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



Table of contents Acronyms 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 RBMP 1.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 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 RBMP 4.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 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 RBMP 5.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 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 RBMP 6.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 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 RBMP for designation 7.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 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 RBMP 8.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 8.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

Topic 9 Programme of measures 9.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP 9.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 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 RBMP 10.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 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 RBMP 11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 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 RBMP 12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 12.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology 13.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP 13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 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 RBMP and main changes in implementation and compliance 14.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 15.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP 15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 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 RBMP 16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 16.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Acronyms and definitions EQS Directive Environmental Quality Standards Directive FD Floods Directive Km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure PoM Programme of Measures QA/QC Directive Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Annex 0 Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



Foreword The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) requires in its Article 18 that each Member State (MS) reports its River Basin Management Plan(s) (RBMP) to the European Commission. The second RBMP were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. This Member State Assessment report was drafted on the basis of information that was reported by Member States through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) electronic reporting. The Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported by each Member State to the European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then.





General Information Map A Map of RBDs Source: 2012 assessment reporting WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International RBDs (within European Union) International RBDs (outside European Union) National RBDs (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Croatia has a population of 4 million and a surface area of 56 000 km2. Its geography ranges from the lowlands of the Pannonian basin to the Dinaric Alps and the Dalmatian coastline, over 1 800 km long. In addition, Croatia has over 1 200 coastal islands. The Dinaric Alps, coastal areas and islands have a predominantly karstic geology. Croatia has two RBDs: the Danube RBD and the Adriatic RBD (Table A). Croatia’s Danube RBD is part of the international Danube RBD, which covers 14 Member States and third countries. Among these, Croatia’s Danube RBD borders on Slovenia, Hungary, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Adriatic RBD includes Croatia’s coastal islands. Moreover, due to these islands, many of them small in size, and Croatia’s long coastline, this RBD also covers extensive coastal waters. Table A Overview of Croatia’s RBDs RBD Name Size (km2) Countries sharing borders Mainland Islands Coastal waters Total HRC Danube 35 101 (35 117) 35 101 (35 117) BA, HU, RS and SI HRJ Adriatic 18 185 (18183) 3 262 13 842 (13 858 ) 35 289 (35 303) BA, ME and SI Source: RBMPs reported to WISE. Croatia subsequently provided the values in brackets. Croatia is part of the Danube international RBD and the Sava river basin, a sub-basin of the Danube international RBD. The Sava River is the largest tributary of the Danube by volume of water, and about one-quarter of the basin’s total surface area lies in Croatia. Table B: Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Croatia Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing borders Co-ordination category 1 2 km² % km² % Danube HRC BA, HU, RS and SI 35 117 4.4 % Adriatic HRJ BA, ME and SI 25 370 (21 445) 26.0 % Source: WISE electronic reporting. Croatia subsequently provided the values in brackets. 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. In addition, Croatia’s Adriatic RBD shares four smaller river basins with Bosnia and Herzegovina: Cetina (the basin’s surface area in Croatia is 1 531 km2 while the entire surface area is 2 614 km2); Neretva (surface area in Croatia is 280 km2 while the basin’s full surface area is 10 520 km2); Trebišnjica (in Croatia Trebišnjica appears as a series of underwater springs and as the Ombla river, which is only 30 m long but with a relatively large discharge, 24 cubic metres per second); and Krka (the source of the river is located on the border between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina). As of 2014, according to the Croatian authorities, joint management plans had not been prepared for any of these river basins. Cooperation for the preparation of joint management plans is on the agenda of the Bilateral Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia for Water Management Issues. Finally, Croatia’s Adriatic RBD shares three small river basins with Slovenia: Dragonja (the basin area in Croatia is 55.6 km2); Mirna (494 km2 in Croatia and 47 km2 in Slovenia); and Rječina (300 km2 in Croatia and 50 km2 in Slovenia). The coordination of respective national plans in these basins is carried out under the framework of the Bilateral Commission of Croatia and Slovenia for Water Management Issues.



Status of second river basin management plan reporting One RBMP covering the two river basin districts in Croatia (Danube, Adriatic) was published on 6 July 2016. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .



Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of Croatia are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation ·Croatia cooperates both within international river basin commissions (Danube and Sava) as well as bilaterally with several neighbouring countries. ·A wide range of stakeholder groups were actively involved in the preparation of the RBMP. ·Croatia integrated its Flood Risk Management Plan as a part of its RBMP, and also carried out joint consultation with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. ·Croatia did not adopt and publish the RBMP in accordance with the timetable in the Water Framework Directive. ·Characterisation of the RBD There were significant differences in the number of delineated surface water bodies with respect to the first RBMP, a significant number of changes to water bodies including changes to the designation of heavily modified water bodies. The RBMP states that considering the extent of changes in typology and delineation of water bodies, it is difficult to ensure comparability with the results described in the first RBMP.

Further testing of abiotic typology with biological data has been carried out since the first cycle RBMP. However, several of the national types for Croatia in all of the RBDs do not appear to have corresponding intercalibration types (for 21 river water bodies and 15 lake water bodies). According to the information subsequently provided by Croatia, the current analysis showed that appropriate intercalibration types for most national types do exist and the number of national river types for which appropriate intercalibration types are determined will be revised within on-going projects. Type specific reference conditions have not been established for hydromorphological quality elements in any water category. This may lead to some weaknesses in the classification of status/potential according to the hydromorphological biological quality elements. According to information subsequently provided by Croatia, the methodology for monitoring and assessment of status according to hydromorphological quality elements is in development and these methodologies will determine the type-specific reference conditions for hydromorphological quality elements. Further characterisation work has been undertaken since the first RBMP, by describing the geological formation and whether or not they are layered. Croatia has also included an assessment of linkages with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. Numerical tools were used to help define the significance of pressures. However, the significance of pressures is reported not to be defined in terms of thresholds or linked to the potential failure of objectives for both RBDs. For groundwater, significance of pressures is not linked to the potential failure of objectives. It was reported that 30 significant pressures were not assessed for surface waters in each RBD. According to Croatia this is likely to be a reporting error. Inventories of emissions have been established for both RBDs; however, they only included 6 of the 41 Priority Substances. The CIS Guidance Document n°28 identifies a tiered approach to assessing emissions, however Croatia reported using a different methodology. The data quality was assessed as uncertain. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status ·The second RBMP reports on sites for operational monitoring in coastal and transitional waters in the Adriatic RBD, which was not the case in the first RBMP. There were also increases in the number of operational sites in rivers and lakes. ·There are significant gaps in the monitoring of quality elements. Some required biological quality elements are not monitored in general, and none of them was monitored in lakes. Hydromorphological quality elements are not monitored at all. ·None of the biological quality elements which were the object of surveillance or operational monitoring in coastal and transitional waters, was sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency. ·None of the water bodies in which there was surveillance monitoring was monitored for all required biological and hydromorphological quality elements. ·28 River Basin Specific Pollutants were identified but information on how they were selected is not available. Environmental Quality Standards were derived for seven of them in water and none in sediment or biota, but Guidance Document No. 27 was not used. ·River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored in all water categories of water. Monitoring in water was done for 23 of them in coastal and transitional waters, for nine in rivers and for six in lakes. Monitoring in sediment was done for four, only in rivers. ·Only eight of the 28 River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored at least at the minimum recommended frequency at some of the sites. The analytical methods used comply with Article 4(1) or 4(2) of Directive 2009/90/EC for the strictest standard applied. ·An assessment method was reported for macrophytes, but none for angiosperms in coastal and transitional waters nor for macroalgae in transitional waters. None of the assessment methods for biological quality elements was reported to be sensitive to chemical pollution in rivers, even though this impact was reported to be significant. ·The assessment and classification systems for biological quality elements in Croatia are yet to be intercalibrated. ·The expected hydromorphological quality elements are assessed in rivers and lakes. However, the classification boundaries are not related to the class boundaries of the sensitive biological quality elements in rivers. Only morphological conditions are assessed in transitional and coastal waters and, in this case, the class boundaries are related to the sensitive biological quality elements. ·The reported general physicochemical quality elements are assessed in all water categories. However, not all the relevant elements are assessed and for some of the assessed elements the classification boundaries are not related to the class boundaries of the sensitive biological quality elements. ·The classification of all hydromorphological quality elements in all categories was completely based on expert judgment, which introduces uncertainty and undermines the robustness of the classification of ecological status/potential. ·Grouping was used for classifying some physicochemical elements and River Basin Specific Pollutants in rivers and lakes. River Basin Specific Pollutants were only classified in lakes and rivers, even though they are monitored in all four water categories, and monitoring results were only reported to be used in the classification of rivers. It is therefore not clear what was the basis for grouping for these substances in lakes. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies

