural”. However, this has not been carried out for surface waters, where the main pressure was reported to be “anthropogenic pressure – unknown” (100 %), followed by “point – other” (47 %), and “diffuse – other” (47 %). No information was found in the RBMP relating to which activities/sectors are contributing significantly to the different impacts that are causing failure of good ecological status/potential. Therefore, there has been some progress with this part of the recommendation, but source apportionment is required for surface waters . ·Recommendation: Private groundwater abstraction as a major pressure on groundwater bodies should be adequately monitored. Assessment: This recommendation applies to a number of Topics. In terms of characterisation of significant pressures on groundwater quantitative status, “groundwater - alteration of water level or volume” has been identified as a significant pressure in 46 % of the groundwater bodies in Malta. The tools used were reported to be a combination of both expert judgement and numerical models, as well as additional direct monitoring of abstraction through the metering of private groundwater sources. Therefore, in terms of characterisation of significant quantitative pressures on groundwater the recommendation has been fulfilled.



Topic 3Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies

3.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP 3.1.1Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for surveillance and operational monitoring Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the first and second RBMPs. It can be seen that no data was reported for the first RBMP. Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Malta for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in the first RBMP, data for the second RBMP does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Second RBMP Total by type of site 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 Total number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring 0 0 0 10 First RBMP No data reported Sources: WISE electronic reporting Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMP. The purposes of monitoring shows that surveillance and operational monitoring is only listed for coastal waters, while for the other water categories the sites are reported to be for the purpose of ecological status and chemical status. The reasons why this monitoring is not split into the two different WFD monitoring programmes may be: (i) insufficient data and knowledge not yet allowing status classification, or (ii) very few water bodies delineated for these water categories. For coastal waters, the number of monitoring sites for ecological status assessment of coastal waters (36 sites) is not the same as those given for surveillance (5) and operational (5), but is the same as for State of the Environment (SOE-EIONET) monitoring (36). The reason for this difference cannot be the same as suggested for the other water categories, because the coastal water bodies have been classified for ecological status/potential (see below). Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Malta Monitoring Purpose Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal CHE - Chemical status 3 2 5 15 ECO - Ecological status 3 2 5 36 HAB - Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v 3 2 5 13 NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 3 2 5 26 OPE - Operational monitoring 5 REF - Reference network monitoring site 2 SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 3 2 5 36 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 5 UWW - Nutrient sensitive area under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 11 Total sites irrespective of purpose 3 2 5 36 Source: WISE electronic reporting Malta subsequently stated that surveillance and operational monitoring stations were identified and used to represent status at water body level. The surveillance stations in some cases coincide with protected areas or reference sites, while the operational stations are linked to pressures. The WFD monitoring stations were supplemented by additional monitoring stations that were identified on a national scale. While not part of the WFD monitoring network, the national stations supplement such networks by providing further data to better inform the WFD and assessment processes. Figure 3.1 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance and operational monitoring. No data were reported for 2010. Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that is subject to surveillance monitoring. All coastal water bodies at high status were included in the surveillance monitoring programme. There was no surveillance monitoring in lakes, river or transitional water bodies.

Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Malta for the first RBMP (2010) and second RBMP (2016). Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that is included in surveillance monitoring in Malta Source: WISE electronic reporting. A differentiated presentation between ecological status and potential and including all types of quality element can be viewed here - https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHome=no Transboundary surface water body monitoring No transboundary water bodies were identified by Malta, and no monitoring sites were reported to be part of international networks (except the State of the Environment monitoring stations). Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) 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. All required biological quality elements are monitored in each water category, except fish in rivers and lakes. Malta subsequently stated that the reason is that there are no established fish communities in rivers and lakes. All the hydromorphological quality elements are monitored, except hydrological conditions/tidal regime in transitional waters. All relevant physicochemical quality elements were reported as being monitored in all the water categories, except transparency in lakes and transitional waters, although Malta subsequently clarified that due to the difficulty in measuring transparency in shallow waters, turbidity was measured. Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMP in Malta (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note; quality element may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Angiosperms Macroalgae Other aquatic flora Other species Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Rivers Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinand for nutrient conditions Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Lakes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Transitional No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Source: WISE electronic reporting River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored Malta reported that 58 substances that are not Priority Substances were being monitored. According to the Reporting Guidance for the second RBMPs it was expected that these would be River Basin Specific Pollutants. However, information from the RBMP indicated that this was not the case and only five (fluoride, copper, chromium, manganese and zinc) of the 58 substances were considered by Malta to be River Basin Specific Pollutants. For the first RBMP, Malta had identified a preliminary list of 10 non-priority specific pollutants considered to be equivalent to River Basin Specific Pollutants. The preliminary list was reduced to five substances using the results of the first monitoring campaign for the 10 substances and from the inventory of emissions. Three River Basin Specific Pollutants from the preliminary list (beryllium, boron and fluoride) are subject to further investigative monitoring of the water body including the main harbour (Marsaxlokk). All delineated water bodies are monitored for at least one River Basin Specific Pollutant for all water categories, except for two coastal water bodies ( Table 3.4 ), which is an improvement since the first RBMP when there was no monitoring of these pollutants reported. Monitoring is performed only in sediment and is reported to be for trend assessment (which might be a mistake in reporting). Minimum monitoring frequencies in biota are specified for the assessment of Priority Substances in Article 3(2)c of EQS Directive 2008/105/EC: this is once per year for operational and surveillance monitoring purposes, unless greater intervals can be justified on the basis of technical knowledge or expert judgment. It thus seems consistent to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants at the same frequency in biota, or in sediment, which is also an integrative matrix. Monitoring for the five River Basin Specific Pollutants has been undertaken once per cycle. This is not in line with the minimum frequency mentioned above, and it is also lower than the minimum frequency for long-term trend monitoring for priority substances. No explanation could be found for these reduced frequencies. Malta mentioned that depending on the results, future monitoring will be decided.

Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants for the second RBMP and for the first RBMP in Malta. Note the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also not all Member State reported information at the site level meaning that there were no equivalent data for the first RBMP RBMP Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 3 2 5 17 first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants NR NR NR NR Source: WISE electronic reporting. NR = not reported

Use of monitoring results for classification Coastal water bodies were the only category where biological quality elements were used in the classification of ecological status/potential: the classification was solely based on monitoring results. General physicochemical quality elements were also used and based on monitoring results. River Basin Specific Pollutants were not used in the classification even though they were monitored in sediment. Hydromorphological quality elements were reported to be monitored, but were not used in the subsequent classification. The classification of the ecological status/potential of lakes and rivers was only based on physicochemical quality elements including River Basin Specific Pollutants which were only monitored in sediment, even though biological and hydromorphological quality elements were reported to be monitored (but not as part of surveillance or operational monitoring programmes). However, for transitional water bodies, the status classification was also based on morphological conditions, as well as the physicochemical quality elements including River Basin Specific Pollutants which again were only monitored in sediment. As for lakes and rivers, biological quality elements were also reported to be monitored, though not part of operational or surveillance monitoring programmes. 3.1.1Ecological Status/potential of surface water The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Malta for the second RBMP is illustrated in Map 3.1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status. All the rivers, lakes and transitional waters have unknown ecological status/potential due to lack of knowledge, data, and assessment methods. The distribution of status classes for classified water bodies shown in the map is therefore only representing coastal waters. Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. The confidence for water bodies with unknown ecological status/potential (rivers, lakes, and transitional waters) was reported as medium (which may be a reporting error). The coastal water bodies are all classified with high confidence based on classification of all the required biological and physico-chemical quality elements, although the hydromorphological quality elements have not been used. Figure 3.3 Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Malta based on the most recently assessed status/potential Source: WISE electronic reporting Map 3.1Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Malta based on the most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside the European Union Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1(4)(2)(i). Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) A differentiated presentation of this data between ecological status and potential and including all types of quality element can be viewed here - https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHome=no Figure 3.4 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Malta for the first RBMP with that for the second RBMP (based on the most recent assessment of status/potential) and that expected by 2015). It should be noted that there were only coastal waters in the first RBMP and all the “unknown” status relates to the new lake, river and transitional water bodies.

