EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 54 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Slovakia







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

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

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of Contents Acronyms and definitions Foreword General Information Status of the 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 RBMPs 3.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 3.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

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

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

Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies 14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance 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 Annex 0 Water Information System for Europe Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



Foreword The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) requires in its Article 18 that each Member State reports its River Basin Management Plan(s) (RBMPs) to the European Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. This Member State Assessment report was drafted on the basis of information that was reported by Member States through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) electronic reporting. The Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported by each Member State to the European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to RBMPs 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 About 60% of the Slovak territory has an altitude over 300 m above the sea level, prevailingly in the West Carpathians. The total area of Slovakia is 48 845 km² and the population is 5.4 million. The territory of Slovakia belongs to two international River Basin Districts (RBDs): Danube River basin and Vistula River basin. The Danube RBD is shared with 18 countries. The Vistula RBD is shared with Poland, Czech Republic, Belarus and Ukraine. Information on areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in Table A and Slovakia’s share of the international RBDs is shown in Table B. Table A: Overview of Slovakia’s River Basin Districts RBD / Sub-basin Name Size (km2) % of SK territory Countries sharing RBD SK30000 Vistula (Dunajec & Poprad sub-basins) 1 950 4 BY, UA, PL, CZ SK40000 Danube 47 084 96 DE, PL, UA, AT, BG, CZ, HR, HU, RO, IT, MD, ME, RS, SI, BA, AL, CH, MK Sub-basin Morava sub-basin 2 282 Dunaj sub-basin 1 158 Vah sub-basin 18 769 Hron sub-basin 5 465 Ipel sub-basin 3 649 Slana sub-basin 3 217 Bodva sub-basin 858 Hornad sub-basin 4 414 Bodrog sub-basin 7 272 Source: RBMP reported to WISE Table B: Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Slovakia Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing RBD Coordination category 1 3 km² % km² % Vistula SK30000 BY, UA, PL, CZ 1 950 1.0 Danube SK40000 DE, PL, UA, AT, BG, CZ, HR, HU, RO, IT, MD, ME, RS, SI, BA, AL, CH, MK 47 084 5.8 Source: WISE electronic reports Category 1: International agreement, permanent cooperation body and international RBMP in place.

Category 2: International agreement and permanent cooperation body in place. Category 3: International agreement in place. Category 4: No cooperation formalised.

Status of the second river basin management plan reporting The two RBMPs of Slovakia (Vistula, Danube) were published on 22 December 2015. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency (EEA) EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .



Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of Slovakia are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation Slovakia used several mechanisms to inform the public about the RBMPs, including a media campaign, an interactive exhibition and guides for schools. Slovakia involved stakeholders during the preparation of the RBMPs via consultations, workshops and negotiations. Slovakia has established its Flood Risk Management Plans as sub-plans to its RBMPs, which provides a basis for strengthening coordination. ·Characterisation of the RBD Since the first cycle there has been biological validation, verification and refinement of river types. There is no assessment of the linkages of groundwater bodies with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. “Unknown impact type” was identified for 55% of river water bodies, which may indicate potential gaps in the methodologies used to assess pressures and impacts. In addition, the significance of pressures was not defined in terms of thresholds. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status ·According to WISE reporting, there was a significant increase in the numbers of sites used for surveillance monitoring since the first RBMPs, but a significant decrease in the number of sites used for operational monitoring. However, Slovakia subsequently provided new figures concerning monitoring sites, according to which there was a significant increase for both surveillance and operational monitoring sites.

All required biological, physicochemical and hydromorphological quality elements were monitored in rivers. 26 River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored, only in water. They were monitored at only 14 of the 1 152 sites reported to be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring. Environmental Quality Standards were established for all 26 River Basin Specific Pollutants in accordance with the Technical Guidance n. 27. Only 51% of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring were monitored for all required biological quality elements. 96% were monitored for all required physicochemical quality elements and 18% for all required hydromorphological quality elements. This seems to indicate an over-reliance on the physicochemical quality elements. Only 11% of river water bodies were included in operational monitoring. This proportion is low when compared to the 44% of river water bodies which were reported to be at less than good ecological status/potential and the 71% which had at least one significant pressure. All water bodies were classified in terms of ecological status/potential. However, the classification at quality element level was only reported for 31% of water bodies, while the other water bodies were classified based on extrapolation of the overall results of ecological status in the group of water bodies with the same characteristics. The proportion of water bodies reported to be in good or better status decreased from 64% in the first RBMPs to 56% in the second. However, there was a significant re-delineation of water bodies, which makes an assessment of the evolution of status/potential unreliable. There was an improvement in the level of confidence, with 16% being classified with high and 13% with medium confidence, even though this means that 71% of river water bodies have still been classified with low confidence. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies Between the two RBMPs, there was a small increase in the proportion of river water bodies with good chemical status from 95% to 98% and a corresponding decrease in the proportion failing to achieve good status from 5% to 2%. 74% of water bodies were classified with low confidence using expert judgement. Slightly more than a quarter of river water bodies were monitored for chemical status. Between the two RBMPs, there has been a net decrease in surface water bodies monitored for chemical status for operational purposes. However, the number of water bodies monitored for surveillance monitoring of chemical status increased substantially. 41 priority substances (so including those identified as discharged) are monitored in water and used for status assessment in both RBDs, at or above the recommended minimum frequency. In biota, mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene have been monitored in 51 water bodies for status assessment, at the recommended minimum frequency. According to the information provided in the RBMPs, the method for dealing with concentrations below the limit of quantification did not comply with the requirements of the Commission Directive on technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status. For trend assessment, Slovakia has monitored two of the required 14 Priority Substances in sediment, in the Vistula RBD and in Danube RBD, at the recommended minimum frequency. Monitoring was carried out at 67 of sites. ·The Environmental Quality Standards used were not entirely clear in the reporting to WISE and in the RBMPs. Slovakia reported both the use of the standards from the Directive (version in force in 2009) and some additional standards in water, sediment and biota. Some explanations for these standards were provided in the RBMPs. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies A gap remains in the quantitative monitoring of groundwater as 28% of all groundwater bodies were not subject to monitoring. The total number of groundwater bodies failing good quantitative status declined from five groundwater bodies in the first RBMP to three in the second RBMP (from 5.4% to 2.8% of the total groundwater body area). The number of groundwater bodies with unknown status slightly increased from 26 to 27. 72 of the 102 groundwater bodies were at good quantitative status.