·All surface water bodies were classified. Between the two RBMP, the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status decreased slightly, from 97 to 92 %. This may at least partly result from a more accurate assessment of status, based on improved knowledge since the first RBMP. In particular, the number of monitoring sites, the number of water bodies and priority substances monitored increased since the first RBMP. ·All coastal and almost all transitional water bodies were monitored for chemical status. Less than 10 % of inland water bodies were monitored. Grouping was used to classify the non-monitored water bodies, and this may be linked to the low confidence in the assessment reported for 50 % of surface water bodies. ·Territorial waters were neither monitored nor classified for chemical status. ·For Priority Substances, 37 of the 41 were monitored in water for status assessment, and this included all substances identified as discharged. The four substances not monitored were not included in the inventories so it is unclear whether they are discharged. The monitoring frequencies reported were consistent with the recommended minimum frequency for surveillance, but not for operational monitoring. No explanation could be found for the reduced frequencies. ·Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were not monitored in biota for status assessment. ·Monitoring for long-term trend occurred in sediments in river water bodies; only for up to five of the 14 required substances. Monitoring frequencies were above the recommended minimum frequencies. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies Grouping of groundwater bodies is applied but still 1/3 of the (groups) of groundwater bodies have no quantitative monitoring. There was no improvement since the first RBMP. Although this was not reported to WISE, Croatia subsequently stated that the water balance test was considered in all river basin districts. Confidence in status assessment is still low for many groundwater bodies. Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems and groundwater associated surface waters ecosystems have now been considered in status assessment. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies The reported information shows that in the second cycle not all (groups of) groundwater bodies are subject to monitoring, and there is still no operational monitoring, although five groundwater bodies are at risk. According to the information subsequently provided by Croatia all groundwater bodies are covered by surveillance monitoring and by 2015 the establishment of operational monitoring sites started. All WFD core parameters are monitored. Croatia subsequently clarified that groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been considered in status assessment in all river basin districts and that no groundwater body is at risk due to links to those ecosystems. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential The information provided on artificial and heavily modified water bodies does not describe the methodology used. The RBMP and background documents available do not give detailed information on criteria to define substantial changes in character due to physical modifications. However, as part of the pressure and impact analysis, the RBMP describes that the impact of physical interventions is estimated by means of a numerical model based on recorded hydromorphological pressures and expert judgement. Concerning the designation process of heavily modified water bodies, no information is provided on how to assess significant adverse effects of restoration measures and other means to achieve the beneficial objectives of the heavily modified water bodies. It seems that heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies are still identified as candidates while further methodological development and verifications via monitoring are pending. No methodology is yet established for defining good ecological potential but there are plans to do so in the future. According to information subsequently provided by Croatia, activities on the establishment of a higher quality connection between biological and hydromorphological elements of ecological status of waters are ongoing. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Improvements have been made compared to the first RBMP. Drivers, Pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions were reported. Information on the achievement of objectives has been reported for 2015 and 2016 to 2021. Limited progress for the achievement of the WFD objectives is expected by 2021. No indicators for 2027 have been developed yet and the situation is still unknown for a number of water bodies.

Compared to the first RBMP, Article 4(4) is now applied in the second RBMP. A number of uncertainties and gaps remain, particularly with regard to the assessment of water body status/potential and the thorough justification of Article 4(4) exemptions. ·Programme of Measures Some progress has been made in identifying significant pressures and mapping national measures/KTMs, and in performing gap analyses. The level of ambition is still low. Croatia has reported investment costs and operation and maintenance costs for all measures, and has reported that a significant level of EU funding is expected. It has further reported that financial commitment has been secured for the implementation of the Programme of Measures in both RBDs. New legislation or regulations to implement the Programme of Measures in the first RBMP was reported necessary and in progress for both RBDs. With a few exceptions, most of the significant pressures in both RBDs are covered by KTMs, indicating that these are operational. There a number of significant pressures that have been identified in the Adriatic RBD that do not appear to have operational KTMs in place. The two nationally derived KTMs have not been properly described. A number of the KTMs against which national measures have been mapped do not appear to be operational, including those reported as relevant for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This may indicate that more measures, not operational in the first RBMP, are planned for the second and third RBMP. The KTM reported as addressing nitrate in groundwater is inappropriate - Croatia clarified that the incorrect KTM had been reported. No information has been provided on the number of surface water bodies failing to be of good status as a result of pollution from river basin specific pollutants, but KTMs have been reported. The number of water bodies failing to achieve good status as a result of pollution from Priority Substances has been reported, and for some substances KTMs to control them have been reported. For five Priority Substances causing failure in the Danube RBD and seven in the Adriatic RBD, no KTMs have been reported. Indicators have been developed and reported for 2015 and 2021. The level of ambition is low, with little change expected by 2021. No indicators for 2027 have been reported. Croatia has reported that the RBMP and FRMPs are integrated. However, whilst it has been mapped to national measures, there is no evidence that KTM23 – “Natural water retention measures” has been mapped to national measures, has been made operational, nor has any information been provided in respect of the pressures it is aimed to address in either RBD. Financial commitments for the implementation of a Programme of Measures in the flood protection sector was marked “not applicable”, and WFD Article 9(4) has not been applied to impoundment for flood protection. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity No information was reported in WISE on water exploitation and trends, although the RBMPs include some relevant information. Information was reported on the main uses of water, but it does not refer to water consumption by sectors, only to the number of licences. In Croatia, there is a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water impoundment but no register of impoundments. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. Setting of management objectives for nutrient pollution and a gap assessment for nutrients were undertaken in the Adriatic RBD. The implementation of basic measures Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source are given, but only in the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. Pesticides and nutrients are covered by the basic measures in all basins. Safeguard zones for abstractions have been legally established.

