EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 52 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Romania







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) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of Contents Acronyms and definitions Foreword General Information Status of second river basin management plan reporting Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 1.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 2.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP 3.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 3.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

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

Topic 9 Programme of measures 9.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 9.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 9.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 10.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 10.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 10.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture 11.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle No major changes in any of the RBDs for aspects of the topic have been identified. 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 and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 12.2 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 QA/QC Directive Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WEI+ Water Extraction Index+ 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 by 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 Romania (Map A) has a total population of 22.3 m (the total resident population is 19.9 m) and a total surface area of 238 391 km2. Romania is located in southeast Europe. Romania’s territory is mountainous in the north while the main feature in the south is the vast Danube valley. The Danube River forms a delta as it approaches the Black Sea. 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 and transitional Waters 100% of Romania’s surface is part of the international Danube River Basin District, representing approximately 29% of the international Danube River Basin surface. The Romanian part of the Danube RBD encompasses 11 sub-units / river sub-basins. Information on areas of the national river basin districts including sharing countries borders is provided in Table A and the respective share within Romania is given in Table B. Table A Overview of Romania’s River Basin Districts and sub-units RBD / Sub-basin Name Size (km2) % of RO territory Countries sharing borders RO1000 Danube 238 962* BG, HU, MD, RS, UA Sub-basin RO9SO Someş - Tisa 22 452 9.4 HU, UA RO8CR Crişuri 14 939 6.3 HU RO7MU Mureş 28 540 11.9 HU RO1BA Banat 18 312 7.7 RS RO2JI Jiu 16 759 7 - RO3OT Olt 25 388 10.7 - RO4AG Argeş - Vedea 21 543 9 - RO5IL Buzău - Ialomiţa 26 471 1011.1 - RO10SI Siret 27 949 11.98 UA RO11PR Prut - Bârlad 20 569 8.7 MD, UA RO6DL Dobrogea Litoral 16 041* 6.4* BG, MD, RS, UA *including transitional and coastal waters Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE Table B Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Romania Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing borders Co-ordination category 1 km² % Danube RO1000 BG, HU, MD, RS, UA 238 962* 29.6* * including transitional and coastal waters

Source: WISE electronic reporting Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in place. Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. Category 3: International agreement in place. Category 4: No co-operation formalised.



Status of second river basin management plan reporting A single/national RBMP for Romania (Danube) and 11 sub-units RBMPs were published on 22 December 2015, the whole territory of Romania being assigned to a single River Basin District (Danube). 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 Romania are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation Concerning public participation and active involvement of stakeholders, the public and stakeholders were informed by a range of methods, including media as well as celebrations of World Water Day and Danube Day. The Basin Committees, in place for each sub-basin, helped to inform the public and also supported the active involvement of stakeholders. ·Characterisation of the RBD There was a significant (11%) decrease in the numbers of river water bodies between the two cycles, due to an updated methodology applied based on research studies. The RBMP reported that the typology was revised and that a number of types were harmonised. There are gaps in the biological quality element type-specific reference conditions for some types in all water categories. According to the information subsequently provided by Romania the reference conditions were reported in WISE only for existing situations, but in the RBMP, type-specific reference values for almost all biological quality elements have been included. In addition, coastal and transitional water types had no reference conditions established for any of the hydromorphological or physicochemical quality elements. According to the information subsequently provided by Romania, there are hydromorphological type-specific reference conditions for transitional and coastal water bodies. There are no equivalent intercalibration types for both transitional water bodies due to the lack of common types. According to the information subsequently provided by Romania, it has not been technically feasible to complete the comparability assessment within the intercalibration process. 59% of lake and 47% of river water bodies do not have an equivalent intercalibration type although the class boundaries used for all national types were those of the intercalibrated types: the translation/ use of the results of intercalibration to non-intercalibrated types is key to the basis of the status classification. Further characterisation has been undertaken with the geological formation of the aquifers associated with the groundwater bodies and reported as to whether the groundwater bodies were layered or not. Groundwater bodies were linked to surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems.

The significance of the pressures was defined in terms of thresholds and was linked to failure of objectives for both groundwater and surface water. However, for transitional water bodies unknown anthropogenic pressures was the only reported pressure, indicating that there are shortcomings in the current pressures and impact assessment for this water category. According to the information subsequently provided by Romania the unknown pressures on transitional water bodies were indirect pressures from the catchment and the measures taken upstream would lead to the achievement of the environmental objectives for the transitional water bodies. Romania reported gaps indicators for significant pressures to be filled to achieve the environmental objectives for most significant pressures.The impact of significant pressures (point and diffuse pollution) has been quantitatively assessed by applying modelling tools and the results of the monitoring of pollutant emissions have been used. Romania reported inventories of Priority Substances for each of its 11 sub-units. 37 Priority Substances were included in inventories in at least one of these inventories. The two step approach from Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document No. 28 was used to compile the inventories for nine of the 37 Priority Substances in inventories. For these substances, Tier 2 (riverine load) or Tier 1 (point source information) + Tier 2 were implemented, in line with the Guidance Document. The same methodology was implemented for other substances. The data quality was assessed as uncertain or medium. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status The monitoring network has been expanded since the first RBMP, the number of monitored parameters has increased and the level of confidence of the status assessment has also improved. Most biological quality elements were monitored at least at the minimum recommended frequency. There are some gaps in the monitoring of required quality elements, as morphological conditions were not monitored in coastal and transitional waters. A large proportion of water bodies have been classified for more biological quality elements and supporting quality elements than in the first RBMP. Macrophytes were not classified in rivers and lakes, and fish were not classified in lakes , due to missing methods. More assessment methods for biological quality elements have been developed since the first RBMP. However, methods for macrophytes in rivers and lakes and fish in lakes were still missing. Assessment methods for biological quality elements in rivers are sensitive to several significant impacts. However, there are no biological quality element assessment methods that are sensitive to chemical pollution, hydrological changes, acidification and saline intrusion in rivers, even though these impacts were reported to be significant. A large proportion of national river and lake types are not linked to any intercalibration type. For all national types, the class boundaries used were those of the intercalibrated types. Morphological conditions were assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and the classification boundaries are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. Hydrological or tidal regime in all categories, as well as river continuity, were reported to be assessed but the classification boundaries are not related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. Assessment methods for most of the physicochemical quality elements have been developed since the first RBMP. For rivers and lakes, all general physico-chemical elements/parameters are assessed in terms of ecological status/potential, except transparency and salinity conditions in lakes. Thermal conditions were not considered relevant for lakes, transitional and coastal water bodies since there are no discharges in those water categories. The number of monitoring sites for River Basin Specific Pollutants decreased in lakes but increased in rivers since the first RBMP. There was little change in transitional and coastal waters. Monitoring was reported for 11 different River Basin Specific Pollutants, at least at the minimum recommended frequency. The analytical methods are in line with Articles 4(1) or 4(2) of the QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC) for all substances. The number of water bodies in good or better ecological status increased since the first RBMP. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies All water bodies and all territorial waters were classified. Between the two RBMPs, there was a small increase in the proportion of water bodies in good chemical status (from 93 to 98%), together with a corresponding small decrease in water bodies failing to achieve good status (from 7 to 2%). All transitional and coastal water bodies and all territorial waters are monitored for chemical status. Only about a quarter of river and lake waterbodies are monitored. This means than approximately a quarter of lake and river water bodies were classified by expert judgment, and approximately 50% by grouping. The number of priority substances monitored and the number of water bodies monitored increased between the two RBMPs, which led to an increased confidence in the assessment of status. However, 56% of surface water bodies in Romania were still classified for chemical status with low confidence (and only 1 % with high confidence). 37 of the 41 Priority Substances were monitored in water and used for status assessment. This included all priority substances identified as discharged. The four substances which were not monitored were also not considered in the inventories (so it is unclear whether they are discharged). In over 80% of the cases, the monitoring frequency applied was at least the recommended minimum frequency. The reduced frequencies resulted from the inability to sample during the dry period for temporary water bodies, from the inability to sample under certain winter weather conditions or from data incorrectly reporting in WISE.

Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene have been monitored in biota for status assessment, at the recommended minimum frequency. Monitoring is performed in what seems to be a very limited number of sites. 9 of the required 14 Priority Substances are monitored in sediment in rivers and lakes for trend assessment. Three of these nine substances were also monitored in other surface water categories. Some of these substances are monitored in what seems to be a very limited number of sites. The sampling frequency is the recommended minimum frequency. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 30 of 143 groundwater bodies are not monitored. However, having in view the pressure and impact analysis and status assessment results, all groundwater bodies have been classified in good quantitative status and are not failing to meet the environmental objectives. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies The coverage of surveillance monitoring improved in the second cycle but it is still not complete. All WFD core parameters were monitored. Not all substances causing risk are subject to monitoring. Yet, Romania subsequently clarified that all groundwater bodies at risk of failing good groundwater chemical status and all substances causing the risk are subject to operational monitoring. The groundwater body area failing good status decreased from the first to the second RBMP. About 10% of the groundwater bodies are failing the good chemical status objective. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential An updated analysis of anthropogenic pressures, in particular of hydromorphological alterations, has been carried to support the designation of heavily modified water bodies as well as a more detailed analysis of other alternative means to achieve the benefits of the modifications. Furthermore, the failure to achieve good status has been verified with improved assessment methodologies. The biological quality elements used for defining good ecological potential/maximum ecological potential seem to have increased since the first cycle. The assessment methods for various biological quality elements have been reviewed and improved. Therefore, the number of biological quality elements, which are possible to assess in different water categories to classify status and potential, has increased. The confidence of the assessment of ecological potential has also improved since the first cycle. However, for coastal waters, no biological quality element assessment methods sensitive to hydrological or morphological changes were reported. Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been reported. According to information subsequently provided by Romania, descriptions of the effects expected on the biological quality elements are provided as a general approach in a catalogue of mitigation and restoration measures ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status in surface water bodies and chemical and quantitative status in groundwater have been reported in all RBDs. Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions were reported. Article 4(5) was applied in surface waters in the first cycle and is applied more widely in the second RBMP. The application of Article 4(4) exemptions has been reduced in rivers and lakes between the first and second RBMP and remained stable for coastal and transitional water bodies. Article 4(7) has been applied because of new modifications in four river water bodies. Further information is needed to assess whether all the requirements of Article 4(7) are fulfilled and whether the effects of all newly planned modifications on water body status/potential are assessed at quality element level ·Programme of Measures Nearly 75% of the planned measures (established in the first cycle) have been implemented. There have been some delays in the implementation for the first Programme of Measures (PoM) due to a lack of finance, a lack of mechanism and delays in the tendering of contracts. Romania has reported that financing has been secured for all the relevant sectors for the second PoM. A large amount of investment is required to implement the measures in Romania.

New Legislation or regulations to implement the PoM in the first cycle have already been adopted in Romania. Most significant pressures have operational Key Types of Measure in place to address them. No significant pressures have been identified as causing groundwater bodies to fail to be of good quantitative status. Some significant pressures on surface water bodies do not have Key Types of Measure in place to address them. Romania has mapped national basic and supplementary measures against pre-defined and nationally derived Key Types of Measure. A high proportion (63%) of the national supplementary measures have been mapped against KTM 14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty. No information was reported for River Basin Specific Pollutants in surface water, but they are being addressed in general terms (e.g. KTM21 – waste water treatment). Key Types of Measure have been reported for some Priority Substances causing surface water bodies to fail to be of good status. Key Types of Measure have not been reported for three Priority Substances that were reported as causing surface water bodies to fail to be of good status; but these are covered by other measures such as KTM1 – Construction or upgrade of waste water treatment plants (pressure type 1.1), KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure. Indicators of the gaps to be filled by key types of measure and indicators for the scale and progress with implementation of measures until 2027 have been reported. This is a real strength of Romania’s implementation in relation to the PoM. Meaningful indicators have been defined for both the gap to good status and the level of implementation required from the measures, for all forthcoming planning cycles. According to the Water Law, the RBMP and Flood Risk Management Plans have not been integrated into a single plan. It has been reported that co-ordination has been achieved in all aspects.



·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity Water abstraction pressures were not reported as relevant for Romania and no surface or groundwater water body faces water quantity-related problems. However, local variation between sub-units in Romania in terms of water demand and availability have been recorded. The main uses for water consumption are not reported. The European Union-funded planned expansion of irrigation from 0.8 to 1.8 m hectares could lead to future significant abstraction pressures, which is a concern. The RBMP does not include a water resource allocation and management plan. There is a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water impoundment and abstractions and a register of impoundments and abstractions. Measures promoting efficient and sustainable water use (Basic Measure Article 11(3)(c)) were implemented in the previous cycle, and new measures and/or significant changes are planned for the 2016-2021 period. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. A gap assessment for nutrients and pesticides have been undertaken and management objectives for nutrient pollution have been set. The implementation of basic measures for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source is ensured in all RBDs where the same rules apply across the whole RBD. Supplementary measures for reducing pollution from agriculture were reported. Financing of measures is secured and the costs of the measures were reported. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture

Basic measures to reduce the effects of pressures caused by effluents from human agglomerations have been established with a view to reducing the pollution from point sources and diffuse sources of pollution. KTMs have been reported for several but not all individual Priority Substances causing failure. General measures are in place for others and for River Basin Specific Pollutants. KTM 15 - "Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances" is among the KTMs mapped and tackling significant pressures. ·Measures related to hydromorphology Significant hydromorphological pressures were identified only for rivers and several operational Key Types of Measure were reported to address such pressures. However, for water bodies affected by hydromorphological alterations (physical loss of whole or part of the water body), which represent the highest share of water bodies with significant hydromorphological pressures, only research measures are proposed, as the first step of setting the appropriate measures for the next cycle. The level of ambition in terms of closing the gap for significant hydromorphological pressure varies between closing none of the gap to fully closing the gap between 2015 and 2021. For river stretches affected by significant hydromorphological pressures where no progress is expected by 2021, the reported information indicates that the gap will be fully closed by 2027, with the exception of certain river stretches affected by flood protection and hydropower whose pressure levels remain unchanged until 2027. Ecological flows have been derived and implemented partly, i.e. for some relevant water bodies, but the work is still on-going. For the first RBMP, there were no guidelines for defining the ecological flow, but there were obligations to ensure minimum flow for protection of the aquatic ecosystems, according to the Water Law. In the second RBMP, a methodology for ecological flow determination has been elaborated, which in 2015 was still in the process of validation. According to information subsequently provided by Romania, the methodology is now finalised. Natural Water Retention Measures have been made operational to tackle physical alterations due to flood protection. In addition, some measures related to natural water retention are also included in the Flood Risk Management Plan Measures establishing a link between the WFD and the Floods Directive. It is also noted that there has been a proposal to set up an inter-ministerial working group for the reconstruction of wetlands along the Danube and the main tributaries as a measure to reduce the risk of floods and to implement green infrastructure and water retention. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies Cost recovery calculations remain limited – environmental and resource costs have partially been included. With regard to the explanation of how water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently, several national legislative requirements are mentioned, but it is not explained specifically how pricing policies provide ‘adequate incentives’. References to legislative acts, which includes details about polluter pays principle, has been provided. A broad definition of water services has been used. The cost recovery rates are exactly 100% for all water services, hinting at methodological issues. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) All relevant types of Protected Areas have been identified, and the status of all associated surface and groundwater bodies has been assessed with high or medium confidence. Specific objectives have been set for Drinking Water Protected Areas and for shellfish production areas. These have been largely met in Drinking Water Protected Areas and fully met in shellfish production areas. However, no specific objectives have been set for Habitats and Birds related Protected Areas; WFD environmental objectives are considered sufficient to ensure favourable conservation status at all Natura 2000 sites. There is no evidence of an assessment of the needs of interest features in individual Protected Areas. Specific monitoring of surface water Protected Areas has been reported for the monitoring sites in water bodies associated with Habitat areas and Drinking Water areas, as well as for the shellfish production areas. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change Climate change was considered in various ways in the preparation of the RBMP in Romania and it is stated that the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document No. 24 on how to adapt to climate change was used. Climate proofing of measures has been carried out in the second RBMP.



Recommendations Romania 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. Romania has made significant progress on characterisation of water bodies but further work is needed on setting reference conditions. Romania should further work on the apportionment of pressures among sectors, which is necessary in order to be able to identify adequate measures. Romania should further strengthen monitoring of surface water by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories, including hydromorphological quality elements. Romania should complete the development of assessment methods for all relevant quality elements and ensure that they are according to the WFD requirements. Assessment methods for biological quality elements should be sensitive to all relevant impacts, in particular chemical pollution, hydrological changes, acidification and saline intrusion in rivers. The classification boundaries of hydrological and tidal regime should be related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. Romania should progress in the transfer of the results of intercalibration into all national types. The confidence in the assessment of chemical status should continue to be improved. In particular, monitoring should be performed in a way that provides sufficient spatial coverage, in particular in biota, and all priority substances should be considered in the assessment of status. If a different matrix is used, the corresponding explanations should be provided, as required by the Water Framework Directive. Romania should further improve trend monitoring in sediment and/or biota, to ensure that all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. Romania should continue improving quantitative and chemical groundwater monitoring. Romania should continue the efforts to further improve the methodology for defining ecological potential for all water categories at water body level, including coastal waters. This will improve the confidence level of the assessment. Article 4(5) is applied more widely in the second RBMPs. Efforts should continue to further improve the methodology and justifications for the assessment and application of exemptions. Criteria for the application of Article 4(4) need to be clearly distinguishable from the criteria applied for Article 4(5) in relation to technical feasibility and disproportionate costs. Romania needs to ensure a thorough assessment of 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 RBMP. All KTMs should be operational and all significant pressures be addressed. Romania should ensure that the measures are based on the updated pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment of water bodies. Romania should ensure that KTMs are associated with all individual Priority Substances, River Basin Specific Pollutants and Groundwater Pollutants causing failure. Romania should assess the effectiveness of measures to tackle chemical pollutants so that it can identify appropriate supplementary measures. Romania needs to improve the implementation of the requirements under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in relation to the requirement of more stringent treatment of wastewaters for discharge into sensitive areas, and ensure investments to allow for appropriate treatment of waste water from big cities. Romania should ensure the identification of all relevant hydromorphological pressures and implement appropriate measures to address those pressures. The RBMP are not ambitious enough in the design and application of these measures.

Romania needs to ensure that ecological flows are derived and implemented during this second cycle Romania should continue to monitor the efficacy of measures in the second RBMP and, if in some water bodies water quality remains at risk from diffuse agricultural sources of pollution, should consider the implementation of alternative or additional measures, to mitigate this risk. Romania should continue to apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). Romania should also continue to transparently present how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. Romania should continue to transparently present the water-pricing policy and provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. Romania still needs to implement specific measures in its safeguard zones associated to Drinking Water Protected Areas. Moreover, Romania should set specific objectives for Protected Areas designed under the Habitats and Birds Directive as requested in previous recommendations.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – river basin districts Romania has designated a single River Basin District (RBD), the Danube River RBD. This RBD is divided into 11 sub-basins/sub-units. Almost all of Romania’s territory is part of the international Danube RBD : 97.4%. The remainder is accounted for mainly by coastal waters and associated small tributaries, which were attached to the Danube RBD (100%). 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Romania reports two competent authorities. The National Administration "Romanian Waters" is responsible for the monitoring and assessment of status of groundwater and surface water, economic analysis, pressure and impact analysis, preparation of the RBMP and PoM, public participation, implementation of measures and reporting to the European Commission. The Ministry of the Environment, Waters and Forests is responsible for the coordination of implementation and the enforcement of regulations. 1.1.3River Basin Management plans – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment Romania has 11 sub-plans to its RBMP, one for each sub-basin/sub-unit. A Strategic Environmental Assessment was carried out for Romania's RBMP. 1.1.4Public consultation The public and interested parties in Romania were informed of the consultation by: direct mailing, Internet, invitations to stakeholders, local authorities, media (papers, television and radio), meetings and printed material. In addition, thematic articles were published in specialised magazines, brochures and leaflets and festivities were organised for World Water Day and Danube Day. The Basin Committees (in place for each sub-basin) were the main bodies for informing and consulting the public at sub-basin and local levels. Consultation documents were available by direct mailing (both email and post), for download and in paper copies at municipalities. Documents were available on the websites of the National Administration "Romanian Waters" and Water Basin Administrations (i.e. the administrations for sub-basins) for the requisite six months. The following stakeholder groups were actively involved: agriculture/farmers, consumer groups , energy/hydropower, fisheries/aquaculture, industry, local/regional authorities, navigation/ports, NGOs/nature protection, water supply and sanitation, and universities, research centres and professional associations. Active involvement took place via the establishment of advisory groups and also in the Basin Committees and via information events during World Water Day and Danube Day. The public consultation had the following impact: addition of new information, adjustment to specific measures, changes to the selection of measures and commitment to further research.

1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Romania held joint consultations on its RBMP and the Flood Risk Management Plans prepared under the Floods Directive . Joint consultation was not carried out with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. However, the preparation of the RBMP and PoM was coordinated with the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (see Chapter 9). 1.1.6International coordination and co-operation Romania's RBD is part of the Danube international RBD. An international agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP are in place (designated as category 1 cooperation). Explicit links have been made with national RBMP within the international RBMP. Public participation was coordinated within the Danube iRBD (further information is available in the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive). 1.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 1.3Progress with Commission recommendations There were no recommendations based on the first RBMP and PoM.



Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies Overall, there were only small differences in the number of delineated lake water bodies (decrease of 1 to 130) between the two cycles . The same numbers of coastal and transitional water bodies were delineated for both cycles. However, there was a significant (11%) decrease in the numbers of river water bodies between the two cycles, from 3 262 to 2 891 ( Table 2.1 ). Reductions were reported in the numbers of natural, heavily modified and artificial water bodies between the two cycles ( Figure 2.1). Proportionally there were small decreases in the percentages (of total river water bodies) of natural and artificial rivers and a small increase in the percentage of heavily modified rivers. There was also a small decrease (two water bodies) in the number of natural lakes and a small increase (one water body) in the number of heavily modified lakes between the two cycles . Between 2013 and 2015, the delineation of water bodies was revised and updated. Since the first RBMP, an in-depth analysis of the hydromorphological pressures lead to changing the classification of the water body category on a case by case basis. Delineation was also validated with the monitoring data. The re-delineation of water bodies has led to: ·Grouping / aggregation and splitting of water bodies according to the water body category, typology, water body size, water pressure on water bodies, etc.; ·Grouping of non-permanent watercourse water bodies typologies; ·Validation of identification and delineation of the water bodies according to the criteria established in research studies undertaken by the National Institute for Hydrology and Water Management, which led to reduction of temporary water bodies (i.e. “annual drying up” (Q95% = 0) - according to updated of the Drying River Atlas from Romania – 2014); Changing the name and / or water body code.

For water bodies related to protected areas, the RBMP reported that in the process of subdividing water bodies into smaller units, a balance between the boundaries of the protected areas and the water bodies of different status was maintained, as well as the need to avoid the surface water fragmentation. Table 2.2 shows the size distribution of surface water bodies in Romania in the second and first RBMPs. There were no significant changes but it can be seen that the maximum length of rivers has decreased which would relate to the splitting of water bodies described above. The RBMP does not report directly on any consequences of the changes in delineation; however, it was stated that the changes in delineation have affected the comparability of the water body status between the 2 cycles. Table 2.3 summarises the information provided by Romania on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. The water body categories with the most significant changes were river water bodies with deletion (390), creation (5), aggregation (55), splitting (53) and changes (2313). For groundwater bodies, there was an increase of one groundwater body from 142 to 143 ( Table 2.3 ). There were also some changes in the water body areas, including reduction and extension ( Table 2.4 ). It was stated in the RBMP that changes to delineation were based on the new data and information (geological, hydrogeological, land use maps for each groundwater body, conceptual models developed for some groundwater bodies) obtained from studies during the period since the first RBMP. Figure 2.1Proportion of surface water bodies in Romania designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.1Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Romania for the second and first cycles Year RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Number of water bodies Total length (km) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area of water body (km2) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2016 RO1000 2 891 73 798 (72 966) 130 1 009 (999.74) 2 383 (781) 4 252 (572) 2010 RO1000 3 262 74 473 131 993 2 781 4 572 Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Romania and did not match the information reported to WISE. Table 2.2Size distribution of surface water bodies in Romania in the second and first cycles Year RBD River length (km) Lake area (km2) Transitional (km2) Coastal (km2) Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average 2016 RO1000 0.36 655.5 (487.5) 26.85 25.235 0. 02 (0.01) 391.53 7. 76 (7.69) 168.94 (162) 214.2 (619.37) 191.57 (390.5) 2. 27 (2.627) 107.45 (348.41) 63.01 (143) 2010 RO1000 0.36 (0.28) 499.31 (487.5) 22.87 (25.5) 0.01 392 7.58 162 619.37 390.69 2.67 348.41 142.95 Source: WISE electronic reporting Note: Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Romania and did not match the information reported to WISE. Table 2.3Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Romania between the second and first cycles Type of water body change for second cycle Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Groundwater Change 2313 118 2 4 Aggregation 55 1 Splitting 53 Aggregation and splitting 10 Creation 5 1 Deletion 390 1 Extended area 9 88 Reduced Area 45 1 28 Change in code 401 8 No change 2 26 Total water bodies before deletion 3281 131 2 4 143 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 2891 130 2 4 143 Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.4Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Romania for the second and first cycles

Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 RO1000 143 21.76 (22) 44 093.83 (44095) 1872.76 (1873.73) 2010 RO1000 142 21.75 42 492.64 1 857.42 Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Romania and did not match the information reported to WISE. 2.1.2Identification of transboundary water bodies One transboundary river water body was reported by Romania. No transboundary water bodies were reported between non-EU neighbouring countries, following advice from the reporting helpdesk. The RBMP did not report on the coordination of the delineation of transboundary surface water bodies with other countries. No transboundary groundwater bodies were reported to WISE but the RBMP stated that there are 17 transboundary groundwater bodies. 2.1.3Typology of surface water bodies Comparing the information reported for both cycles indicates that there was a decrease in main (i.e. not including sub-types) lake types (18 to 9 natural lake types) and river types (20 to 19 natural river types) between the first cycle and second cycle ( Table 2.5 ). The RBMP reported that the typology was revised and that a number of types were harmonised. For example, the RO17 type (non-permanent water flow in the mountain area) was joined with the RO18 (non-permanent water flow in the pre-mountainous area or high plains), resulting in the new RO17 non-permanent water course located in the mountainous area of high plateaus. This was based on additional biotic data, as well as the similarities in the communities of benthic invertebrates. Table 2.5Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Romania for the first and second cycles RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal first second first second first second first second RO1000 80 (20) 56 (19) 23 (18) 14 (9) 2 2 4 (2) 4 (2) Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Romania and concern only natural water bodies not including sub-types. Each coastal water body in Romania was reported to have a separate national type, one of which has an equivalent intercalibration type. The two transitional water bodies each had a different type, neither of which had an equivalent intercalibration type . Fourteen (one being natural types) national lake types were reported by Romania four of which had the same equivalent intercalibration type. 59% of lake water bodies did not have an equivalent intercalibration type. 56 national river types were reported by Romania, 20 of which had an equivalent intercalibration type (corresponding to seven intercalibration types). 46.7% of river water bodies (excluding reservoirs) did not have an equivalent intercalibration type. Danube river typology was developed in coordination with the entire Danube RBD based on a harmonized system within the framework of the GEF / UNDP Danube Regional Project - ‘Danube river basin type and conditions based on national contributions from the Danube river countries.’ During the first planning cycle, thematic sessions / workshops were held in order to present or harmonize the methodological approaches with Bulgaria, Hungary, Moldova and Ukraine. 2.1.4Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Romania which have reference conditions established , . All four coastal water types were reported to have reference conditions established for all relevant biological quality elements but type-specific conditions for none of the hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Table 2.6Percentage of surface water body types in Romania 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 4% 82% Some 96% 15% None 5% 100% Lakes All Some 100% 100% 8% (0%) None 92% (100%) Transitional All Some 100%) 0% (100%) None 100% 90%) 100% Coastal All 100% Some 0 % (100%) None 100% (0%) 100% Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Romania. to correct some errors in the WISE reporting. Reference conditions have only been established for some biological quality elements and some hydromorphological quality elements for all lake types. For lakes, there are no type-specific reference conditions for any of the physicochemical quality elements. Only three of the river types had established reference conditions for all relevant biological quality elements; for the remaining types they had been established for some of the biological quality elements. Most river types had type-specific reference conditions established for all relevant hydromorphological quality elements, eight for some and three for none. Type-specific reference conditions have not been established for any of the physicochemical quality elements for any of the river types. Both transitional water types were reported to have reference conditions established for some of the relevant biological quality elements but for none of the hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements .

In coastal water bodies, all types had established reference conditions for biological quality elements, but only some for hydromorphological quality elements and none for physicochemical quality elements. The typology for surface waters was partially validated with biological data for the first cycle. The identification of type-specific reference conditions has been coordinated with neighbouring countries for transitional and coastal waters, i.e. with Bulgaria for the Danube river types. Reference conditions for river water bodies have been coordinated within the Danube Regional Project – ‘Danube river basin type and conditions based on national contributions from the Danube river countries’ during the first RBMP cycle. 2.1.5Characteristics of groundwater bodies Romania reported on the geological formation of the aquifers associated with groundwater bodies and identified whether the groundwater bodies were layered or not. It was reported to WISE that 55% of groundwater bodies were linked to surface water bodies and 55% to terrestrial ecosystems. 2.1.6Significant pressures on water bodies 30 different pressure types were reported to be affecting surface water bodies in Romania in the second RBMP. The three most significant pressures on surface waters were “diffuse pressures from discharges not connected to sewerage network” (25% of surface water bodies), “diffuse agricultural pressures” (12% of surface water bodies) and “point source pressures from urban waste water” (5% of surface water bodies) ( Figure 2.2). “Diffuse pressures from discharges not connected to sewerage network” were reported to be the most significant pressures on coastal waters (all four water bodies) and on river water bodies (25% of river water bodies) in the second RBMP: this pressure also affected 9% of lake water bodies ( Figure 2). “Diffuse agricultural pressures” and “diffuse aquaculture” were the 2 most significant pressures on lakes, affecting 11% of water bodies. “Unknown anthropogenic pressures” were reported as a significant pressure for transitional water bodies . Romania reported significant pressures at an aggregated level in first RBMP. “Diffuse source pressures” affected most surface water bodies (33%), followed by “water flow regulation and morphological alteration pressures” (13%) and “point source pressures” (8%) ( Figure 2.3). Only two pressure types were reported to be significant on groundwater in the second RBMP: “diffuse agricultural pressures” and “diffuse pressures from discharges not connected to sewerage networks”, both affecting 10% of groundwater bodies ( Figure 2.3 ). In the first RBMP, the same two equivalent pressure types were the only pressures reported, each affecting 13% of groundwater bodies. Figure 2.2The most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Romania for the second RBMP Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 2.3Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Romania in the first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.7Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater Numerical tools were used to assess the significance of water abstraction and water flow pressures on surface water bodies, and a combination of numerical tools and expert judgment for point source and diffuse source pressures. The significance of the pressures was defined in terms of thresholds and was linked to failure of objectives.

The RBMP reported that the methodology for identifying significant pressures and assessing the impact on water bodies has been revised for the second RBMP for surface waters. The pressures were based on the pressure types as recommended by the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance documents. The criteria were set out in a document: "Methodological elements regarding the updating of significant pressure identification and assessment of their impact on surface water status - Identification of bodies of water at risk of not achieving the objectives of the WFD". In order to identify the potentially significant point source pressures a set of criteria was applied . It was reported to WISE that expert judgment was used to assess the significance of all assessed pressures on groundwater bodies . The significance of the pressures was defined in terms of thresholds and was linked to failure of objectives. In the RBMP quantitative pressures on groundwater bodies were defined as significant pressures, when the abstraction may exceed the natural rate of recharge of the aquifer. The impact of anthropogenic pressures on groundwater bodies has been assessed based on the results obtained from the quantitative and quality (chemical) monitoring of the groundwater body. Artificial recharge is not taken into account as a pressure on groundwater bodies. 2.1.8Significant impacts on water bodies Nine impact types were reported for surface waters in the second RBMP; five were reported in the first RBMP. The most significant in both the first and second cycle was nutrient pollution/enrichment affecting 27% and 32% of surface water bodies, respectively ( Figure 4). Nutrient pollution affected the most water bodies in rivers (27%), lakes (13%), coastal (100%) and transitional (50%) water bodies in the second RBMP. Organic pollution was impacting 17% of surface water bodies in the second RBMP and organic enrichment 13% in the first RBMP. An unknown impact type was affecting 3% of surface water bodies. Note that 3027 surface water bodies were delineated in the second RBMP compared to 3399 in the first cycle, which might make difficult the comparison between the 2 cycles. Only one impact type was reported for groundwater in the second RBMP; chemical pollution, which impacted 10% of groundwater bodies ( Figure 2.4). Similarly, there was only one reported impact in first RBMP: chemical damage impacting 13% of groundwater bodies. Figure 2.4Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Romania for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.9Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 10.5% of groundwater bodies were reported in the second RBMP to be at risk of failing good chemical status. Two pollutants were causing the risk: nitrate in 8% of groundwater bodies and ammonium in 2%. No groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing good quantitative status. 2.1.10Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures Gaps, which needed to be filled in order to achieve objectives, were reported for the two pressures which were significant at the groundwater body level. A gap indicator was also reported for diffuse urban run-off pressures even though this pressure was not reported at the groundwater body level. Gaps were reported for most of the significant pressures on surface waters, thereby identifying the sources/activities causing the main pressure types such as point source; diffuse source; physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore; dams, barriers and locks; hydrological alteration pressures and other anthropogenic pressures. Gaps were not reported for four pressures, each of which was affecting one surface water body. These were: point - waste disposal sites; physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - other; dams, barriers and locks - irrigation; and, hydrological alteration - aquaculture. Romania reported gaps to be filled for four priority substances (lead, mercury, nickel and cadmium). The gap indicators were in terms of the loads to be reduced and the numbers of water bodies failing the environmental quality standard for each substance. 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). Romania reported inventories of priority substances for each of its 11 sub-units. 37 Priority Substances were included in at least one of the inventories in Romania. There were inventories in all sub-units for 20 substances including mercury, lead, cadmium and nickel. However, four priority substances and groups of priority substances were not included in an inventory in any of the sub-units: these were tributyltin, chloroalkanes C10-13, pentachlorophenol and brominated diphenylether. The two-step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 was used to compile the inventories for nine Priority Substances only. For these substances Tier 2 (riverine load) or Tier 1 (point source information) + Tier 2 were implemented. It is unclear which methodology was implemented for other substances . The data quality was assessed as uncertain or medium. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle

There was a significant (11%) decrease in the numbers of river water bodies between the 2 cycles. Proportionally there were small decreases in the percentages (of total river water bodies) in natural and artificial rivers and a small increase in the percentage of heavily modified rivers. There was also a small decrease (2 water bodies) in the number of natural lakes and a small increase (1 water body) in the number of heavily modified lakes between the 2 cycles. The typologies of surface water bodies were also synthesised. There were some changes in the methodologies used for defining significance of pressures are described in the RBMP . 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first cycle and first PoM requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Review the pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment in the second RBMP and ensure that the measures are based on the updated pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment of water bodies. Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status, and that the Programmes of Measures are designed and implemented to close that gap. [Actions: The second RBMP should: ·Include a reviewed pressure and impact analysis based on more complete monitoring data, revision of water body status, more complete inventory of emissions and revision of risk assessment. ·The RBMP should apportion impacts to pressures and sources/drivers, to increase the understanding of which activities and sectors are responsible and in which proportion - for achieving objectives. ·Include a gap analysis on the measures that need to be taken to achieve good status and put in a place and implement the Programme of Measures needed to close this gap. Assessment: Inventories have been reported for all priority substances, except four Priority Substances for the second RBMP. The inventory was developed for the first time in the second RBMP and therefore, there has been some progress in developing more complete inventories. The risk assessment for groundwater was reported to WISE to be defined by expert judgement. The significance of the pressures was however defined in terms of thresholds and was linked to failure of objectives . It seems that there has been some progress on this aspect. Romania also reported gaps to be filled to achieve objectives for most significant pressures: this indicates some progress. Overall progress has been made towards fulfilling this recommendation but it has not been completely fulfilled. ·Recommendation: The characterization is not complete, harmonization between abiotic and biotic criteria is still under development for typology definition. The characterization and the harmonization of abiotic and biotic criteria should be completed. [Action: In the first RBMPs, the characterization was not complete, and harmonization between abiotic and biotic criteria was still under development for typology definition. The characterization and the harmonization of abiotic and biotic criteria for typology definition should be completed.] Assessment: The RBMP reported that the typology was revised and that a number of types were synthesized. In the RBMP it was explained that the typology was defined in three stages: (1) the top-down approach - based on abiotic factors; (2) the bottom-up approach - based on biological elements; and (3) the analysis and combination of the two approaches for the final definition of the types. The recommendation has therefore been fulfilled.

Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP 3.1.1Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes Article 8(1) of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. Territorial waters are not a water body category under the WFD. However, it should be noted that under Article 2(1) of the WFD, territorial waters are included for the assessment and reporting of chemical status. Operational monitoring programmes were reported for rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters

Surveillance programmes were only reported for rivers and lakes. Romania subsequently clarified that as coastal and transitional water bodies have been assessed as being not in good status, only operational monitoring is now carried out. The operational monitoring programme is carried out each year during a management plan cycle and will be replaced by surveillance monitoring if the water bodies reach good status. Romania clarified that operational monitoring is undertaken at least as frequently and often more frequently than surveillance monitoring for the relevant quality elements and parameters. Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for surveillance and operational monitoring Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the first and second RBMPs, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMP. There were some significant differences in the numbers of monitoring sites from the first to the second RBMPs ( Figure 3.1 ). The total number of monitored surface water bodies has increased from 28% to 39% of the total number of surface water bodies from the first to the second RBMP. Table 3.1Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Romania for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in first RBMP, the data for the second RBMP does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring. Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Territorial Surv. Op. Surv. Op. Surv. Op. Surv. Op. Surv. Op. second RBMP Total by type of site 1 234 422 22 72 0 8 0 28 0 (3) 3 (0) Total number of monitoring sites 1 656 94 8 28 3 first RBMP Total by type of site 1 263 547 434 229 12 12 42 42 Total number of monitoring sites 1 263 434 12 42 Surv. = Surveillance, Op. = Operational Sources: Member States electronic reports to WISE. Romania subsequently communicated that the monitoring sites in territorial waters, which were mistakenly reported for operational monitoring were instead used for surveillance monitoring. Table 3.2Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Romania Monitoring Purpose Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Territorial CHE - Chemical status 1 004 61 8 28 3 DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 197 ECO - Ecological status 1 940 96 8 28 3 (0) HAB - Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v 156 37 INT - International network of other international convention 69 4 6 2 INV - Investigative monitoring 171 2 MSF - Marine Strategy Framework Directive monitoring network 13 1 NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 546 43 8 28 3 OPE - Operational monitoring 422 72 8 28 3 (0) REF - Reference network monitoring site 127 6 3 1 (0) RIV - International network of a river convention (including bilateral agreements) 12 SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 136 9 4 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 1 234 22 0 (3) TRE - Chemical trend assessment 147 18 3 15 2 Total sites irrespective of purpose 1 982 96 8 28 3 Source: WISE electronic reports Romania subsequently explained that there were errors in the reporting of monitoring sites in territorial waters and that all three sites were used for surveillance monitoring and for chemical status only. Figure 3.1Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Romania for the first and second RBMPs. Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring. Lakes data for first RBMP are not included; no data for coastal and transitional waters for the second RBMP Source: WISE electronic reports Surveillance monitoring sites were reported in coastal and transitional waters for the first RBMP but not for the second RBMP. Surveillance sites in lakes decreased from 434 for the first RBMP to 22 for the second RBMP, and in rivers from 1 263 for the first RBMP to 1 234 for the second RBMP. Similarly, the number of operational monitoring sites was reduced in all surface water categories, with the largest proportional decrease in lakes (68%) followed by coastal and transitional waters (33%) and rivers (23%). It should be noted that there was an 11% reduction in the number of river water bodies from the first to the second RBMPs with smaller or no changes in the number of water bodies in the other categories. The re-delineation of river water bodies does not explain the decreases in river monitoring sites from the first to the second RBMPs. For river water bodies the monitoring network has been expanded. For lakes, there were large decreases in the proportion of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring from the first to the second RBMPs due to the factors explained above. However, the values for monitored lakes reported in the first RBMP are unreliable, as different samples taken from the same lake/reservoir water body were reported as separate monitoring sites, see further details above. For rivers, there was a 2% increase in the proportion of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring and a 2% decrease in those included in operational monitoring. Water bodies monitored in the surveillance programme were distributed among the status classes, including those in high status as expected ( Figure 3.2 ). Romania subsequently informed that in the first RBMP, the same monitoring sites were reported in the surveillance and operational programmes. Therefore, the total number of sites was double counted. The methodology for designing and reporting the monitoring programmes has been updated since the first RBMP, applying surveillance monitoring for the water bodies which achieved the environmental objectives and operational monitoring for surface water bodies which are at risk of failing the objectives. Some monitoring sites and sub-sites for lakes and reservoirs were also merged. In this respect, no meaningful comparison can be done between the figures of both plans, but the number of monitored surface water bodies has increased in the second RBMP.