·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies A considerable number of groundwater bodies are not monitored for chemical status. However, and according to subsequent clarification by Slovakia all substances posing risk are monitored. 27% of groundwater bodies are without a clear status assessment and the confidence in the status results is low or unknown for about 60% of the groundwater bodies. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential The national methodology for designating HMWB describes how the significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment have been defined but no specific criteria agreed at national level are given (it seems that decisions for this type of assessment are taken on case-by-case basis). No information was found on the details of the outcome of assessing significant adverse effects for individual water bodies. The assessment has also included information on other means to achieve the beneficial objectives provided by the hydromorphological alterations (e.g. for heavily modified water body related to flood protection, drinking water supply, energy production and irrigation). Good ecological potential has been defined in terms of biology. Although good ecological potential was defined for rivers, only some details about preliminary classification methodology was provided in the RBMPs. The descriptions of whether and how actual values for the biological quality elements are estimated were not reported in WISE, but these have been included in the RBMPs. Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential are reported but no information is given about the assessment of the effects of such measures on biology (as the effectiveness of the implemented measures on biological terms was not apparent in 2015 yet). ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status in surface water bodies and quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies have been reported in all RBDs. 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 Article 4(4) exemptions have been applied more widely in surface water bodies. ·Programme of Measures Progress has been made in identifying pressures and most are being addressed with measures. New legislation or regulations to implement the Programme of Measures (PoM) has been adopted in both RBDs. A clear financial commitment has been secured for the implementation of the PoM in both RBDs. A combination of qualitative and quantitative cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out in both RBDs to support the selection of measures proposed under the 2015-2021 PoM. For surface water bodies, gap analyses have been performed for 2015 and 2021 for most significant pressures. No gap analyses have been performed for 2027, although progress anticipated in closing the gaps by 2021 is very modest. For groundwater in the Danube RBD gap analyses were presented for 2015 only. For surface water bodies most significant pressures are covered by operational KTMs. However in groundwater bodies, not all significant pressures have been addressed with operational KTMs. Slovakia has mapped a total of 22 national basic measures and 23 national supplementary measures against a total of 12 KTMs. There is no information on River Basin Specific Pollutants in the Vistula RBD or in the Danube RBD. Tetrachloroethylene in groundwater in the Danube RBD is reported to cause failure of objectives and is covered by a KTM (KTM14 – Research and KTM4 - Remediation). Only 4 of 11 Priority Substances in the Danube RBD are covered by a KTM (all KTM14 - Research), and none in the Vistula RBD (only one reported to cause failure of objectives). The RBMPs and Floods Directive Flood Risk Management Plans have been integrated in both RBDs. No “win-win” measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive have been applied, and WFD Article 9(4) has not been applied to impoundment for flood protection. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity

Water abstraction pressure has not been reported as significant for Slovakia. The calculation methods for the water consumption (e.g. metering, estimations) have not been reported. There is a permitting regime and a register of abstractions for surface water and groundwater and a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water impoundment and a register of impoundments in place. Small abstractions are not billed and do not require permits. Specific water resource allocation and management plans have been set up. An amendment to the Water Act from 2014 made metering compulsory for water abstractions by all business/economic activities including agriculture. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. Management objectives for nutrient pollution and a gap assessment for nutrients has been undertaken in all RBDs Basic measures under Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source are ensured in all RBDs where the same rules apply across the whole RBD, including for pesticides. Financing of measures is secured in all basins. Supplementary measures for reducing pollution from agriculture are reported. Even though there is a clear understanding of the areas that need to be covered by agricultural measures, the PoM relies on voluntary measures as well as basic measures. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture The Slovak Republic reported a large range of KTM to tackle non agricultural sources of pollution. Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants are reported to be tackled by specific Key Types of Measures. An assessment of the gap to reach good chemical status for surface water and groundwater has been made and indicators reported for 2015 and 2021 for most KTMs. Measures to tackle urban waste water discharges and input from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure are expected to lead to progress in reaching good status, however little progress is expected by 2021 from the implementation of other KTMs. For pollution from sectors other than agriculture the Slovak Republic does not report values for key indicators for 2027 (this was an optional element in the reporting), it is therefore unclear when the environmental objectives for these pressures will be met. ·Measures related to hydromorphology A larger number of hydromorphological measures are planned to be implemented in the second cycle, compared to the first RBMPs, which only included two relevant measures. Progress has also been made in linking specific hydromorphological pressures with specific sectors and measures as well as providing information on the contribution of measures to achieving the WFD objectives. Concerning progress expected, it can be concluded that for significant physical and hydrological alterations, there will be little progress in terms of closing the gap between 2015 and 2021. Specifically for 'measures to ensure the continuity of rivers and habitats', the RBMPs mention that financing for the implementation of the measures will be spread over a longer period of time - until 2027. Ecological flows have not been derived nor implemented for the relevant water bodies in any of the RBDs but there are plans to do so during the second cycle.

Information on the use of win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive and Natural Water Retention Measures to tackle significant pressures was not reported. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies No new information on the application of the Polluter Pays Principle was reported which is implemented mainly by the charges for discharging waste water into surface water. A broad definition of water services has been used with 10 water services being reported. Cost recovery rates are calculated for five out of ten water services Environmental and resource costs are reported to be calculated, internalised and considered significant for only three water services. Further work is on-going to develop methodologies/approaches to derive environmental costs and resource costs based on available published approaches. There was little information on the incentive function of water pricing policies in the RBMPs, although an analysis of the pricing policy in terms of adequate incentives is reported to have been carried out, and an affordability index was determined. Pricing policies have been modified to include agricultural water use. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) Specific objectives for drinking water areas (surface and groundwater) have not been set. Generally for all Habitat and Birds Directive related Protected Areas it has been reported that good ecological status is considered sufficient to meet the objectives of these directives. Objectives have therefore not been set on a site by site basis. Additional objectives have not been set. Little or no specific monitoring of Protected Areas has been reported. Safeguard zones for the protection of Drinking Waters have been established. Different restrictions are implemented based on the distance to the abstraction point (mainly groundwater wells). ·Adaptation to drought and climate change Climate change was considered in both river basin districts and it is stated that the Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on how to adapt to climate change was used. A climate change check of the PoM was carried out for the second cycle. ·Droughts have not been reported to be relevant for the country and therefore drought management plans have not been developed

Recommendations Slovakia should include clear information in national RBMPs on international coordination efforts in order to increase transparency. Slovakia should continue to improve international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the WFD such as ensuring a harmonized approach for status assessment and a coordinated PoM in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives.