Supplementary measures for reducing pollution from agriculture are reported Financing of measures is not secured. According to information subsequently provided by Croatia, financing of measures related to the reduction of any negative project impacts falls under the responsibility of the project developer. No natural water retention measures and no measures to reduce sedimentation from soil erosion and surface runoff are reported. The level of ambition is rather limited as ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture Croatia has identified substance specific measures for all the River Basin Specific Pollutants reported to be causing failure of good status, and for pollutants reported to be causing poor chemical status in groundwater bodies. As noted in the context of Topic 9, Croatia has not identified substance-specific measures for several Priority Substances. There is more to do to improve urban waste water treatment, especially as regards more stringent treatment in big cities, and as regards diffuse sources. Croatia has not yet fully investigated the need for supplementary measures to tackle pollutants from non-agricultural sources. ·Measures related to hydromorphology ·In the first RBMP, measures for existing hydromorphological pressures were not included. In the second RBMP, hydromorphological pressures are still not addressed by specific technical measures, as the only activities planned are related to research and monitoring. According to information subsequently provided by Croatia, for determining measures to reduce hydromorphological pressures, research is ongoing on the quality connections between biological and hydromorphological water status indicators. Some activities related to the review of existing permits and checking their compatibility with the WFD would also still be ongoing. ·Ecological flows have not been derived for the relevant water bodies in any of the RBDs but there are plans to do it during the period of the second RBMP. The activities on ecological flows are ongoing and awaiting the completion of relevant research. ·In addition, none of the RBMP and supporting background documents includes information on the consideration of Natural Water Retention Measures. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies No detailed information on the application of the polluter pays principle was reported. A narrow definition of water services has been used. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) Protected Areas of all types have been reported associated with both surface and groundwater. However, the setting of additional objectives is limited to Protected Areas designated for economically significant species (shellfish). Monitoring programmes for each Protected Area type have not been reported for all types and the number of monitoring sites is low compared to the number of Protected Areas. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change

Climate change was considered in all river basin districts. However, it is stated that the Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on how to adapt to climate change was not used for the preparation of the RBMPs. KTM 24 - "Adaptation to climate change" is not made operational to address significant pressures in the river basin districts. No information is reported regarding the relevance of droughts in Croatia. No drought management plan has been reported. According to the information subsequently provided by Croatia, the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy is in the process of preparation and adoption. Following its adoption, a decision will be made as to whether the preparation of a drought management plan (in the context of water management) is required. Recommendations ·Croatia should carry out the preparation of the next cycle of RBMP in accordance with the WFD timetable, to ensure the timely adoption of the third RBMP. ·The mechanisms for active involvement of stakeholders should be further developed, for example establishing advisory groups that bring together stakeholders. ·Croatia should further strengthen bilateral cooperation with neighbouring countries and continue to improve international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the WFD such as ensuring a harmonized approach for status assessment and a coordinated Programme of Measures in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·Croatia needs to do further work on the identification of pressures, in particular in transitional and coastal waters. ·The inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances need to be completed. ·Croatia should continue improving chemical and quantitative groundwater monitoring. ·Croatia should continue to improve monitoring, in order to increase the confidence in the assessment of water body status, as there are still important gaps. Monitoring should cover all relevant quality elements in all water categories, in particular hydromorphological quality elements, which were reported not to be monitored at all. ·An increased level of monitoring should lead to a lower dependence on expert judgment for the classification of ecological status/potential. ·Hydromorphological and biological monitoring needs to be reinforced, to facilitate preparation of a higher quality Programme of Measures to control and reduce hydromorphological pressures on water bodies. ·Croatia should continue to strengthen its assessment methods for biological, general physicochemical and hydromorphological quality elements by developing assessment methods for all biological quality elements, and by setting physico-chemical and hydromorphological classification boundaries that are sensitive to biological quality elements. ·Croatia should continue improving the confidence in the assessment of surface water chemical status and make sure territorial waters are assessed for chemical status. In particular, monitoring should be performed in a way that provides sufficient spatial coverage to reach good confidence in the assessment, if necessary in combination with robust extrapolation/grouping methods. All substances should be considered in the relevant matrix. The monitoring frequencies for operational monitoring should be as specified in the Directive. If a different matrix or reduced frequencies are used, please provide the corresponding explanations, as required by the Directive. ·Trend monitoring should be further improved, to ensure that all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored in a way that provides sufficient spatial coverage. ·Croatia should develop an appropriate methodology for the designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies. The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3), including criteria to define substantial changes in character due to the physical modification, the assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the wider environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process. In addition, a methodology needs to be established for defining ecological potential. ·Progress needs to be continued to further reduce uncertainties regarding the assessment of water body status/potential and the timeframe for the achievement of the WFD objectives. The application of Article 4(4) exemptions needs to be properly justified. For potential future application of Article 4(7), Croatia needs to ensure a thorough assessment of possible 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 RBMP should clearly identify the gap to good status, and the Programme of Measures designed and implemented to close that gap.

·Croatia should carry out cost-effectiveness analysis and provide specific prioritisation of measures based on this analysis. ·KTMs should be reported to control Priority Substances in both RBDs. ·Information on the number of the water bodies failing to achieve good status due to River Basin Specific Pollutants should be provided. ·Croatia should provide in the next cycle all relevant information on the level of compliance and the timing to reach compliance of agglomerations, including information on funding, in accordance with Directive 91/271/EEC (Article 15 and following). It should ensure compliance with Article 5 UWWTD for more stringent treatment, especially in big cities. It should also assess the need to take additional measures on point source pollution beyond the requirements of the UWWTD and IED to fulfil the WFD objectives, and complete the identification of KTMs for diffuse sources. ·Croatia should ensure that abstraction controls are in place and that information on uses, water exploitation and trends is collected and reported. ·The use of natural water retention measures to mitigate risk to water quality from agricultural pollutants (nutrients, agri-chemicals, sediment, organic matter) should be considered when drawing up the third RBMP. ·In the third RBMPs, Croatia should state clearly to what extent, in terms of area covered and pollution risk mitigated, basic measures (minimum requirements to be complied with) or supplementary measures (designed to be implemented in addition to basic measures) will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives and identify sources of funding (e.g. CAP Pillar 1, RDP), as appropriate, to facilitate successful implementation of these measures. ·Croatia should continue the work on revising existing controls to ensure that agricultural practices do not cause hydromorphological pressure and update controls where necessary for inclusion in the Programme of Measures of the next RBMP. ·The necessary measures to tackle hydromorphological pressures are still under development. Croatia should ensure that these measures are defined and implemented as soon as possible, in particular for river continuity and restoration. Ecological flows need to be derived and implemented in all RBDs. ·Croatia should continue prioritising the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. ·Croatia should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). Croatia should present in a transparent way how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. The water-pricing policy, including the use of adequate incentives for users to use water efficiently should be presented in a transparent way and it should provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. ·Additional measures have only been set for Shellfish Protected Areas and no monitoring programmes are reported for any of the Protected Areas. Croatia needs to ensure that all relevant Protected Areas are properly monitored. Due consideration on the need for a drought management plans is encouraged given the vulnerability of Croatia to droughts and the significant pressure on water bodies due to abstraction.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP Topic 2Administrative arrangements – river basin districts Croatia has two RBDs: the Danube and the Adriatic. Both are international RBDs. Croatia’s Danube RBD borders on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary, Serbia and Slovenia and is part of the international Danube RBD (moreover, just over 2/3 of Croatia’s Danube RBD is part of the Sava River basin, a sub-basin of the Danube international RBD). Croatia’s Adriatic RBD borders on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Slovenia. Croatia informed that in the Adriatic RBD, Croatia shares five international river basins of larger than 100 km2: with Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Neretva and Cetina river basins; and with Slovenia, the Rječina, Mirna and Dragonja river basins.