Figure 3.2Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that is included in surveillance monitoring in Romania Source: WISE electronic reports Information in the RBMP indicates that the monitoring system was assessed and improved (where applicable) compared to the first RBMP. The delineation of surface and groundwater bodies has been revised; therefore a re-evaluation of the monitoring network was necessary. The monitoring network has been expanded in order to monitor as many water bodies as possible in a planning cycle, the number of monitored parameters has increased as well as the level of confidence of the status assessment. To extend the monitoring network at national level, 194 new monitoring points were included in 184 surface water bodies. This information is not consistent with the information reported to the WISE for the first and second RBMPs. 30% of lake and 32% of river water bodies were monitored for all required biological quality elements for surveillance monitoring. For the hydromorphological quality elements, 5% of lakes and 59% river water bodies were monitored for all required quality elements in surveillance monitoring, and for physicochemical quality elements, 50% of lake and 64% of river water bodies. The same biological quality elements included in surveillance monitoring were also used in operational monitoring. In operational monitoring the most extensively used quality element in rivers was benthic invertebrates – 261 or 9% of river water bodies. For lakes, the predominant biological quality elements used were phytoplankton and phytobenthos (30 lake water bodies, 23% of total lake water bodies); fish were only monitored in 3% of lakes. All coastal and transitional water bodies were included in operational monitoring. 60% of lake and 22% of river water bodies at less than good ecological status or potential are included in operational monitoring. Transboundary surface water body monitoring Romania reported one transboundary river water body. Twelve monitoring sites were reported to be part of an international network of a river convention. Monitoring sites were also reported for coastal and transitional waters that were part of an international network for other international conventions. Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of lakes and rivers for the second RBMP: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. All expected biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in coastal, lake and river water bodies. However, there is a gap in the monitoring of transitional waters where other aquatic flora was reported not to be monitored. In terms of rivers, lakes and transitional water bodies all relevant hydromorphological quality elements were reported to be monitored, but morphological conditions were reported as not being monitored for coastal and transitional waters. Romania subsequently clarified that they are indeed monitored in one of the two transitional water bodies. Table 3.3Quality elements monitored for the second RBMP in Romania (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 - Yes Yes Yes Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No (Yes) Coastal Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinand for nutrient conditions Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Lakes Yes (No) Yes (No) Yes Yes (No) Yes Yes Yes No No Transitional No (Yes) No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No (Yes) No Coastal No (Yes) No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No(Yes) No Source: WISE electronic reports. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Romania.. For the first RBMP all expected quality elements were reported to be monitored in all surface water categories for both surveillance and operational monitoring, though within different numbers of water bodies. For the first RBMP, fish was the most frequently used biological quality element (in terms of number of water bodies) for the operational monitoring of lakes, and benthic invertebrates for the operational monitoring of rivers. All the biological quality elements monitored for surveillance and operational purposes were sampled at, or more than, the WFD minimum recommended frequency: transitional and coastal waters were not included in surveillance monitoring, for reasons outlined above.

The pollution of surface water resources is monitored according to the quantities of organic substances (expressed as dissolved oxygen, CCO - Cr and CBO5), nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus) and specific pollutants by category of pollution sources. River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored Monitoring for River Basin Specific Pollutants has been reduced in terms of the number of monitoring sites in lakes (but comparability is difficult due to the change of the monitoring methodology for lakes, as described above), but has increased in rivers; there was little change in transitional and coastal waters ( Table 3.4 ). 11 different River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored in water in Romania. Seven substances were monitored in coastal, six in transitional, 11 in lake and 11 in river water bodies. Table 3.4Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMP and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants reported in the first RBMP in Romania. Note the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also not all Member State reported information at the site level meaning that there were no equivalent data for the first RBMP RBMP Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 1 137 77 8 28 First Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants 812 271 7 27 Sources: WISE electronic reports The WFD gives a guideline monitoring frequency of once every three months for other pollutants. Overall 72% of sites in surface waters where River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored in accordance with the recommended WFD monitoring frequency of every three months, for the rest of the sites higher monitoring frequency is applied. The analytical methods are in line with Article 4.1 of QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC) for all substances, except “EEA_33-09-0 Detergents”, where the best available method as specified in the Article 4(2) has been used. Use of monitoring results for classification The classification of quality elements for coastal and transitional waters for all water bodies was based on monitoring results ( Figure 3.3 ). For most of the river water bodies and quality elements and many of the lake water bodies and quality elements, the classification is based on grouping or expert judgement. One transitional water body was classified according to morphological conditions even though this quality element was not reported to be directly monitored. Monitoring results were mostly used in the classification of quality elements for lakes, though grouping and expert judgement have also been used. In particular, expert judgment was predominantly used to classify the hydrological regime. There were more lake water bodies directly monitored for the hydromorphological quality elements than water bodies for which monitoring results had been used in the classification. Macrophytes and fish were also monitored in some lake water bodies, but not all water bodies were yet classified by these 2 elements. This is because of the on-going development for fish method and on-going validation for macrophytes method. In rivers, grouping was used mainly for the classification of the biological quality elements, with monitoring results and expert judgement also used, to a differing extent for the different elements. More water bodies were classified using monitoring results for phytobenthos and fish than had been directly monitored for these elements. This may be a reporting error. Fewer water bodies were classified using fish than the other required biological quality elements, and more water bodies had been directly monitored for fish than were subsequently classified using this element. As for lakes, the classification of hydromorphological quality elements in rivers was mainly based on expert judgment followed by monitoring results and grouping. Again there may be a reporting error as fewer river water bodies were reported to be directly monitored for hydromorphological quality elements than had been classified using monitoring results. Figure 3.3Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Romania. The percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category. Source: WISE electronic reports. Note: ‘not applicable’ situations are not presented. 3.1.2Ecological Status/potential of surface water The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Romania for the second RBMP 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 Romania 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 3.4 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. For the first RBMP no surface water body was classified with high confidence; for the second this had increased to 24%. There had also been a decrease in the proportion classified with low confidence, from 52% to 23%. Figure 3.5 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Romania for the first RBMP 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 Romania is shown in Figure 3.6 . Romania expects to achieve good ecological status/potential in surface water bodies by 2027 at the latest. Figure 3.4Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Romania based on the most recently assessed status/potential Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.5Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Romania for the second RBMP, for the first RBMP 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 RBMP was 2010 to 2015. The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMP was 2007 to 2009 Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.6Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Romania. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category Source: WISE electronic reports The ecological status/potential is good or better in most of the lakes and rivers, but in none of the transitional and coastal waters. There are very few water bodies with unknown status/potential (6 lakes, most of them explained by Romania in their WISE reporting as “therapeutic” lakes with very different reference conditions). The confidence in lake assessment is quite low, while that of the assessments of rivers and transitional and coastal waters are mostly high or medium. The proportion of river water bodies in good or better status/potential has increased from 66% to 71% from the first to the second RBMPs, while that in lakes has increased a lot more from 17% to 79% during the same period . The natural lake assessment does not include macrophytes or fish (but those were also missing in the first RBMP ). None of the transitional and coastal water bodies have changed status/potential, as they are still in less than good with 50% reported to be in bad status. The Member State reports that the assessment of ecological status and ecological potential shows an increase in the number of surface water bodies in good and high status/good potential between the first and second RBMPs, of 6.71% (from 59.43% to 66.14%). It is noted in the RBMPs that due to the use of methodologies with stricter class boundaries for some biological elements (as a result of the intercalibration process), as well as changes in the grouping of water bodies, the percentage of water bodies in "high" status in the second RBMPs has been reduced compared to the first RBMPs, but the number of water bodies in "good " status has increased.. Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element