Slovakia needs to establish reference conditions for all types of Quality Elements, in particular hydromorphological Quality Elements, for which no reference conditions have been established, and to improve the assessment of pressures and impacts. Slovakia should complete the monitoring framework, as an adequate WFD-compliant monitoring and assessment framework is a necessary pre-requisite to design effective PoMs and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives. There are a number of gaps in the monitoring programmes which need to be addressed. There is no adequate fish monitoring in rivers, only phytoplankton is monitored in lakes, there is no monitoring of priority substances in sediments and biota, and not all priority substances were monitored in all water bodies. These gaps in the monitoring design resulted in an incomplete status assessment of surface water bodies, which has to be improved. In particular, mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived, and trend monitoring in sediment or biota for at least the substances specified in EQSD Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP. Slovakia should improve monitoring, as there are still important gaps. Monitoring should cover all relevant quality elements in all water categories in a sufficient number of sites, particularly for biological and hydromorphological quality elements. The number of monitoring sites for River Basin Specific Pollutants should increase significantly. Operational monitoring needs to include all water bodies which are subject to significant pressures, as they are under-monitored in the second RBMPs. Improved monitoring should lead to an increased level of confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. Slovakia should complete the development of assessment methods, including reference conditions, for all relevant quality elements. The assessment of ecological status should include assessments of all relevant quality elements. Slovakia should improve the confidence in the assessment of status. In particular, monitoring should be performed in a way that provides sufficient spatial coverage (including in biota), to reach good confidence in the assessment, if necessary in combination with robust extrapolation/grouping methods. Treat measurements of Priority Substances lower than the limit of quantification in the way specified in Article 5 of Commission Directive 2009/90/EC. Slovakia should further improve trend monitoring, to ensure that all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored in a way that provides sufficient spatial coverage. Slovakia should continue working for trend assessment in groundwater. Further efforts are needed to improve the designation process of heavily modified and artificial water bodies since progress is still limited compared to the first RBMPs. The designation needs to comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). Clear criteria need to be developed for the assessment of significant adverse effects of a comprehensive set of restoration measures on the use or the wider environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options. This needs to be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs in order to ensure the transparency of the designation process. Similarly, a transparent approach for the definition of ecological potential is needed, taking into account all relevant mitigation measures and their effects in order to define ecological potential also in terms of biology for all relevant water categories. A significant number of Article 4(4) exemptions is still applied in Slovakia in the second RBMPs. Efforts should be continued to ensure the ambitious implementation of measures for the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. Slovakia needs to ensure a thorough assessment of any planned new modifications in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified by the Judgment of the Court in case C-461/13. The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) needs to be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and the absence of alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status/potential of the water bodies. Respective information on the application of Article 4(7) needs to be reported in the RBMPs. KTMs in Vistula RBD should be mapped against individual pressures and be operational. Gap analysis should be performed to cover all significant pressures on groundwater. Slovakia should consider, in all RBDs, the inclusion of measures to address agricultural pressures in accordance with WFD Article 11(3) (e) and (g), i.e. abstraction and point sources. KTMs should be mapped against River Specific Basin Pollutants and Priority Substances, covering all substances causing failure of objectives. Slovakia should make sure the measures reported for individual substances causing failure are sufficient to reach the WFD objectives of good status. Slovakia should also implement and clearly report measures to suppress emissions from priority hazardous substances. Slovakia should continue with its work to define the necessary measures to address all hydromorphological pressures and to ensure restoration of water bodies. These measures need to be implemented as soon as possible and included in the next RBMPs. Slovakia needs to establish and implement ecological flows for relevant water bodies in all RBDs. Slovakia should continue to consider river restoration and prioritise the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, increase water infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure.

Slovakia should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). It should continue to transparently present how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. Slovakia should also transparently present the water-pricing policy, including the use of adequate incentives for users to use water efficiently and provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. Slovakia should continue to work on setting specific additional objectives for all Protected Areas under relevant Directives and ensure their link to the WFD implementation. The monitoring of Protected Areas should be improved, and the monitoring schemes under other Directives should be reported appropriately under the WFD.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – RBDs Slovakia has two RBDs, the Vistula (SK30000) – covering approximately 4% of national territory – and the Danube (SK40000), covering the remaining 96%. Both are part of international RBDs. In the first cycle, Slovakia prepared a single RBMP for both RBDs. In its assessment, the European Commission called on Slovakia to prepare one RBMP per RBD, rather than one for the whole country. Slovakia has implemented this recommendation and prepared two RBMPs for the second cycle. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Slovakia reports one competent authority, the Ministry of Environment, whose main roles comprise: monitoring and assessment of status of surface water and groundwater; enforcement of regulations; pressure and impact analysis; economic analysis; preparation of the RBMPs and PoM; public participation; implementation of measures; coordination of implementation, and; reporting to the European Commission. 1.1.3RBMPs – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment On WISE, Slovakia reports three types of sub-plans for its two RBMPs: hydropower; the Public Water Supply and Sewerage Development Plan of Slovakia, and the Flood Risk Management Plans ( Figure 1.1 ). Figure 1.1Issues, sectors, sub-basins or water categories in Slovakia supplemented by more detailed sub-plans for the second cycle RBD Agriculture Chemical industry Hydropower Transport Water Scarcity and droughts Climate change Coastal erosion Rural planning Urban planning Nutrient enrichment Chemical pollution Other: Hydromorphology, migration continuity SK30000 ✓ n/r ✓ SK40000 ✓ n/r ✓ Source: WISE electronic reports ✓ Covered by sub-plans n/r Not relevant in Member State A Strategic Environmental Assessment was prepared for each of Slovakia's two RBMPs.

1.1.4Public consultation The public and interested parties were informed by direct mailing, internet, meetings and written consultation. Documents were available via direct mailing (email) and download and were available for the requisite six months. Slovakia reported that the following stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the RBMPs: agriculture/farmers; energy/hydropower; industry and other sectors. The mechanisms for active involvement were: an information campaign on water within a LIFE+ project, including a media campaign; an interactive exhibition; guides for schools, and consultations with the sectors involved (telephone and email consultations were used including with investors in new infrastructure projects). Slovakia reported that the results of public consultation led to the addition of new information and adjustment of specific measures. There was international coordination of public participation for both RBMPs. Moreover, according to the RBMPs, during their preparation, a range of consultations, workshops and negotiations were held with the sectors concerned in order to more effectively incorporate water policy objectives into other environmental and sectoral policies and ensure the participation of all parties concerned with removing obstacles for meeting the environmental goals. In its recommendations on Slovakia’s first RBMP, the European Commission recommended good coordination between the public administration and other stakeholders to improve planning and implementation of the PoM. Based on the information available, this recommendation has been implemented. In addition, the European Commission called for more information on the involvement of interested parties and consultation. It appears that there has been progress in this area, as Slovakia’s reporting to WISE as well as its RBMPs provides information on consultation and on active involvement of stakeholders. 1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive In its WISE reporting on its RBMPs, Slovakia indicates that the RBMP and the Flood Risk Management Plan under the Floods Directive were integrated into a single plan in both RBDs and that the Flood Risk Management Plans were sub-plans to the RBMP. Reporting for the Flood Risk Management Plans indicates that these plans were prepared for sub-basins and are formally considered parts (i.e. sub-plans) of the RBMPs. Slovakia reports that joint consultation was carried out for the RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans. 1.1.6International coordination Slovakia's two RBDs are both part of international RBDs, the Danube and the Vistula. For the Danube, Slovakia reports that there is an international agreement, permanent cooperation body and international RBMP (designated as category 1 cooperation). Moreover, there is an international report (“roof report”) and explicit links have been made with national RBMPs within the international RBMPs. Slovakia has coordinated with neighbouring countries as well as other Danube countries via the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICDPR), and is a member of the Tisza Group, a platform established by ICDPR for coordination within this sub-basin. For further information see the reports on international coordination on the WFD. Slovakia has bilateral agreements for water management in place with neighbouring Member States – Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland – and with Ukraine. 1.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle In the first cycle, Slovakia prepared a single RBMP for both RBDs. In the second cycle, Slovakia has prepared two separate RBMPs for its two RBDs. In the first cycle, Slovakia prepared sub-plans for the sub-basins of its RBDs. also introduced sectorial plans (for hydropower, public water supply and sewerage as well as the Flood Risk Management Plans which was reported as a third type of sub-plans). 1.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM requested action on the following: The 2012 Commission Staff Working Document has three recommendations related to governance. ·Recommendation: Ensure good coordination between public administration and other stakeholders to improve the planning and implementation of the Programme of Measures and to monitor their effectiveness, i.e. a more detailed implementation plan for the Programme of Measures and information about the control mechanisms should be included in the second RBMPs cycle. Furthermore, Slovakia should ensure effective coordination between WFD and Floods Directive.