Topic 3Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Croatia has reported two Competent Authorities for the RBMP. Hrvatske vode (Croatian Waters, the national body responsible for water management) has the following main roles: the monitoring and assessment of groundwater and surface water; pressure and impact analysis; economic analysis; preparation of RBMP and Programme of Measures; reporting to the European Commission; and implementation of measures. Hrvatske vode has the following supplementary roles: public participation and co-ordination of implementation. Croatia reported that the main roles of the Ministry of Agriculture are enforcement of regulations, public participation and co-ordination of implementation; however, the Directorate for Water Management has recently moved from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Environment and Energy, which should now hold these roles. Topic 4River Basin Management Plans – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment Croatia has a single RBMP for both its RBDs. Croatia published its RBMP in June 2016, six months after the timetable for the second RBMP (it can be noted that Croatia’s first RBMP was published in June 2013, just before its accession to the European Union in July 2013). The RBMP has a sub-plan for the construction of infrastructure for municipal water services . Croatia’s reporting references a second sub-plan, for infrastructure investment in irrigation as well as flood protection . According to the assessment of Croatia’s Flood Risk Management Plan, that plan is an integral part of the country’s RBMP. However, this is not clear from Croatia’s reporting on the RBMP. A Strategic Environmental Assessment was carried out for Croatia's RBMP. Topic 5Public Participation and active involvement of stakeholders The public and interested parties were informed of the consultation via Internet, via invitations to stakeholders and via meetings. The consultation documents were available via download (only) for the required six months. For both Croatia's RBMP, there was international co-ordination of public participation. The following stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the second RBMP (in both RBDs): agriculture/farmers, energy/hydropower, fisheries, aquaculture, industry, local/regional authorities, navigation/ports, NGOs/nature protection and water supply and sanitation. Active involvement took place via two mechanisms: involvement in drafting and regular exhibitions. For both RBMPs, public consultation had the following impacts: addition of new information, adjustment to specific measures, changes to selection of measures, commitment to action in the next RBMP and commitment to further research. For the Adriatic RBMP, there was joint consultation with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive . Topic 6Integration with other European Union legislation: Floods Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive In Croatia, the RBMP was integrated with the corresponding Flood Risk Management Plan: specifically, the Flood Risk Management Plan was designated an integral part of the RBMP. Consequently, there was joint consultation for the RBMP and Flood Risk Management Plan. Croatia also reports that there was joint consultation with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (specifically for the Adriatic RBD). Further information on integration with respect to measures is provided in Chapter 9 of this report. Topic 7International Coordination Both of Croatia's RBDs are part of international RBDs. For the Danube RBD, there is an international agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMPs are in place (designated as category one cooperation). Specifically, Croatia is a Party to both the Danube River Convention and to the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin. Moreover, explicit links have been made with national RBMPs within the international RBMPs. Both agreements have involved joint identification of significant water management issues, joint objectives and joint monitoring, among other areas of cooperation. For the Adriatic RBD, there is an international agreement and a permanent co-operation body are in place (designated as category two cooperation).

Croatia has bilateral agreements on water management in place with four of its five neighbouring Member States and third countries (Croatia lacks a bilateral agreement with Serbia): ·Agreement on water management between the Croatian government and the government of the Republic of Hungary; ·Treaty between the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the regulation of water management relations; ·Treaty between the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the Government of the Republic of Slovenia on the regulation of water management relations; ·Treaty between the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the Government of the Republic of Montenegro on mutual relations in the field of water management; and, All these bilateral agreements have set up joint committees or commissions for water management. Croatia’s RBMP refers to cooperation via the Danube and Sava international commissions as well as bilaterally with neighbouring countries, though it does not provide details on the extent of cooperation. On the other hand, the report on the Strategic Environmental Assessment for the RBMP refers to consultation with neighbouring countries in the context of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (written comments were received from Italy and Montenegro and a bilateral meeting was held with Bosnia and Herzegovina). Croatia participated in the extensive cooperation activities under the Danube and Sava Commissions. Work in the Sava IRBD, for example, included coordination on delineation and typology of water bodies, significant water management issues, monitoring, water body status, identification of pressures as well as the preparation of the international RBMP and PoM (for further information see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive). The timetable of Croatia’s second RBMP was published in June 2016, and six months after the international Danube RBMP, published in December 2015. The Sava River RBMP was published a year earlier, in December 2014, and it appears it was linked mainly to Croatia’s first RBMP (published in June 2013). Both the Danube and Sava international RBMP refer to coordination with basin countries including Croatia. Croatia informed that the preparation of the second RBMP for the Adriatic RBD was coordinated for shared catchments on a bilateral basis with Bosnia and Herzegovina and with Slovenia. 7.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP The information reported to WISE for governance does not indicate major changes for Croatia. 7.2Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and Programme of Measures requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Coordinate the preparation of the next RBMP with the preparation of the international Danube RBMP and the Sava RBMP and ensure that cooperation with the neighbouring countries extends to all shared catchments. Coordination of measures in internationally shared karstic aquifers should be established. Assessment: The Commission recommended in its 2015 Commission Staff Working Document that Croatia improve international coordination, both with international river basin authorities and with neighbouring countries. Moreover, the 2015 Commission Staff Working Document noted that the timetable for Croatia's first RBMP was not linked to that of the Danube and Sava international RBMP (this concerns the Danube RBD), and also that joint WFD planning with Bosnia-Herzegovina was not carried out for shared river basins (this referred mainly to the Adriatic RBD). Croatia’s RBMP refers to cooperation via the Danube and Sava international commissions as well as bilaterally with neighbouring countries, though it does not provide details on the extent of cooperation. On the other hand, the report on the Strategic Environmental Assessment for the RBMP refers to consultation with neighbouring countries in the context of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (written comments were received from Italy and Montenegro and a bilateral meeting was held with Bosnia and Herzegovina). The timetable of Croatia’s second RBMP was published in June 2016, and six months after the international Danube RBMP, published in December 2015. The Sava River RBMP was published a year earlier, in December 2014, and it appears it was linked mainly to Croatia’s first RBMP (published in June 2013). Both the Danube and Sava international RBMP refer to coordination with basin countries including Croatia. In addition, Croatia indicated that it co-operated with neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina and Slovenia on shared catchments that are part of its Adriatic RBD. Based on this information, it appears that Croatia has improved international coordination within the Danube and Sava international river basins and also with at least some of its neighbouring countries. It appears that bilateral co-ordination could be further strengthened, at least with Serbia and also with Slovenia. Consequently, Croatia has partially fulfilled this recommendation.