The proportion expected to be in good or better status in 2015 shows that the majority of water bodies are expected to achieve the good status objective by 2015. However, this is uncertain because of the large quantity of water bodies with unknown status. Figure 3.4 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Malta for the second RBMP, for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for both cycles. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2012 and only includes coastal waters. The year of the assessment of status for first RBMP is not known. Source: WISE electronic reporting Member States were also asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Malta is shown in Figure 3.5 . The time for achieving the objectives is unknown for a large proportion of transitional waters, rivers, and lakes. Most of the coastal water bodies are expected to be in good status already in 2015, while the rest are expected to achieve good status during the period 2016-2021. Figure 3.5 Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Malta. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category. Source: WISE electronic reporting Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element Figure 3.6 shows that most of the coastal water bodies are in good or high status for each of the biological quality elements. According to the information reported in WISE, the biological quality elements have not been classified in the other water categories: a status assessment of the biological quality elements was not carried out because no potential classification method was identified due to the paucity of data and limited knowledge about these waters. The WISE reporting on the use of biological quality elements differs from the information provided by Malta in the framework of the assessment of ex-ante conditionalities for EU funding. In this framework, Malta mentioned that in coastal waters, only macroalgae and angiosperms were used as biological quality elements and that the remaining two biological quality elements (benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton) could not be intercalibrated due to data and methodological problems encountered. Malta subsequently clarified that the status assessment for benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton was based on monitoring results that have not been successfully intercalibrated, but have been used in the interim until further monitoring and the second intercalibration phase has been carried out. Figure 3.6 Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of coastal waters in Malta. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential have been excluded from the presentation Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. It should be noted that this comparison should be treated with some caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements from the first to the second RBMP. The only quality element that were reported in both the first and second RBMPs is angiosperms in coastal waters, which shows an improvement from 60 % to 100 % in good or high status. Figure 3.7 Comparison of ecological status/potential in Malta according to classified biological quality elements in rivers and lakes between the first and second RBMPs Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential (or unknown status) of surface water bodies for the second RBMP. The figures show that most of the classification is based on physicochemical quality elements, except in coastal waters, where also the biological quality elements are classified. The hydromorphological quality elements are not used in any water category except two transitional water bodies where morphological conditions have been classified. The River Basin Specific Pollutants are classified in all water bodies in rivers, lakes, and transitional waters, but are not used for classification of coastal waters. The classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.10 . All the classified quality elements in all the water categories are based on monitoring, and none are based on grouping or expert judgement. Figure 3.8 The classification of the ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Malta using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element Note: The four types are: biological; hydromorphological, general physico-chemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants. Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.9 The percentage of surface water bodies in Malta where no biological, hydromorphological, general physico-chemical quality elements, nor River Basin Specific Pollutant have been used in the classification of ecological status or potential Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.10 Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Malta. The percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category Source: WISE electronic reporting Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements Malta highlighted that there are knowledge gaps on the natural biological conditions of rivers, lakes and transitional waters. This is the reason why biological reference conditions could not be established, obstructing the assessment and classification of biological quality elements in these water categories. Malta further points out that they are “at a stage of testing methods”. This testing seems to require further data and knowledge for Mediterranean rivers and lakes. Intercalibration has only been achieved for macroalgae and angiosperms in coastal waters, but it is not clear whether the results were used in the second RBMP, because the intercalibrated boundaries were only reported in the Intercalibration Official Decision in 2018 (not in 2013) . For the other quality elements in coastal waters (phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates), the intercalibration process could not be completed. For the other water categories, there were no classification methods developed for any of the biological quality elements, and therefore no intercalibration. Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements

Hydromorphological assessment methods have not been developed, except morphological conditions in transitional waters. The basis for the methodology is unclear, as reference conditions have not been reported. Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements There are no reference conditions or standards reported for any of the physicochemical quality elements, due to lack of data and knowledge. It is therefore surprising that these quality elements are still used for classification of ecological status of all water bodies in all the water categories. It is also indicated in the RBMP that the current classification of nutrients in coastal waters is based on an interim approach adopting chlorophyll boundaries from Greece and Cyprus and using the eutrophication scale provided in Simboura et al. 2005 for assessing the phytoplankton chlorophyll a status. It is not clear whether this scale has also been used to derive interim class boundaries for nutrients. It is therefore likely that the assessment methods for physicochemical quality elements are not linked to the relevant biological quality elements. Malta subsequently stated that the status classes for nutrients are still to be determined on the basis of longer-term data. In the interim, nutrients data were analysed in terms of distribution of nutrient concentrations across monitoring stations, also in relation to pressures. Expert judgement was employed for determination of ecological status. Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards The selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants is reported to be based on an inventory of emissions, of substances and the results of monitoring in sediments (only). Environmental Quality Standard values are reported for sediment for the five substances that were found after the monitoring and emissions inventory: copper, chromium, manganese, zinc, and fluoride. There are different environmental quality standard values reported for the different water categories: standards for five substances were applied to rivers, lakes and transitional waters and three (chromium copper and zinc) to coastal waters. However, River Basin Specific Pollutants did not seem to be included in status assessment in coastal waters. The only exceedance of Environmental Quality Standards reported was in a lake water body and was for zinc. The Environmental Quality Standards for River Basin Specific Pollutants were not derived in accordance with the 2011 Technical Guidance Document No 27 . The analytical methods used for the River Basin Specific Pollutants do not meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4.1 of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control Directive (2009/90/EC) , nor with the requirements laid down in Article 4.2 of the Directive for the strictest standard applied. Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle) The one-out, all-out principle has been used for coastal waters, which is the only water category where the biological quality elements have been classified. However, the details of the combination rules were not reported. 3.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP Monitoring has been established for all the required quality elements in coastal waters, and for most of the required quality elements in rivers, lakes, and transitional waters, in contrast to the first RBMP, when there was no monitoring reported. Though not all required biological quality elements and hydromorphological quality elements are monitored in these three categories (such as fish in transitional waters), this expanded monitoring programme shows considerable progress since the first RBMP. There is also now monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants in sediment, and in all water categories, indicating that there has been progress also in this aspect since the first RBMP. Ecological status for angiosperms in coastal waters has improved since the first RBMP from 60 % to 100 % in good ecological status. For the other water categories, no changes in ecological status can be evaluated because of lacking information on assessment and classification in the first RBMP. The confidence in the classification of ecological status in coastal waters has improved from low-medium in the first RBMP to high in the second, because the classification was based on only angiosperms in the first RBMP, while it is now based on all the required biological and physicochemical quality elements. 3.2Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and first Programme of Measures requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Ensure in the second RBMPs cycle a fully operational monitoring programme, covering at least the following topics: groundwater chemical status (nitrate levels in the annual recharge), groundwater quantitative status, the inland surface water bodies (considering all WFD quality elements), the identification of river basin-specific pollutants, and protected areas. Assessment: Malta’s monitoring programme in coastal waters covers all relevant quality elements, however there are still limitations in the way River Basin Specific Pollutants are monitored (no explanation could be found for the lower than recommended monitoring frequencies, and the monitoring does not seem to be performed in accordance with Directive 2009/90/EC). In addition, there are still large uncertainties relating to monitoring of rivers, lakes and transitional waters. For example, apparent monitoring of these three water categories is said to be for ecological status but has not been reported as being for WFD surveillance or operational monitoring. The reasons why this monitoring is not split into the two different WFD monitoring programmes may be: (i) insufficient data and knowledge not yet allowing status classification, or (ii) very few water bodies delineated for these water categories.

Therefore this recommendation has only been partially fulfilled . ·Recommendation: Methodologies and assessment methods for biological quality elements and other quality elements should be established for good ecological status. Assessment: A method for classification of macroalgae in coastal waters has been developed/adopted from neighbouring Member Status and successfully intercalibrated together with the method for angiosperms. Monitoring has started for all the other required and relevant biological and supporting quality elements in all the water categories, to obtain data for developing the classification methods for those quality elements. The physicochemical quality elements are also classified. Therefore, there has been some progress with this recommendation. However, data and knowledge are still insufficient for establishing the assessment methods, so it is not yet possible to assess the ecological status for biological quality elements for lakes, rivers and transitional waters. This is also related to the temporary nature of the inland water of Malta, as well as to the lack of reference sites regarding the definition of natural reference conditions. Moreover, the current methods used for classification of ecological status for the physicochemical quality elements are not linked to good status for the relevant biological quality elements (also for coastal waters, where good status class boundaries have been intercalibrated for macroalgae and angiosperms). Therefore this recommendation has been partialy fulfilled. ·Recommendation: River Basin Specific Pollutants will need to be identified, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. Environmental quality standards should be derived for all River Basin Specific Pollutants. Assessment: Five River Basin Specific Pollutants have been identified, which constitutes an improvement compared to the first RBMP, in which no such substance was identified. (It is interesting to note that monitoring was reported in all water categories, which also constitutes a significant improvement compared to the first RBMP where no such monitoring existed). However, the information reported on the monitoring and on the Environmental Quality Standards derived does not always seem consistent. Environmental quality standard values are reported for sediment for five substances, however one of these five substances seem not to have actually been identified as a River Basin Specific Pollutant by Malta. No Environmental Quality Standard was reported for one of the substances identified as a River Basin Specific Pollutant. There are different environmental quality standard values reported for the different water categories, however River Basin Specific Pollutants were not taken into account in the assessment of status in coastal waters. The 2011 Technical Guidance Document No 27 has not been used to set the environmental quality standard values. There has been progress on this recommendation, it has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Use the inventory of emissions to review the monitoring programme and the list of River Basin Specific Pollutants for the second RBMPs, and to identify appropriate measures against chemical pollution. Assessment: The selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants now seems to be based on an inventory of emissions, supported by information on the substances imported and using the results of monitoring in sediments. However the information reported on which substances were identified as River Basin Specific Pollutants is unclear. It is also unclear whether diffuse sources were taken into account (it is somewhat surprising that only metals have been selected). Therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle. Assessment: This recommendation relates to a number of Topics in terms of uncertainty in ecological status classification coastal water bodies are all classified with high confidence based on classification of all the required biological and physicochemical quality elements. However, inland waters are of unknown status with medium confidence. Therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled.