Assessment: With regard to good coordination between the public administration and other stakeholders, the RBMPs indicate that for their preparation, a range of consultations, workshops and negotiations were held with the sectors concerned in order to more effectively incorporate water policy objectives into other environmental and sectoral policies and ensure the participation of all parties concerned at removing obstacles for meeting the environmental goals. Regarding coordination between WFD and Floods Directive, in its WISE reporting on its RBMPs, Slovakia indicates that the RBMP and the Flood Risk Management Plan were integrated into a single plan in both RBDs and at the same time that the Flood Risk Management Plans were sub-plans to the RBMP. Slovakia’s reporting for the Flood Risk Management Plans indicate that these plans were prepared on a sub-basin basis and are formally considered part (i.e. sub-plans) of the RBMPs, although the Flood Risk Management Plans remain separate plans. Overall, based on the information available, Slovakia has fulfilled this recommendation. ·Recommendation: There is one plan for two RBDs and the plan does not always provide a clear guide as to whether an issue/problem is relevant for both or only for one RBD. It was often difficult to identify RBD-specific information. Future RBMPs need to be more transparent in this respect, and it is recommended that Slovakia develops one RBMP per national part of the RBD on its territory. Assessment: Slovakia has followed this recommendation and prepared two separate RBMPs. Consequently, this recommendation has been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: More information needs to be included in the plan on the involvement of interested parties and consultation, since it is not clear from the RBMP which stakeholders were involved, and what impact the consultation had on the content of the RBMP. Assessment: It appears that there has been progress in this area, as information has been provided on the consultation and on active involvement of interested parties - for the latter, Slovakia drew on the resources of a LIFE+ project. 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 Slovakia did not identify lakes, transitional or coastal water bodies in either cycle. Lakes with a size of over 10 km2 are not found in Slovakia and it is a landlocked country. There was a 14% reduction in the numbers of identified river water bodies from the first RBMP to the second RBMP ( Table 2.1 ), with the most significant changes in the Danube RBD. 23 of the 1 510 river water bodies were previously reported to be reservoirs but these were rivers which had been dammed and were therefore re-designated as rivers in the second cycle. Table 2.1Number and size distribution of delineated surface water bodies in Slovakia for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number of water bodies River water bodies length(km) Total length of water bodies Minimum Maximum Average 2016 SK30000 74 831 4.72 47.34 11.24 2016 SK40000 1 436 16 833 1.57 172.75 11.9 2016 Total 1 510 17 665 2010 SK30000 83 902 4.6 54.1 10.87 2010 SK40000 1 677 18 042 1.6 172.4 10.91 2010 Total 1 760 18 944 Source: WISE electronic reports The RBMP reported that river water bodies were delineated for catchments greater than 10 km2. The Joint Implementation Strategy of the EC was reported to have been used: “Identification of Water Bodies - Horizontal Methodological Guidance”. Water bodies with less than 10 km2 were not delineated and are part of the main river water bodies within the catchment. The RBMP reported changes of the boundaries of the river water bodies or merging and pooling of water bodies. The criteria for merging of water bodies are as follows: ·River length less than 8 km; ·River basin area less than 10 km2; ·Without significant impacts, and; ·Leaking channels, or dry or partially culverted water bodies.

Despite the reduction in the numbers of river water bodies, there was 10-fold increase in the number of designated artificial water bodies between the two cycles and also an increase in the number and proportion of heavily modified water bodies ( Figure 2.1 ). This was accompanied by decreases in number and proportion of natural water bodies. Slovakia reported that these significant changes are due to a lengthy process, which is still not completed, of identification of heavily modified and artificial water bodies. Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Slovakia designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reports. There was only a small change in the number (and area) of groundwater bodies between the two cycles with 101 delineated in the first RBMP and 102 in the second RBMP ( Table 2.2 ). Table 2.3 summarises the information provided by Slovak Republic on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. Table 2.2 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Slovakia for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 SK30000 4 72.43 1 707.30 597.95 2016 SK40000 98 33.15 6 248.61 765.49 2016 Total 102 33.15 6 248.61 758.92 2010 SK30000 4 72.42 1 707.20 597.91 2010 SK40000 97 33.15 6 248.37 772.52 2010 Total 101 33.15 6 248.37 765.6 Source: WISE electronic reports Table 2.3 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Slovakia between the second and first cycles Type of water body change for second cycle Groundwater Body River Water Body Aggregation splitting Aggregation and splitting ExtendedArea Creation 1 1 Deletion 251 Change in code Change 4 No change 101 1506 Total water bodies before deletion 102 1761 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 102 1510 Source: WISE electronic reports. 2.1.2Identification of transboundary water bodies 50 transboundary river water bodies from eight of the nine subunits in the Danube RBD and the Vistula RBD were reported. All six reported transboundary groundwater bodies were from the Danube RBD. In the RBMPs there is a general statement that the water bodies forming the border were harmonised both in terms of delineation and types of water bodies. 2.1.3Typology of surface water bodies Table 2.4 shows the number of surface water body types at RBD level in Slovakia for the first and second cycles. Overall in Slovakia 39 river types were reported in the first RBMP and 42 in the second RBMP. Four types are common to the two RBDs. The RBMPs reported that the increase in types was a result of the change of category of reservoirs, which were reported as rivers in the second RBMPs but not in the first, as well as of the biological validation, verification and refinement of river types. This was carried out based on statistical data processing of abiotic, biological and chemical data. Within the river water body types, it should be noted that 14 reservoir types were reported in the first RBMP and the second RBMP.