Topic 8Characterisation of the River Basin District 8.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle Topic 9Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies Overall there was an increase in the number of water bodies delineated from the first to the second cycles ( Table 2.1 ). For river water bodies, there was a 21 % increase overall. For lake water bodies, there was an increase of 9 % overall but a decrease of 20 % in the Adriatic RBD. For coastal water bodies, there was an 18 % increase in the Adriatic RBD and a decrease in transitional water bodies of 11 %. The typology has been revised since the first cycle RBMP which resulted in the repetition of the process of delineation of river water bodies. The revised typology led to merging of water bodies that previously were of different types and splitting of water bodies that previously were of the same type. Additional criteria for water bodies were introduced in order to delineate water bodies that are more appropriate for water quality management, however these criteria were not explained in the second RBMP. The RBMP further states that considering the extent of changes in typology and delineation of water bodies, it is difficult to ensure comparability with the results obtained in the two cycles. The second RBMP did not provide any specific information on the consequences of re-delineation. Table 2.2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Croatia between the second and first RBMPs. The minimum size of lakes has increased in the Adriatic RBD from 0.88 km2 to 1.35 km2. The minimum length of rivers has slightly decreased and the maximum length of rivers has decreased significantly in both RBDs. The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes . Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Croatia for the second and the first RBMPs RBMP RBD Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2nd cycle HRC 33 125 1 126 14 941 2nd cycle HRJ 4 41 358 2 688 25 150 26 13 747 2nd cycle Total 37 166 1 484 17 629 25 150 26 13 747 1st cycle HRC 29 127 897 10 768 1st cycle HRJ 5 42 334 2 273 28 145 22 13 752 1st cycle Total 34 169 1 231 13 041 28 145 22 13 752 Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.2 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Croatia in the second and the first RBMPs RBMP RBD Lake area (km2) River length (km) Transitional (km2) Coastal (km2) Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average 2nd cycle HRC 0.51 16.17 3.8 0.01 94.69 14.26 2nd cycle HRJ 1.35 30.48 10.15 0.02 47.66 8.07 0.01 35.72 5.98 0.64 4 238.81 528.74 1st cycle HRC 0.51 17.88 4.38 0.03 133.69 12 1st cycle HRJ 0.88 30.46 8.44 0.02 109.37 6.81 0.01 34.43 5.2 0.63 4 237.10 625.11 Source: WISE electronic reporting In the first cycle, 86 % of identified surface water bodies were natural with 9 % being designated as heavily modified and 5 % as artificial water bodies. In the second cycle, the situation was quite different with 92 % natural, 8 % artificial and no heavily modified water bodies ( Figure 2.1 ). The number of groundwater bodies remained the same in the Danube RBD, while for the Adriatic RBD there was an increase of 8 % ( Table 2.3 ). Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Croatia designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and the first RBMPs. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 Table 2.3 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Croatia for the second and first RBMPs

RBMP RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2nd cycle HRC 20 97.32 5 189.02 1 754.18 2nd cycle HRJ 13 143.65 3 754.00 1 593.73 2nd cycle Total 33 1st cycle HRC 20 1st cycle HRJ 12 1st cycle Total 32 1 942 Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Croatia on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. It is notable that the changes to the river and lake water bodies have been recorded as the creation of new water bodies. Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Croatia between the second and the first RBMPs Type of water body change for the second cycle RBMP Groundwater Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Splitting 3 6 4 Aggregation and splitting 1 5 Change 1 14 Extended area 5 Reduced area 5 2 Creation 1 484 37 2 Deletion 1 232 33 3 Change in code 29 3 4 Total water bodies before deletion 33 2 716 70 28 26 Delineated for the second cycle RBMP (after deletion from 1st cycle RBMP) 33 1 484 37 25 26 Source: WISE electronic reporting Topic 10Identification of transboundary water bodies Transboundary river water bodies have been designated in the Danube RBD and river, transitional and coastal transboundary water bodies have been designated in the Adriatic RBD. 15 transboundary groundwater bodies have been identified in the Danube RBD and six in the Adriatic RBD. The RBMP explains that the transboundary water management is done under a framework of bilateral agreements with neighbouring states. There is no specific information about whether delineation or typology of water bodies was specifically covered by these agreements. Topic 11Typology of surface water bodies The number of surface water body types reported by Croatia for the first cycle and second RBMPs are displayed in Table 2.5 . In the second cycle Croatia reported five coastal water body types, 15 (6) lake types, 28 river types and four transitional types. The numbers of lake, transitional and coastal water body types remained largely the same between the two cycles, but the number of river water body types has a significant decrease from 52 to 28. The second RBMP reported that the typology had been revised since the first RBMP, which allowed for the merging of water bodies. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Croatia for the first and second RBMPs RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal 2013 2016 2013 2016 2013 2016 2013 2016 HRC 29 18 10 11 (2) 0 0 0 0 HRJ 27 17 4 4 6 4 5 5 TOTAL 52 28 14 15 (6) 6 4 5 5 Source: WISE electronic reporting Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs. The numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by Croatia and do not match the data reported to WISE. In Croatia, the typology system B has been applied. The reasons provided where that the system is more flexible and allows the definition of a typology that better describes the biological diversity of surface waters. Further testing of the abiotic typology with biological data allowed for the grouping of types with very similar biocenoses. There was work undertaken to determine the extent to which the layout and structure of the biota can be associated with the abiotic typology of the Croatian hydrographic network . Member States were asked to report “Not applicable” if there is no corresponding intercalibration type for national types. Many national types (heavily modified, artificial and natural) have been intercalibrated. Several of the national types for Croatia in all of the RBDs do not appear to have corresponding intercalibration types: 21 river water body types and 15 lake water body types , . It is unclear how the intercalibration process has been transferred to these national types . Topic 12Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Croatia for which reference conditions were established for the first and second RBMPs. Type specific reference conditions have been established for some, all or none relevant biological quality elements (all for all river water body types). Type specific reference conditions have been established for all physicochemical quality elements in rivers, transitional and coastal waters and for some, all or none for lake water body types. Type specific reference conditions have not been established for hydromorphological quality elements in any water category . Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Croatia with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of types in each category

Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Lakes (15) All 40 % Some 40 % 53 % None 60 % 100 % 7 % Rivers (28) All 100 % 100 % Some None 100 % Transitional (4) All 100 % Some 100 % None 100 % Coastal (5) All 100 % Some 100 % None 100 % Source: WISE electronic reporting Topic 13Characteristics of groundwater bodies The characteristics of the geological formation and details on layering of groundwater bodies were reported in the second RBMP. Further characterisation work has been reported since the first RBMP with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages to surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. Topic 14Significant pressures on water bodies In the second RBMP, the significant pressures reported most often are ‘Diffuse – Agricultural’ (57 % of surface waterbodies) and ‘Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network’ (54 %) ( Figure 2.2 ). Croatia reported on significant pressures in the first cycle at an aggregated level. The most significant pressure was found to be diffuse pollution (92 % of surface water bodies) followed by hydromorphological pressures (70 %) which are similar to the pressures reported for the second cycle RBMP.