Topic 4Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 4.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 4.1.1Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for monitoring of chemical status Member States have to implement surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in accordance with the requirements of the WFD and of the EQS Directive, for the assessment of ecological status/potential and chemical status. Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate the impact assessment procedure, to efficiently and effectively review the design of their monitoring programmes, and to assess the long-term changes in natural conditions and those resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity. For operational purposes, monitoring is required to establish the status of waterbodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such waterbodies resulting from the programme of measures.

Section 3.1.1 of this report summarises the characteristics of the surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in Malta for the second RBMP. Figure 4.1 summarises the proportion of sites used for the monitoring of chemical status in surface waters for the second RBMP. According to the WFD, chemical status should be monitored and assessed up to 12 nautical miles; however territorial waters have not been identified, monitored or assessed by Malta. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. More detailed information can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency . Figure 4.1 Proportion of sites used for monitoring of chemical status and, for comparison, ecological status, in Malta. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of monitoring sites irrespective of their purpose Source: WISE electronic reporting All sites are used for the monitoring of ecological and chemical status of rivers, lakes and transitional waters, 47 % of coastal sites are monitored for chemical status, whereas all coastal sites are monitored for ecological status. Between the two RBMPs, there has been a net increase in the number of sites used to monitor chemical status (reaching 17, 2, 3 and 5 for coastal, lake, river and transitional water bodies respectively in the second RBMP) and a net increase in the number of water bodies monitored for chemical status (7, 2, 3 and 5 for coastal, lake, river and transitional water bodies respectively in the second RBMP). This includes both an increase in monitoring of coastal water bodies and monitoring of the newly delineated freshwater bodies. Figure 4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in surface waters for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between water bodies monitored for surveillance and/or operational purposes. Also given is the proportion of water bodies monitored for any purpose and, for comparative purpose, those for ecological status. Figure 4.2 Proportion of total water bodies in each category which are monitored, monitored for chemical status and monitored for ecological status, in Malta. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of water bodies in that category Source: WISE electronic reporting In all water categories apart from coastal waters, all surface water bodies are monitored for chemical status; 78 % of coastal water bodies are monitored. All nine coastal water bodies were reported to be failing to achieve good chemical status. Seven (78 %) of these water bodies were monitored for operational purposes. No other surface water bodies were reported to be failing to achieve good chemical status. Long-term trend monitoring and monitoring of Priority Substances in water, sediment and biota for status assessment Monitoring for status assessment Requirements Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water in order to provide inter alia a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of the chemical status of all water bodies in the RBD. According to the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009), mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene have to be monitored in biota for status assessment, unless Member States derived a standard for another matrix, which is at least as protective as the biota standard. Spatial coverage Malta reports that 78 % of coastal water bodies are monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances and this increases to 100 % for river, lake, and transitional water bodies. There is one chemical monitoring site in each lake, river and transitional water body, which constitutes a very thorough spatial coverage in terms of waterbodies monitored. For coastal water bodies, seven out of the nine water bodies are reported to be monitored for chemical status using 17 monitoring sites. (The presence of several monitoring sites in one water body, as is the case in monitored coastal waters in Malta, allows reaching higher precision in the assessment, especially for larger waterbodies). According to WISE, monitoring of sediments and/or biota is not reported to be used for status assessment in Malta. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were monitored in Posidonia oceanica in coastal waters, but no corresponding environmental quality standard seems to have been derived.