Table 2.4 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Slovakia for the first and second cycles RBD Rivers 2010 2016 SK30000 5 6 SK40000 34 36 TOTAL 39 42 Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs 17 river types in Slovakia were reported to have six equivalent river intercalibration types. 13% of river water bodies in Slovakia did not have any applicable equivalent intercalibration types. It was noted in the RBMPs that the typology of the transboundary rivers was discussed during the preparation of the first RBMPs. At the level of the Ecological Status Working Group (ECOSTAT) where the intercalibration process of the biological methods of environmental assessment has been undertaken, an intercalibration typology was created. Within the Eastern Intercalibration Geographical Intercalibration Group, most Slovak types were included. It was reported that all the procedures according to the requirements of the European Commission Intercalibration Instructions (Common Implementation Strategy WFD Guidance Document No. 30 ) have been followed. 2.1.4Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.5 shows the percentage of surface water body types in the Slovak Republic with reference conditions established for the first and second RBMPs. Reference conditions have not been reported for any of the hydromorphological quality elements in any type in Slovakia . For all non-reservoir types, reference conditions were reported to have been established for all biological and all physicochemical quality elements. For the 14 reservoir types, reference conditions have only been reported for some biological quality elements but not for any hydromorphological or any physicochemical quality elements. Table 2.5 Percentage of surface water body types in Slovakia with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Rivers All 63% 63% Some 37% None 100% 37% Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.5Characteristics of groundwater bodies Slovakia reported the characteristics of the geological formation of its aquifers and whether or not water bodies were layered. The RBMPs noted that there was better knowledge of groundwater since the first cycle, a better conceptual understanding and more monitoring data available. However, no information was reported on groundwater body links to surface water bodies or groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (Annex 0). 2.1.6Significant pressures on water bodies 26 pressure types were reported to be affecting river water bodies in Slovakia in the second RBMP. The most predominant pressures in terms of proportion of water bodies affected were diffuse agriculture (33% of surface water bodies), Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Flood protection (29%) and Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Agriculture (14%) ( Figure 2 ). Each of 11 of the 26 pressures affected less than 1% of surface water bodies. The RBMP explained that since the first cycle different pressures were being identified with activities being implemented or in the preparatory phase, these include: Invasive species; Lack of water and drought (drought indicators, ecological flows, water bills); Climate change;

Qualitative and quantitative aspects of sediment management (issue specific to the Danube), and; Pressures on sturgeon. No significant pressures were reported for groundwater bodies in the Vistula RBD. Nine different pressure types were reported to be significant on groundwater bodies in the Danube RBD. The most significant were Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network affecting 8% of groundwater bodies, point urban waste water pressures (7% of groundwater bodies) and point waste disposal sites (7%) ( Figure 2.2 ). Slovakia did not report data to WISE on specific pressures in the first RBMP. Figure 2.2 The most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Slovakia for the second cycle Source: WISE electronic reports. 2.1.7Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater The RBMP did not highlight any changes in the methodology or the criteria for the assessment of significance for the second RBMPs. Numerical tools were used to assess point source pressures and a combination of both numerical tools and expert judgement were used for diffuse source pressures. Significance was not defined in terms of thresholds. A combination of both numerical tools and expert judgement were used to assess the significance of point source, diffuse source and abstraction pressures on groundwater bodies. Significance has been defined in terms of thresholds and has been linked to failure of objectives in groundwater. 2.1.8Significant impacts on water bodies Four impact types were reported to be significant for river water bodies in Slovakia in the second RBMPs. Altered habitats due to morphological changes impacted 35% of river water bodies, followed by organic pollution (27%), nutrient pollution (13%) and chemical pollution (6%) ( Figure 2.3 ). “Unknown impact type” was identified for 55% of river water bodies. No significant impacts were reported for groundwater bodies in the Vistula RBD in the second RBMP, while in the Danube RBD chemical pollution impacted 11% and in 3% abstraction exceeded available groundwater resource of groundwater body ( Figure 3 ). Figure 2.3 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Slovakia for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.9Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 7% of groundwater bodies in the Danube RBD were reported to be at risk of failing good chemical status; there were none in the Vistula RBD. Eight chemical substances were causing the risk with sulphate causing the risk in 7% of groundwater bodies and nitrate in 4%. 8% of groundwater bodies in the Danube RBD were at risk of failing good quantitative status with the risk being associated with water balance and risks to associated surface water bodies. 2.1.10Quantification of gap to achieve status objectives

Gaps to be filled to achieve objectives were mostly reported for those pressures reported to be significant at the surface water body level in the Vistula RBD. Gaps were reported for three pressures that were not reported as significant at the water body level (Point - Non Industrial Emissions Directive plants, Dams, diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network, barriers and locks - Unknown or obsolete) and no gaps were reported for two pressures (dams, barriers and locks related to recreation and unknown anthropogenic pressures). In the Danube RBD, gaps were not reported for five pressures reported to be significant at the groundwater body level including point source pressures from urban waste water and waste disposal sites. Gaps were reported for the other four pressures reported at the groundwater body level, including agriculture and abstraction for public water supply. For surface water in the Danube RBD, gaps were reported for 25 different pressures that had been reported to be significant at the water body level. Gaps were reported for three pollutants causing failure of objectives in groundwater and for six Priority Substances causing failure of objectives in surface waters in the Danube RBD. 2.1.11Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS Directive) requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I EQS Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (respectively suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances (respectively priority hazardous substances). Slovakia reported inventories for both of its RBDs. According to the WISE reporting, the reported inventory for the Vistula RBD contained only one Priority Substance. For the other RBD, 22 different Priority Substances were included in an inventory in at least one of the subunits. Lead, mercury, nickel and cadmium were included in inventories in eight subunits. Five substances were included in inventories for only one sub-unit. In Annex 0 of the WISE reporting, Slovakia explained that the inventories were established according to the CIS Guidance no. 28 and are included in the RBMPs, but this was done at water body level and therefore could not be reported to WISE, which required reporting at the level of sub-units. According to the WISE reporting, the two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. Tier 1+ 2 of the methodology was implemented The data quality was assessed as medium. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle There was a 14% reduction in the number of identified river water bodies in Slovakia from the first RBMP to the second RBMP. There was a 10 fold increase in the number of designated artificial water bodies between the two cycles and also an increase in the number and proportion of heavily modified water bodies. This was accompanied by decreases in number and proportion of natural water bodies. Slovakia reported that these significant changes are due to a lengthy process, which is still not completed, of identification of heavily modified and artificial water bodies. Overall in Slovakia 39 river types were reported in the first RBMP and 42 in the second RBMP: for both cycles there were no common type codes across the two RBDs. In the first RBMP, reference conditions were established for all biological quality elements but for fish they are only preliminary. In the second RBMP reference conditions were reported to be established for all non-reservoir river types indicating that there had been some progress since the first RBMPs. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM requested action on the following: ·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. Regarding characterisation, for instance, reference conditions should be established for all biological quality elements. Assessment: Reference conditions have been established for all biological quality elements in 28 of the 42 river types, and for some biological quality elements in 14 types which are all reservoir types. More significantly no reference conditions have been set for any types in terms of hydromorphological quality elements. In terms of physiochemical quality elements, reference conditions have been established for all relevant elements in 28 types but for none of the elements in the reservoir types. A combination of both numerical tools and expert judgement was used for determining the significance of diffuse pressures on surface and groundwater. In conclusion there has been some progress but there are still major gaps in fulfilling this recommendation, so it has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: The RBMPs need to provide more information on the links between pressures and status, and the respective measures for surface waters. This recommendation is addressed in Chapter 9 on the PoM.