Figure 2.2 The most significant pressures on surface water and groundwater bodies in Croatia for the second RBMP Source: WISE electronic reporting ‘No significant pressure’ was reported for 90 % of groundwater bodies, and the most significant pressure was ‘Diffuse – Agricultural’ (6 %). In the second RBMP, Croatia reported which significant pressures were not assessed for surface waters, a total of 30 in each RBD. The RBMP does not give any explanation for the excluded pressures . For groundwater, only one pressure was reported not to have been assessed: ‘Groundwater - Recharges.’ Topic 15Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater For surface waters, a combination of both expert judgement and numerical tools was used for defining diffuse and point pressures, and pressures from abstractions and flow diversions in each RBD. The significance of pressures is reported not to be defined in terms of thresholds or linked to the potential failure of objectives for both RBDs . No further information was found on this in the RBMP or background documents. Some changes to the methodology since the first RBMP were noted in the second RBMP. For point sources, estimates of pollutant emissions were made for all known types of point sources for the reference year 2012. Data on the abstraction of water for all known uses were collected and analysed. There was no change in the assessment of hydromorphological pressure data compared to the first RBMP and the completeness and reliability of the data is still limited. The extent of diffuse sources considered has expanded since the first RBMP. Some diffuse sources have been considered in full detail, based on reliable data, and, for some, only estimations of the emissions have been made. Particular attention has been given to diffuse pollution from agriculture. In the program of supplementary measures of the first RBMP, activities were undertaken to investigate the impact of agricultural production on surface and groundwater status. A model of the spatial distribution of nitrogen and phosphorus applications originating from mineral and organic fertilisers was developed. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of pesticides and active substances in pesticides, by pesticide groups and cultures has been modelled. For groundwater, a combination of expert judgement and numerical tools was used for defining diffuse and point source pressures. Numerical tools were used only for abstraction pressures in the Adriatic RBD and a combination was used in the Danube RBD. Artificial recharge pressures have not been assessed. For groundwater, significance of pressures is reported to be defined in terms of thresholds but not linked to the potential failure of objectives. The second RBMP explains that significant pressures in groundwater are related to the failure of groundwater quality and quantity thresholds. Topic 16Significant impacts on water bodies In the second RBMP, the most significant impact on surface water bodies was ‘Nutrient pollution’ (43 %) ( Figure 2.3 ), with 40 % reported as having “no significant impact”. For groundwater, 90 % were reported as “no significant impact”. The most significant impact was ‘Nutrient pollution’ (6 %). Croatia did not report on impacts in the first RBMP. Figure 2.3 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Croatia for the second RBMP. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reporting Topic 17Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status In each RBD, 15 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good chemical status. The pollutants responsible for groundwater bodies being at risk of failing good chemical status have been reported.

In the Adriatic RBD 15 % of groundwater bodies were also reported to be at risk of failing to meet good quantitative status, while none were reported to be at risk in the Danube RBD. Further information on the quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies is provided in Chapters 5 and 6 of this report. Topic 18Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures There are some inconsistencies in the WISE reporting of pressures for which measures are planned and the significant pressures reported at the water body level. For example, in the Danube RBD, ‘Anthropogenic pressure – Unknown’ has been reported as a significant pressure at surface water body level but this pressure has not been reported as being tackled in the Programme of Measures. Similarly, ‘Abstraction or flow diversion – Hydropower’ is reported as being addressed in the Programme of Measures but is not identified as a significant pressure at a surface water body level. The Priority Substances and other substances causing failure of good chemical status have been reported. The measures to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2021 and the indicator of the gap have been reported. However, there are some substances for which a gap to good status will remain (e.g. fluoranthene). Further information on the implementation of the Programme of Measures is provided in Chapters 9 to 13 of this report. Topic 19Inventories 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 for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (or suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances. Croatia reported that only 6 of the 41 Priority Substances were included in the inventories in each RBD. The RBMP explained that the inventory will be completed in the future following the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document No 28 - Preparation of Priority Substances Emissions Inventory . Firstly, the pollutants that are relevant to water pollution in Croatia will be identified and then data will be collected for the assessment of emissions, releases and losses of those pollutants to the aquatic environment. The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. The Guidance Document identifies a tiered approach to assessing emissions, but Croatia reported using a different methodology. The data quality was assessed as uncertain. 19.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle Overall there was an increase in the number of water bodies delineated from the first to the second RBMP. For river water bodies, there was a 21 % increase overall. For lake water bodies, there was an increase of 9 % overall but a decrease of 20 % in the Adriatic RBD. For coastal water bodies, there was an 18 % increase in the Adriatic RBD and a decrease in transitional water bodies of 11 %. The number of groundwater bodies remained the same in the Danube RBD and there was an increase of 8 % for the Adriatic RBD. In the second RBMP, 86 % of identified surface water bodies were natural with 9 % being designated as heavily modified and 5 % as artificial water bodies. In the first RBMP, the situation was quite different with 92 % natural, 8 % artificial and no heavily modified water bodies. The number of river water body types had a significant decrease, from 52 to only 28 types. The second RBMP reported that the typology had been revised since the first RBMP, which allowed for the merging of water bodies. Croatia reported on significant pressures in the first RBMP at an aggregated level. The most significant pressure was found to be diffuse pollution followed by hydromorphological pressures, which are similar to the pressures reported for the second RBMP. 19.2Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and Programme of Measures requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Review the pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment in the second RBMPs and ensure that the measures are based on the updated pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment of water bodies. Assessment: This recommendation applies to more than one Topic. In terms of characterisation, Croatia has reported the pressures and impacts at a water body level. Croatia reported that only 6 of the 41 Priority Substances were included in the inventories in each RBD. For surface waters, a combination of both expert judgement and numerical tools were used for defining diffuse and point pressures, and pressures from abstractions and flow diversions in each RBD. For groundwaters, a combination of expert judgement and numerical tools was used for defining diffuse and point source pressures. Numerical tools were used for abstraction pressures in the Adriatic RBD and a combination was used in the Danube RBD. Therefore, there does not appear to be an overreliance on expert judgement. The measures to tackle Priority Substances and other substances causing the failure of good chemical status by 2021 and the gap indicator have been reported. However, there are some substances for which a gap to good status will remain (e.g. Fluoranthene). Overall this recommendation has been partially fulfilled.