Frequencies The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the RBMP cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment should take place at least once every year according to the EQS Directive. In all cases greater intervals can be applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. Monitoring frequencies in water were reported for 36 Priority Substances at site level. Priority substances were monitored 12 times per year every three years in coastal waters and three times a year every three years in river, lake, and transitional water bodies. However, the frequency for sevenPriority Substances in the water column for inland waters (rivers, lakes and transitional) dichloromethane, di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, fluoranthene, lead, mercury, nickel, and trichloromethane is expected to increase to six times per year, but it is not clear whether this will be maintained in every year in the cycle or every three years as for the other substances. It is clear, therefore, that the monitoring frequency for some Priority Substances in the water column in coastal waters meets the minimum intra-annual frequency of 12 times per year but for others, and especially in inland waters, the frequency is lower. No information was found on how these reduced frequencies have been chosen (expert judgment, technical knowledge, others). Monitoring for long-term trend assessment Requirements Article 3.3 of the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 14 priority substances that tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota for the purpose of long-term trend assessment. Monitoring should take place at least once every three years, unless technical knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval. Spatial coverage Malta reports that arrangements are in place for the long-term trend analysis of concentrations of those Priority Substances that tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota. Malta has monitored in sediment and/or biota all 14 relevant Priority Substances mentioned above in coastal water bodies, and 13 of them in lake, river, and transitional water bodies. Malta has monitored 3 of the 14 of the Priority Substances in biota in coastal water bodies (hexachlorobenzene, mercury and hexachlorobutadiene). The RBMP indicates that monitoring in biota in coastal waters is undertaken in Posidonia rhizomes and will be maintained in the second cycle to establish trends. Monitoring in other biota is also reported to be planned. From a water body perspective, monitoring of sediments has been fairly comprehensive covering all lake, river and transitional water bodies and seven out of nine coastal water bodies. A similar situation is presented for the three substances in biota but with six of the nine coastal water bodies reported to have been monitored. Frequencies With regard to monitoring in sediment and/or biota for assessment of trends, the minimum frequency is once every three years (Article 3(3) of the EQS Directive) unless technical knowledge and expert judgement justify another interval. Sediment and biota have been monitored once (in 2012) with monitoring in subsequent years to be decided. The reporting provided no information on whether subsequent monitoring has been carried out. Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in each RBD Annex V of the WFD states, in Section 1.3.1 (Design of surveillance monitoring), that “Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a river basin management plan for [inter alia]: priority list pollutants which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin.” Section 1.3.2 (Design of operational monitoring) of the Directive states that “In order to assess the magnitude of the pressure to which bodies of surface water are subject Member States shall monitor for those quality elements which are indicative of the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. In order to assess the impact of these pressures, Member States shall monitor as relevant [inter alia]: all priority substances discharged, and other pollutants discharged in significant quantities.” Member States are therefore required to monitor all Priority Substances which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin. Section 2.1.9 of this report describes the implementation of the requirement for establishing an inventory of emissions in Malta. All Priority Substances identified as discharged are monitored. However, the list of Priority Substances in the inventory is limited to 5, so it is unclear whether all discharged priority substances have been identified. It should be noted however that 39 groups of priority substances are monitored in Malta, according to WISE. Malta provided a statement with regard to monitoring of Priority Substances and their inclusion in an inventory.

Performance of analytical methods used In Malta, for all monitored Priority Substances the analytical methods used meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the Technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status for the strictest standard applied. The method of dealing with measurements of Priority Substances lower than the limit of quantification is as specified in Article 5 of the Technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status in Malta. 4.1.2Chemical Status of surface water bodies Member States are required to report the year on which the assessment of chemical status is based. This may be the year that the surface water body was monitored. In case of grouping this may be the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies within a group that are used to extrapolate results to non-monitored surface water bodies within the same group. For Malta, the assessment of chemical status was undertaken between 2011 and 2013; the RBMP confirms that a water column survey of surface freshwaters was undertaken between December 2011 and February 2012 supplemented with a one-week survey in freshwater sediments in 2013 and with coastal monitoring undertaken between 2011 and 2013. The one-out-all-out principle was applied to assess chemical status. The chemical status of surface water bodies in Malta for the second RBMP is illustrated in Map 4.1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status. The assessment of chemical status for the second RBMP was expected to be based on the standards laid down in the EQS Directive (version in force on 13 January 2009 ). Some Member States did not fully implement the Directive in the first RBMPs as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs. Map 4.1 Chemical status of surface water bodies in Malta based on