Topic 3Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 3.1.1Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes Separate surveillance and operational monitoring programmes have been reported for each of the two designated water categories: rivers and groundwater. Monitoring sites Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the first and second RBMPs, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. There were significant changes in delineation of surface water bodies from the first to the second RBMPs. In particular, reservoirs had been reported as lakes in the first RBMPs but were reported as rivers in the second RBMPs, as specified in the reporting guidance. A comparison of data between the first and second RBMPs is therefore difficult and is meaningful only for the total number of monitoring sites in surface waters. Taking this into account, according to the reporting in WISE there was a significant increase in the number of sites used for surveillance monitoring but a significant decrease in the number of sites used for operational monitoring. Slovakia subsequently provided different numbers for monitoring sites, explaining that sites used for surveillance monitoring were also used for operational monitoring. According to the latter data provided by Slovakia, there was also a significant increase in the number of sites used for operational monitoring. Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Slovakia for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in the first RBMPs, the data for the second RBMPs does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring. Note the total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose. Rivers Lakes Surv. Op Surv. Op second RBMP SK_30000 41 (37) 22 (41) - - SK_40000 834 (749) 255 (1.071) - - Total by type of site 875 (786) 277 (1.112) - - Total number of monitoring sites 1.144 (1.898) - first RBMP SK_30000 31 (6) 29 (9) - - SK_40000 529 (97) 565 (190) 23 7 Total by type of site 560 (103) 594 (199) 23 7 Total number of monitoring sites 698 (241) 23 Sources: Member States electronic reports to WISE . The numbers in parentheses were subsequently provided by Slovakia and are different from those reported in WISE. Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Slovakia. Note the total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose. Monitoring Purpose Rivers CHE - Chemical status 402 DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 7 ECO - Ecological status 447 OPE - Operational monitoring 277 QUA - Quantitative status 417 REF - Reference network monitoring site 35 RIV - International network of a river convention (including bilateral agreements) 32 SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 2 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 875 Total sites irrespective of purpose 1144 Source: WISE electronic reports 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 RBMPs: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring.

Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in Slovakia (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 Yes Yes No No No No Yes 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 Source: WISE electronic reports All expected biological quality elements and physicochemical quality elements were reported to be monitored in rivers. In addition phytoplankton was monitored in reservoirs (re-designated as rivers in the second RBMPs) and some other river water bodies. Hydromorphological conditions and River Basin Specific Pollutants were also monitored. In the first RBMPs it was reported that all required quality elements were monitored in rivers, except for fish. In the second RBMPs fish were monitored, indicating some progress since the first RBMPs. 23 (1.6%) of the 1 510 identified river water bodies were reported to be reservoirs that had originally been a river. Phytoplankton, macrophytes, phytobenthos were monitored in these water bodies but not benthic invertebrate or fish. If these were being monitored and assessed as lakes, it would be expected that fish and benthic invertebrates would have been monitored: as they are not, this is a shortcoming in the current monitoring. In addition hydromorphological quality elements were not monitored in reservoirs. All the expected physicochemical quality elements were monitored in reservoirs. Annex V of the Water Framework Directive provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a RBMP i.e. six years. For phytoplankton this should be done twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements once during the year. As a guideline, operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. All biological quality elements included in surveillance monitoring were sampled at, or more than, the WFD minimum recommended frequency at all sites where they are monitored. Three of the four biological quality elements used for operational monitoring were also sampled at, or at more than, the recommended frequency at all sites. None of the sites used for fish were sampled at the recommended minimum frequency. River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored Table 3.4 shows the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in Slovakia in the first and second RBMPs. 26 different River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored for Slovakia, all were only monitored in water. River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored at either 14 sites (for four metals) or 13 sites (for 22 other pollutants). In terms of surveillance monitoring all 26 pollutants were monitored at all sites at a frequency that met the minimum WFD minimum frequency of four times in one year of the six year WFD cycle. However for operational monitoring only two of the seven sites used for the operational monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants were sampled for the 26 substances at least at the minimum recommended frequency of four times a year in each year of the six year WFD cycle. Slovakia reported 1.144 monitoring sites for either surveillance and/or operational purposes: the 14 sites used for River Basin Specific Pollutants represent only 1.2% of these sites .



Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMPs in Slovakia. Note not all Member States reported information at the site level for the first RBMPs meaning that there were no equivalent data RBMP Rivers second RBMP Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 14 for metals 13 for other pollutants first RBMP Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants Not Reported Sources: WISE electronic reports

Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies Figure 3.1 shows that, according to the reporting in WISE, there has been an increase in surveillance monitoring and a decrease in operational monitoring of water bodies from the first to the second RBMPs . Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance monitoring within each ecological status class. Water bodies at bad status were fully represented whereas a quarter of water bodies at good status were covered by surveillance monitoring. Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Slovakia for the first RBMPs (2010) and second RBMPs (2016). Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Slovakia Source: WISE electronic reports According to the reporting in WISE, only 51% of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring of ecological status/potential were monitored for all required biological quality elements. 96% were monitored for all required physicochemical quality element and none for all required hydromorphological quality elements. Slovakia subsequently explained that 18.9% of river water bodies were in fact monitored for all required hydromorphological quality elements. In Slovakia as a whole 28% of river water bodies were included in surveillance monitoring of ecological status/potential and for comparison 11% were included in operational monitoring. As there was a significant re-delineation of surface water bodies between the first and second RBMPs and there were errors in the reporting of monitoring in WISE, comparisons between numbers of water bodies monitored in the first and second RBMPs are not meaningful. Operational monitoring of surface water bodies The WFD states that “operational monitoring shall be carried out for all those bodies of water which are identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives under Article 4”. In Slovakia as a whole, only 11% of river water bodies were included in operational monitoring. This is in spite of the fact that 44% of river water bodies were reported to be at less than good ecological status/potential and 71% had at least one significant pressure. Even though Slovakia indicated that grouping was used in the assessment of status/potential, this seems to be a low number. However, Slovakia subsequently explained that the monitoring sites used for surveillance monitoring were also used for operational monitoring for the parameters which were considered relevant. All relevant biological quality elements were included in operational monitoring. According to the reporting in WISE, morphological conditions were the only hydromorphological quality elements included in operational monitoring: this was monitored in 8 of the 12 water bodies included in operational monitoring . All the monitored physicochemical quality elements were monitored in 10 of the 12 water bodies in operational monitoring and River Basin Specific Pollutants in six. Transboundary surface water body monitoring Slovakia reported 32 monitoring sites that were part of an international network of a river convention: three in the Vistula RBD and 29 in the Danube RBD. 3.1.2 Ecological Status/potential of surface water The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Slovakia for the second RBMPs is illustrated in Map 3.1 .