Topic 20Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 20.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP Topic 21Monitoring 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 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. Monitoring programmes were reported for rivers and lakes in both RBDs, and for coastal and transitional waters in the Adriatic RBD which had also identified these two water categories. The relevant water categories were all included in a surface water monitoring programmes. No monitoring was reported for territorial waters. Monitoring sites Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes from the first to the second RBMP, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMP. Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Croatia for the second and first RBMP. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in 2013, the 2016 data does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Second RBMP HR_C 32 118 3 7 HR_J 8 17 3 7 81 23 49 29 Total by type of site 40 135 6 14 81 23 49 29 Total number of monitoring sites 152 (175) 19 (20) 88 69 First RBMP HR_C 32 107 1 3 HR_J 6 10 4 3 52 87 Total by type of site 38 117 5 6 52 0 87 0 Total number of monitoring sites 132 10 52 87 Sources: Member States electronic reporting to WISE in 2013 and 2016. The numbers in parentheses were subsequently communicated by Croatia. Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Croatia Monitoring Purpose Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal CHE - Chemical status 5 124 28 37 DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 1 ECO - Ecological status 1 194 87 69 HAB - Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v 16 181 42 13 INT - International network of other international convention 14 MSF - Marine Strategy Framework Directive monitoring network 34 NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 2 51 OPE - Operational monitoring 14 135 23 29 REF - Reference network monitoring site 11 9 RIV - International network of a river convention (including bilateral agreements) 10 SEA - International network of a sea convention 2 10 SHE - Shellfish designated waters - WFD Annex IV.1.ii 7 8 SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 8 43 4 11 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 6 40 81 49 Total sites irrespective of purpose 25 309 91 69 Source: WISE electronic reporting For the first RBMP, there were no sites for operational monitoring in coastal and transitional waters in the Adriatic RBD, for the second RBMP 29 sites and 23 sites were reported for coastal and transitional waters, respectively. There were also increases in the number of operational sites in river and lakes in both RBDs compared to the first RBMP. Whilst there was a decrease in the number of coastal and lake sites used for surveillance purposes in the Adriatic RBD for the second RBMP, there was no change in the number of surveillance sites in rivers in the Danube RBD and increases in lake sites in the Danube RBD, and in transitional waters and rivers in the Adriatic RBD. The number of monitoring sites in the 2015 Commission Staff Working Document for the first RBMP are the wrong way around in terms of surveillance and operational monitoring – this has been corrected in Table 3.1 . Monitored quality elements (excluding RBSPs) 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. Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMP in Croatia (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 Lakes No No No No No No No No Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Coastal Yes Yes Yes No No No No 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 Lakes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Rivers Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Transitional Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Source: WISE electronic reporting There are significant gaps in the monitoring of required and expected quality elements. Fish, macrophytes and phytoplankton are not monitored in lakes. Angiosperms and macroalgae are not monitored in coastal waters or transitional waters, though macrophytes are reported for both. Hydromorphological quality elements are not reported to be monitored in any water category. A wide range of physicochemical quality elements are reported at the specific determinand level (e.g. nitrite as part of nutrient conditions), but there still are gaps. Morphological conditions were used in the classification of all water categories, hydrological regime was also used in rivers and lakes and continuity in rivers. The classification of all hydromorphological quality elements in all water categories was based on expert judgment: none of these elements were reported to be monitored. This introduces uncertainty on the robustness of the classification of ecological status/potential in Croatia. Monitoring sites in lakes in the Adriatic RBD are only used for chemical monitoring: this means that biological quality elements, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements are not monitored, with only River Basin Specific Pollutants and Priority Substances being included. Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a RBMP i.e. six years. For phytoplankton, this equates to twice during the monitoring year and the other biological quality elements once during the year. As a guideline, operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. None of the biological quality elements used for the surveillance or operational monitoring of coastal and transitional waters were sampled at, or more than, the WFD minimum frequency. In contrast, three of the five biological quality elements used for surveillance, and two of the four used for operational monitoring were sampled at, or more than, the minimum frequency at all sites where they were monitored. The one site used for monitoring lakes (including for phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates) was not used for surveillance or operational purposes. Monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants In total eight different River Basin Specific Pollutants (mostly metals) were reported to be monitored in Croatia, according to the WISE reporting. These substances are: arsenic, chromium, copper, cobalt, zinc, fluoride, AOX and PCBs. However, Croatia subsequently clarified that cobalt is not considered as a River Basin Specific Pollutant. Consequently the right number of River Basin Specific Pollutants monitored is seven. All substances were monitored in water for status assessment and four were monitored in sediment for trend assessment. For status assessment all seven river basin specific pollutants confirmed by Croatia were monitored in rivers, two in coastal and transitional waters and four in lakes. The number of monitoring sites for each water body type in the second RBMP is shown in Table 3.4 . Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMP and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants reported in the first RBMP in Croatia. 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 Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 9 141 26 38 first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants NR NR NR NR Sources: WISE electronic reporting. NR: Not reported at the site level Each of the seven River Basin Specific Pollutants was monitored at a frequency at least as high as the WFD recommended minimum frequency in most of the monitoring sites. Croatia identified and reported non-priority specific pollutants as part of their first RBMP (to be monitored in lakes and rivers), however this information was not reported at the site level. It is therefore not possible to make comparison at the site level between the two RBMP.

Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies None of the water bodies used for surveillance monitoring in lakes, rivers, transitional and coastal water was monitored for all required biological and hydromorphological quality elements. Around 84 % of coastal and transitional water bodies included in surveillance monitoring were monitored for all required physicochemical quality elements: none of the rivers and lake water bodies was monitored for all required elements. Proportionally more surface water bodies in Croatia were included in operational monitoring (10 %) compared to surveillance (6 %). There are discrepancies in the number of lakes and transitional water bodies reported in the WISE monitoring schema compared to those reported in the WISE surface water body schema. More are reported in the former compared to the latter. For the first RBMP, there was no operational monitoring in coastal and transitional waters: for the second RBMP there was. Overall for the first RBMP, 9 % of surface water bodies were included in operational monitoring and 7 % in surveillance monitoring: the respective values for the second RBMP were 10 % and 6 %. It should be borne in mind that there was a 20 % increase in the number of surface water bodies from 1 315 for the first RBMP to 1 572 for the second RBMP. Figure 3.1 shows the proportion of surface water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Croatia for the first and second RBMP for each water category. Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Croatia for the first RBMP (2013) and second RBMP (2016). Note: no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring Source: WISE electronic reporting. Note that there are discrepancies in the number of transitional water bodies reported in the WISE monitoring schema compared to those reported in the WISE Surface Water Body schema resulting in percentages greater than 100. Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Croatia. This shows the desired distribution of surveillance monitoring sites among the ecological status/potential class. Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Croatia Source: WISE electronic reporting Operational monitoring of surface water bodies No biological quality element was used in the operational monitoring of lakes in Croatia. Predominantly benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos were used for operational monitoring of rivers though macrophytes and phytoplankton were also used to a lesser extent: fish were not monitored. Phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates were mainly used in coastal and transitional waters with macrophytes also used in both categories and fish in transitional waters. Transboundary surface water body monitoring Croatia reported transboundary coastal, river, transitional and groundwater bodies. Monitoring sites that are part of international network of river or other convention or of a sea convention were reported for coastal waters (10 sites), rivers (24 sites) and transitional waters (two sites). Topic 22Assessment and classification of ecological status/potential of surface water Ecological Status/potential of surface water The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Croatia for the second RBMP is illustrated in Map 3.1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status. Croatia delineated a high number of river water bodies (1 484). This large number seems to complicate the ecological status assessment. Figure 3.3 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Croatia for the first RBMP with that for the second (based on the most recent assessment of status/potential) and that expected by 2015).

A detailed breakdown of ecological status/potential in each RBD and water category can be viewed in the WISE electronic reports. There was a decrease in the proportion of surface water bodies at good or better ecological status/potential from 51 % for the first RBMP to 42 % for the second. The significance of the changes in status/potential need to be considered in terms of, for example, changes in the delineation of water bodies. There was a 20 % increase in the number of delineated surface water bodies between the two RBMPs with the largest increase being in river water bodies (1 231 for the first RBMP to 1 484 for the second). Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Croatia is shown in Figure 3.4 . The expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential for a large proportion of river and lake water bodies remains unknown. Map 3.1 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Croatia 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 RBDs Countries outside the European Union Figure 3.3 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Croatia for the second RBMP, for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for both cycles. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2010 to 2015. The year of the assessment of status for first RBMP is not known Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.4 Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Croatia. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category Source: WISE electronic reporting Confidence in Ecological Status assessment Figure 3.5 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. Figure 3.5 Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Croatia based on the most recently assessed status/potential

Source: WISE electronic reporting A medium level of confidence was reported for all surface water bodies classified for ecological status/potential for the first RBMP in Croatia. For the second RBMP, all three levels of confidence were reported with 14 % at high, 47 % at medium and 39 % at a low level of confidence. Classification of ecological status at the quality element level Only a very small fraction of water bodies has been classified on the basis of biological quality element assessments. The ecological status of most water bodies is based on physicochemical or hydromorphological quality elements. The biological elements have only been used in the classification for about 15 % of water bodies. Coastal water bodies are best covered by biological classification ( Figure 3.6 ).