Figure 3.7 illustrates the biological quality elements used in the classification of ecological status/potential. Figure 3.8 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. It should be noted that this comparison should be treated with some caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements from the first to the second RBMPs. Figure 3.9 illustrates the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes in Romania for the second RBMPs. A larger proportion of water bodies have been classified for more biological quality elements ( Figure 3.7 ) and supporting quality elements than in the first RBMP, e.g. phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates and supporting quality elements in lakes, and phytobenthos and supporting quality elements in rivers. These quality elements were not classified in the first RBMPs due to lack of methods. Figure 3.7Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of surface waters in Romania. 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 3.8 Comparison of ecological status/potential in Romania according to classified biological quality elements in surface water bodies between the first and second RBMPs. The numbers in parenthesis show the number of water bodies with a classification for that element Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.9The classification of the ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Romania 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 Macroalgae and angiosperms are listed as not applicable, but other aquatic flora is used ( Figure 3.8 ). Romania reported that the methodology was developed considering the macroalgae and angiosperms as a single biological quality element. More than 40% of lakes have unknown status/potential for phytobenthos and for benthic invertebrates. Macrophytes are not classified in rivers and lakes, and fish is not classified in lakes , due to missing methods. Changes in quality element class have also been reported for many water bodies. Those quality elements that have changed class are mostly showing improvements, and most of the changes were reported to be consistent. Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements More assessment methods have been developed since the first RBMP: phytobenthos in rivers and lakes, benthic invertebrates in lakes, other aquatic flora in coastal waters (macroalgae and/or angiosperms). All the biological quality element methods required in the WFD have been developed, except macrophytes in rivers , fish in lakes, and angiosperms and macroalgae in transitional waters . Reference conditions are available for some biological quality elements in the majority of river types: they are available for all biological quality elements in three river types. Romania subsequently clarified that the biological type-specific reference conditions (for rivers and lakes) were interpreted to be represented only by the currently existing reference situations, while the type-specific reference values could also represent an ideal situation or a situation in the past (based on e.g. modelling, expert judgement). Reference conditions are available for all biological quality elements in all coastal water types, and some biological quality elements in all lake and transitional waters types. None of the biological quality element assessment methods were reported to be sensitive to chemical pollution even though chemical pollution was reported to have a significant impact on rivers. Also in rivers, there were no methods sensitive to hydrological changes, acidification and saline intrusion even though they were reported as a significant impact.

There is information in the RBMP on the biological elements for which intercalibration (within the Geographical Intercalibration Groups) has not been completed and the steps (recommended in the WFD Intercalibration Manual) that have yet to be taken. The remaining gaps and inconsistencies in the methods concern monitoring results for macrophytes in lakes and rivers and fish in lakes. Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems For the biological quality element methods, a large proportion of national river and lake types are not linked to any intercalibration type. Romania has later informed that for all national types, the class boundaries used were those of the intercalibrated types. Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements Hydrological or tidal regime in all categories and river continuity were reported to be assessed in terms of ecological status/potential but the classification boundaries are not related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. Morphological conditions are also assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and the classification boundaries are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. Reference conditions are available for all hydromorphological quality elements in all but three river types. Reference conditions for some hydromorphological quality elements are available in all lake types, but according to the reporting in WISE none are available in coastal and transitional waters. The RBMP indicates that for the hydromorphological quality elements, the National Institute of Hydrology and Water Management has developed a new status assessment methodology for the second RBMP, both for rivers and lakes (natural and heavily modified water bodies). The new methodology ensures a higher data confidence. The remaining gaps and inconsistencies in the methods for assessing the hydromorphological quality elements are not specified in the RBMP. The methodology for assessment of hydromorphological status for rivers is presented in an annex to the RBMP. Romania’s evaluation of this methodology concluded that the interlinkages between hydromorphological and biological quality elements still remain an issue. This is currently included as a prioritised activity at EU level. Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements More assessment methods have been developed since the first RBMP for most of the physicochemical quality elements. All relevant physicochemical quality elements are assessed in rivers in terms of ecological status/potential and all but the assessment of acidification status was related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. Transparency, thermal conditions and salinity conditions in lakes, and thermal conditions in coastal and transitional waters are not assessed in terms of ecological status/potential. Romania has informed that thermal conditions are not relevant for the lakes, transitional and coastal WBs, since there are no discharges of thermally polluted waters. The classification of transparency and acidification status methods is not related to the class boundaries of the sensitive biological quality elements. Oxygenation and nutrient conditions are assessed in all water categories in terms of ecological status/potential and their classification is related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. Standards were reported for all relevant physicochemical quality elements in rivers and all except for pH were reported to be consistent to the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. For lakes, standards were reported for four physicochemical quality elements in lakes, all except for pH were consistent to the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. There were no standards for transparency and thermal conditions. Standards were reported for five physicochemical quality elements in coastal and transitional waters, all except for pH (acidification status) and secchi disk depth (transparency) were consistent to the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. There were no standards for thermal conditions. However, although the nutrient standards are type-specific, the standards for total phosphorus in some river types may not support good status for the sensitive biological quality elements, although they were reported to do so (>0.2 mg/l total phosphorus). Reference conditions are not available for any of the physicochemical quality elements in any water category and type, except for some in lake type ROLN07. However, the high/good boundaries have been set for nutrients in different types in all the water categories, which means that the upper end of the reference conditions has been defined. Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards Environmental Quality Standards were reported for 11 River Basin Specific Pollutants (four metals, six persistent organic pollutants and detergents ), all for water in each of the four water categories. The standards were not derived in accordance with the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document No 27. The environmental quality standards set for the first River Basin Specific Pollutants were derived based on the requirements of from Annex V from the point 1.2.6 – Procedure for the setting of chemical quality standards by Member States. The applied methodology has focussed on the development of thresholds that are called Predicted No-Effect Concentrations (PNEC) based on toxicology testing. The environmental quality standards values were based on these thresholds, but applying the most appropriate safety factor (1-1000, depending on confidence in the toxicity data). In the procedure for deriving environmental quality standards for metals the limit values take natural background levels into account. From the reported background information, identification and assessment of the River Basin Specific Pollutants has been done. The methodology to identify River Basin Specific Pollutants is described in the RBMPs. At national level the River Basin Specific Pollutants are identified taking into account the inventory of sources of pollution from the identified 669 potentially significant industrial and agricultural point sources. 218 of these have installations falling under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive. There are also 451 industrial and agricultural establishments, other than those under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive. For the period 2013-2014 there were identified 56 significant point source pressures (54 industrial and 2 agricultural). Compared with the 2007 situation, which was the reference year used to assess the same emissions in the first RBMP, a reduction is observed. These emission reductions are mainly due to the implementation in 2010-2014 of the basic and additional measures for agglomerations, industrial activities and other activities (including agricultural activities), but also the reduction, closure or conservation of the activities of some economic sectors. River Basin Specific Pollutants have been assessed on a basis of a specific monitoring programme, which ensures a minimum of four or eight (depending on the monitoring programme) concentration values per year for the monitored substances. Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle)

The overall classification of ecological status is based on all four of the groups of quality elements only in coastal and transitional waters with increasing proportions of river and lake water bodies not using one of the quality element groups ( Figure 3.10 ). Figure 3.10The percentage of surface water bodies in Romania where no biological quality element (No BQEs) or no hydromorphological (No HYMO) or no general physicochemical (No PHYSCHEM) or no River Basin Specific Pollutant (No RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential Source: WISE electronic reports The one-out-all-out principle has been used and the details on combination rules applied for the biological quality elements versus the supporting quality elements are provided in the RBMP. 3.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP There were significant differences in the numbers of monitoring sites between the first and second RBMPs. Romania informed that the changes are mainly due to the updated methodology applied in comparison with the first RBMP. This entails a clearer monitoring programme for each surface water body monitoring site (surveillance monitoring for the WBs which achieved the environmental objectives and operational monitoring for surface water bodies which are at risk of failing to meet the objectives) and merging some monitoring sites and sub-sites for lakes and reservoirs. For the first RBMP, the same monitoring sites/water bodies were used for both programmes, which caused a double counting of monitoring sites in WISE. In this respect, no meaningful comparison between the figures of both plans can be made, but the numbers of monitored SWBs have increased in the second RBMP (see further details in se