This is based on the most recent assessment of status. A detailed breakdown of ecological status/potential in each RBD and water category can be viewed in the WISE electronic reports. Map 3.1Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Slovakia based on the most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside the European Union Figure 3.3 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Slovakia for the first RBMPs with that for the second (based on the most recent assessment of status/potential) and that expected by 2015. Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Slovakia is shown in Figure 3.4 . All surface water bodies are expected to achieve good ecological status/potential by 2027. Figure 3.3 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Slovakia for the second RBMPs, for the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2009 to 2012. The year of the assessment of status for first RBMPs is not known Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.4 Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Slovakia. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category Source: WISE electronic reports None of the surface water bodies in Slovakia were reported to have unknown ecological status/potential in both the first and second RBMPs. 64% were reported to be of good or better status for the first RBMPs and 56% for the second. However, there was significant reduction in the number of delineated water bodies from the first to the second RBMPs which makes a comparison of status/potential unreliable. The RBMPs state that significant changes are identified in high and good status / potential classes (as shown in Figure 3.3 ). In other classes, the differences are not significant. Changes in the classification results are reported to be due to both the updating of water bodies and the increased reliability of the assessment. Confidence in ecological status assessment Figure 3.5 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. Figure 3.5 Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Slovakia based on the most recently assessed status/potential

Source: WISE electronic reports Water bodies were classified with low (88%) or medium (12%) confidence for the first RBMP. For the second RBMP, there was an improvement in the level of confidence with 16% being classified with high and 13% with medium confidence although the levels of confidence were still low overall (with 71% of water bodies remaining at low confidence). Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element Figure 3.6 shows the percentage of water bodies in terms of the biological quality element used for classification. Figure 3.6 Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of surface waters in Slovakia. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential, and those that are monitored but not classified or not applicable, are not presented. Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. It should be noted that this comparison should be treated with some caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements from the first to the second RBMPs. Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers in Slovakia for the second RBMPs. Figure 3.7 Comparison of ecological status/potential in Slovakia according to classified biological quality elements in surface waters between the first and second RBMPs Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.8 The classification of the ecological status or potential of surface waters in Slovakia using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element. Note: The four types are: biological; hydromorphological, general physicochemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants. Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.9 The percentage of surface water bodies in Slovakia where no biological quality element or no hydromorphological (HYMO) or no general physicochemical (PHYSCHEM) or no river basin specific pollutant (RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential

Source: WISE electronic reports While all water bodies have been assigned an overall ecological status/potential, the detailed overview on which quality elements were classified reveals considerable gaps in the use of quality elements to classify the water bodies. On average, around 75% of water bodies show 'unknown' status/potential (see Figure 3.6) at the level of each individual quality element. All 1 510 water bodies were classified in terms of ecological status/potential. However, the classification at the quality element level was only reported for 463 (31%) water bodies. For the other 69% of water bodies, classification was based on extrapolation of overall results of ecological status/potential within groups of water bodies with the same characteristics. The confidence of assessment of these water bodies was reported as low. Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements According to the reporting in WISE, for some national river types (mostly those for which no intercalibration type has been assigned), certain biological reference conditions were not defined. Also physicochemical reference conditions were not defined for some types. Hydromorphological reference conditions were not defined for all river types. However, Slovakia subsequently clarified that reference conditions for all quality elements were set in a Governmental Regulation. Assessment methods were reported for all biological quality elements relevant for rivers. The methods were reported to be sensitive to most defined impact types except for chemical pollution for which no method was reported to be sensitive. Chemical pollution was reported to be significant in both RBDs. Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements Morphological conditions were reported to be assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in rivers but the classification boundaries for this supporting quality element were not related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. River continuity and hydrological regime were not. included in the assessment of ecological status. Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements 4 physicochemical quality elements (thermal, oxygenation, salinity and nutrient conditions) were reported to be assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in rivers. Standards were reported for 12 physicochemical determinants covering five groups of physicochemical quality elements: they included determinants for acidification conditions which had not been reported as being assessed in terms of ecological status/potential. All standards were reported to be consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards Environmental quality standards were reported for 26 different River Basin Specific Pollutants in Slovakia, all for water (none in sediment and/or biota). All were reported to have been derived in accordance with the 2011 Technical Guidance Document No 27 and the analytical methods used meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the Commission Directive on technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status for the strictest standard applied for all substances. Use of monitoring results for classification Figure 3.10 illustrates the basis on which classification of ecological status/potential was made for each element. Figure 3.10 Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Slovakia. The percentages are in terms of all water bodies in each category. Source: WISE electronic reports Grouping has been used to classify around 70% of river water bodies at the quality element level. The remaining 30% are classified using monitoring results except for a few individual water bodies classified by expert judgment (not shown in Figure 3.9) in terms of physicochemical quality elements. This may be because of a lack of confidence in some monitoring results.

The two most commonly used biological quality elements for the classification of ecological status/potential in rivers in Slovakia were phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates being used to classify around 24% and 23%, respectively, of classified water bodies. Macrophytes, fish and phytoplankton were also classified. The classification of status/potential for all classified water bodies was based on monitoring results. More water bodies were directly monitored than were subsequently classified by the biological quality elements indicating that there was probably some uncertainty in the assessment of status for some water bodies and biological quality elements. Monitoring results for morphological conditions were used to classify 16% of river water bodies even though 18 % were directly monitored. Proportionally more river water bodies (27%) were classified using the monitoring results of the physicochemical quality elements than for either the biological quality elements or hydromorphological quality elements: approximately the same number of water bodies were classified and directly monitored for the physicochemical quality elements perhaps indicating a greater level of confidence in the monitoring results of these elements. It remains unclear how the grouping of water bodies has been carried out. Given that the overall number of biological quality elements applied in water body classification is very low, the grouping of water bodies might introduce a high level of uncertainty in the classification. Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle) Slovakia reported that the one-out, all-out principle had been used in the derivation of the overall ecological status/potential of water bodies. 3.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs There were significant changes in delineation of surface water bodies from the first to the second RBMPs. In particular, reservoirs had been reported as lakes in the first RBMPs but were reported as rivers in the second RBMPs, as specified in the reporting guidance. A comparison of data between the first and second RBMPs is therefore difficult and is meaningful only for the total number of monitoring sites in surface waters. Taking this into account, according to the reporting in WISE there was a significant increase in the number of sites used for surveillance monitoring but a significant decrease in the number of sites used for operational monitoring. Slovakia subsequently provided different numbers for monitoring sites, explaining that sites used for surveillance monitoring were also used for operational monitoring. According to the latter data provided by Slovakia, there was also a significant increase in the number of sites used for operational monitoring. Only half as many water bodies were included in operational monitoring in the second RBMPs compared to the first. In the first RBMPs it was reported that all required quality elements were monitored except for fish in rivers. In the second RBMPs fish were monitored, indicating that some progress has been made since the first RBMPs. 64% of water bodies were reported to be of good or better status for the first RBMPs and 56% for the second. However, there was significant reduction in the number of delineated water bodies from the first to the second RBMPs which makes a comparison of status/potential between the cycles unreliable. The comparison of water body classifications between the first and the second RBMPs revealed that the classifications (and therefore possibly the underlying assessments) differed significantly between them, with considerably more water bodies reaching high status in the first RBMPs. 3.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: The ecological status assessment in rivers lacks the assessment of fish, and for lakes it is only based on phytoplankton. The ecological status assessment does not include hydromorphological quality elements. No assessment system for lakes has been intercalibrated. Most of the biological quality elements have not been intercalibrated, and have thus not been used in the classification. All these shortcomings need to be addressed. Assessment: The monitoring of fish in rivers was included for the second RBMPs but in fewer water bodies than other biological quality elements. The lakes reported for the first RBMPs were re-designated as rivers as they had been formed by damming river water bodies. More biological quality elements were monitored in reservoirs but not all the required elements: In terms of hydromorphology, only morphological conditions are used in the classification of rivers, with river continuity and hydrological regime being monitored but not used in the assessment . The assessment methods for all biological quality elements were developed and intercalibrated for natural rivers, while there is no intercalibration at EU level for reservoirs. The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: There are a number of gaps in the monitoring programmes which need to be addressed. There is no adequate fish monitoring in rivers, only phytoplankton is monitored in lakes, there is no monitoring of priority substances in sediments and biota, and not all priority substances were monitored in all water bodies. These gaps in the monitoring design resulted in an incomplete status assessment of surface water bodies, which has to be improved. In particular, mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQSD, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived, and trend monitoring in sediment or biota for at least the substances specified in EQSD Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP. ·Recommendation: Complete the monitoring framework, as an adequate WFD-compliant monitoring and assessment framework is a necessary pre-requisite to design an effective Programme of Measures and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives. Assessment: The monitoring of fish in rivers was included for the second RBMPs but in fewer water bodies than other biological quality elements. Lakes were not delineated for the second RBMPs, since reservoirs were delineated as rivers. In terms of hydromorphology, only morphological conditions have been used in the classification of rivers with river continuity and hydrological regime being monitored but not included in the assessment. Coverage of water bodies as a whole is fairly sparse for example only 13 (around 1%) of surface water bodies are monitored for River Basin Specific Pollutants. The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, in the 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. Regarding characterisation, for instance, reference conditions should be established for all biological quality elements. Assessment: Biological quality element reference conditions were defined. Physicochemical and hydromorphological quality element reference conditions were defined for natural river types but not for reservoirs. The recommendation has been 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 water bodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such water bodies resulting from the PoM. Section 3.1.1 of this report summarises the characteristics of the surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in Slovakia for the second RBMP. Figure 1 summarises the proportion of sites used for the monitoring of chemical status in rivers for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. More detailed information can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency . Figure 4.1 shows that over a third of monitoring sites were used for assessment of chemical status. Marginally more sites were used for the assessment of ecological status. Figure 4.1 Proportion of sites used for monitoring of chemical status and, for comparison, ecological status, in Slovakia. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of monitoring sites irrespective of their purpose Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in rivers for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. Also given is the proportion of water bodies monitored for any purpose and, for comparative purposes, those for ecological status. Figure 4.2 shows that 26% of approximately 1 500 river water bodies were monitored for chemical status. Figure 4.2 Proportion of total water bodies in each category which are monitored, monitored for chemical status and, monitored for ecological status, in Slovakia. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of water bodies in that category Source: WISE electronic reporting In Slovakia as a whole, 97% of the water bodies that are failing to achieve good chemical status were monitored for the substances causing failure as part of the operational monitoring programme.

Long-term trend monitoring and monitoring of Priority substances in water, sediment and biota for status assessment Monitoring for status assessment Requirements Article 8(1) of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order to provide inter alia a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009), mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene have to be monitored in biota for status assessment, unless Member States derived a standard for another matrix, which is at least as protective as the biota standard. Spatial coverage All 41 Priority Substances and groups of priority substances were monitored in water in both RBDs. Slovakia reports that 9.5% and 26% of river water bodies are monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances for the Vistula and Danube RBDs, respectively. This equates to 26% of river water bodies in Slovakia. It was also reported that 74% of river water bodies in Slovakia were not monitored for any Priority Substances (65 and 1059 in the Vistula and Danube, respectively). For biota, Slovakia has monitored the required three Priority Substances in the Vistula RBD for status assessment. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were monitored for biota at one river monitoring site only in the Vistula RBD. No information was reported to WISE for the Danube RBD. Slovakia subsequently clarified that mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were also monitored in biota for status assessment in 50 sites in this RBD. 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 are reported for 41 Priority Substances at site level in both RBDs. In both the Vistula and Danube RBDs all Priority Substances were monitored 12 times per year (depending on the sites, monitoring took place every one, two or three or four years). Where monitoring in biota occurred, the sampling frequency was once every year. The reported frequencies in both water and biota are therefore exactly the minimum recommended frequencies. 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 Spatial coverage Slovakia has monitored two (mercury and hexachlorobenzene) of the required 14 Priority Substances in sediments in three sites in the Vistula RBD. Although no information was reported to WISE for the Danube RBD, Slovakia subsequently clarified that these two substances were also monitored in sediment for trend assessment in 64 sites of the Danube RBD. Frequencies Monitoring should take place at least once every three years, unless technical knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval. Where Priority Substances are monitored for long-term trends in river water bodies (in the Vistula RBD only) this is reported to occur once per year, and therefore is above the minimum recommended frequency. 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. In the Vistula RBD only one Priority Substance (Nickel) was in an inventory and discharged; this substance was also monitored. In the Danube RBD, 18 Priority substances were included in inventories and discharged. These substances were all monitored. Performance of analytical methods used For 31 Priority Substances and groups of Priority Substances, the analytical methods used meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the Commission Directive on technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status for the strictest standard applied. For the remaining 10 reported, the analytical methods complied with the requirements laid down in Article 4(2) of that Directive. The method of dealing with measurements of Priority Substances below the limit of quantification is reported to be as specified in Article 5 of the Commission Directive on technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status. However, the actual review of the RBMPs revealed that a different approach was undertaken. It is stated that if the limit of quantification of the best available method was higher than the environmental quality standard and if all the measured values were below this best available quantification limit, this result was considered in the assessment of compliance with the environmental quality standard values for chemical status as “assessment complies with environmental quality standard" and in such cases, the reliability of status evaluation was reduced. This method is not in line with the requirements of Article 5 of the Commission Directive on technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status. 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. The chemical assessments were carried out in unspecified years between 2009 and 2012 in both RBDs. The chemical status of surface water bodies in Slovakia for the second RBMP is illustrated on the map below. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. Map 4.1 shows that around 98% of water bodies are at Good status and only 2% are failing to achieve good. Map 4.1Chemical status of surface water bodies in Slovakia based on the most recently assessed status of the surface water bodies Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1(4)(3). Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) The chemical status of rivers in Slovakia for the first and second RBMPs is given in Table 4.1 . Between the two cycles there was a small increase in the proportion of river water bodies with good chemical status from 95% to 98% and decrease in the proportion failing to achieve good status from 5 % to 2 %. This pattern occurred generally across all RBDs and Natural/Heavily Modified/Artificial water body categories. Table 4.1 Chemical status of surface water bodies in Slovakia for the second and first RBMP. Note: the number in parenthesis next to the water category is the number of water bodies. Note: Chemical status assessment is based on the standards laid down in EQS Directive 2008/105/EC (version in force on 13 January 2009). Some Member States did not implement the Directive in the first RBMPs as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs. Category Good Failing to achieve good Unknown Number % Number % Number % second RBMP Rivers (1510) 1473 98% 37 2% first RBMP Rivers (1760) 1673 95. % 87 5. % Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMP. In Slovakia, overall, 26% of surface water bodies (all rivers) were classified for chemical status with medium confidence and 74% were classified with low confidence. Confidence in the classification of chemical status for the first RBMPs was not reported