Figure 3.6 Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of surface water bodies in Croatia. 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 reporting Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the two RBMPs. It should be noted that this comparison should be treated with some caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements from the first to the second RBMP. Some additional biological quality elements have been introduced in the second RBMP: macroalgae, phytobenthos, macrophytes and some indicate a deterioration in status in the second RBMP (benthic invertebrates and fish). Figure 3.7 Comparison of ecological status/potential in Croatia according to classified biological quality elements in surface waters from the first to the second RBMP. The numbers in parentheses are the number of surface water bodies with a classification for that element. Source: WISE electronic reporting. Figure 3.8 illustrates the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes in Croatia for the second RBMP; confirming that only 15 % of river water bodies are classified on the basis of all four types of quality element with the remainder of rivers and other water categories classified on the basis of just three. Figure 3.8 The classification of the ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Croatia using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element. Note: The 4 types are: biological; hydromorphological, general physicochemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants. Source: Extracted from WISE. Assessment methods for the biological quality elements No methods were reported for angiosperms in coastal and transitional waters, and for macroalgae in transitional waters though a method for macrophytes was reported. Furthermore, Croatia lacks an assessment method for fish in lakes that is currently under development. The method for assessing the ecological potential of the various water categories is also still under development.

No biological quality element assessment method was reported to be sensitive to chemical pollution in rivers even though this impact was reported to be significant in both RBDs. The RBMP give some indications on changes since the first RBMP. It says that on the basis of the new findings emerging from the research projects carried out in the period from 2009 to 2013, the need for revision of the typology for some surface water categories and for the re-determination of water bodies in accordance with the new typology has been identified. The collected findings have resulted in substantial modifications and improvements in the surface water status assessment system in relation to the first RBMP. This applies in particular to the increase in the number of quality elements for which the reference values and class boundaries, primarily the biological elements, are set. There is limited information in the RBMP on changes between the first and second RBMP in the assessment methodologies for the biological quality elements. All changes are given in a common (ecology status and potential, chemical status, ecological status is said to be assessed through biological and chemical status) summary on surface water status. The elements of changes can be repeated as for the ecological and chemical status given above: the biggest change is use of higher number of biological elements for assessment, but overall there is a lack of spatial and temporal coverage of data. At the national level only 180 river water bodies were assessed, or approximately 13 % of all river water bodies. Coverage of biological monitoring is higher in the Danube RBD (15 % of water bodies). Only 5 % of river water bodies are rated in the Adriatic RBD. This is to be tackled with measures in this new RBMP 2016-2021. Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems All five coastal water and four transitional water types were reported to have an equivalent common intercalibration type. 21 of the 28 river types do not have a common intercalibration type: it will be important that the results of intercalibration are adequately translated to these 21 national types. None of the 6 lake types have an equivalent common intercalibration type: this calls into question the comparability of the classification of the ecological status/potential of lakes with other Member States. The published RBMPs indicate that Croatia did not participate in the first and second cycles of intercalibration exercises because at that time it was not a member of the European Union. Therefore, the national classification system of biological elements in surface inland waters did not have enough data to carry out the intercalibration process. However, intercalibration will be carried out subsequently as instructed by the European Commission's guide "Procedure to fit new or revised national classifications to the completed Intercalibration exercise". Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements The expected hydromorphological quality elements are assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in rivers and lakes. However the classification boundaries are not related to the class boundaries of the sensitive biological quality elements in rivers. The classification boundaries for morphological conditions in lakes are related to the class boundaries of the sensitive biological quality elements. Only morphological conditions are assessed in transitional and coastal waters and the class boundaries are related to the sensitive biological quality elements. Classification methods for general physiochemical quality elements The reported physicochemical quality elements are assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in all water categories. However, not all the relevant elements are assessed and the classification boundaries are not related to the class boundaries of the sensitive biological quality elements for some of the elements. In rivers, only oxygenation and nutrient conditions are assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and their classification boundaries are related to the class boundaries of the sensitive biological quality elements. For lakes, three elements (transparency, oxygenation and nutrient conditions) are assessed and again all are related to the classification boundaries of the sensitive biological quality elements. Three (transparency, oxygenation and nutrient conditions) of the five elements assessed in transitional and coastal waters were also classified in relation to the sensitive biological quality elements, two (thermal and salinity conditions) were not. The reported standards for physicochemical quality elements in rivers and lakes have not been defined for individual types separately. This holds the risk of inappropriate status classification because, for instance, different river types naturally vary in their national nutrient concentrations. Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards The RBMP indicates that river basin specific pollutants have been identified by a number of means including from the measured concentrations in water bodies arising from monitoring programmes, from estimated concentrations in water bodies derived from modelling exercises which consider production, use and emission data and on the risk posed by releases of substances from both point and diffuse sources in the RBD. Environmental Quality Standards are reported for seven River Basin Specific Pollutants, only for water. Six of these are set for rivers, six for lakes and two in coastal and transitional waters. The standards were not reported to be derived in accordance with the 2011 Technical Guidance Document No. 27 for all substances in all water categories . It is interesting to note that although standards were reported for coastal and transitional waters, River Basin Specific Pollutants were not reported as classified in these categories of water (see Figure 3.9 below). In addition, in lakes, River Basin Specific pollutants are classified only on the basis of grouping. The analytical methods used meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/90/EC for the strictest standard applied for six or the seven substances and complied with Article 4(2) for the other. Use of monitoring results for classification The basis of the classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.9 . Morphological conditions were used in the classification of all water categories, hydrological regime were also used in rivers and lakes and continuity in rivers. The classification of all hydromorphological quality elements in all categories was based on expert judgment and none was monitored. This introduces uncertainty and undermines the robustness of the classification on ecological status/potential in Croatia.

The classification of biological quality elements in all water categories was based on monitoring results though in some cases (particularly in rivers), the elements were monitored in fewer water bodies than were subsequently classified: this raises the question on how some water bodies were classified based on monitoring results when they were not monitored. Grouping was used for classifying some physicochemical elements and River Basin Specific Pollutants in rivers and lakes. Grouping was not used for any biological quality element or hydromorphological quality element in any of the water categories. River Basin Specific Pollutants were only classified in lakes and rivers even though they are monitored in all four water categories: monitoring results were only used in the classification of rivers. This raises the question as to how grouping was undertaken when classifying lakes for these substances when none had been classified based on monitoring results. Figure 3.9 Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Croatia. The percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category. Source: WISE electronic reporting Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle) The ‘one-out, all-out’ principle has been applied in deriving the overall classification of the ecological status of a water body. Figure 3.10 illustrates the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes in Croatia for the second RBMP. Figure 3.10 The percentage of surface water bodies in Croatia where no biological quality element or no hydromorphological (HYMO) or no general physicochemical (PHYSCHEM) or no river basin specific pollutant (RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential Source: Member State reporting to WISE 22.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP For the first RBMP, there were no sites for operational monitoring in coastal and transitional waters in the Adriatic RBD: for the second RBMP 29 sites and 23 sites, respectively were reported. There were also increases in the number of operational sites in river and lakes in both RBDs compared to the first RBMP. Whilst there was a decrease in the number of coastal and lake sites used for surveillance purposes in the Adriatic RBD for the second RBMP, there was no change in the number of surveillance sites in rivers in the Danube RBD and increases in lake sites in the Danube RBD, and in transitional waters and rivers in the Adriatic RBD. For the first RBMP there was no operational monitoring in coastal and transitional waters: for the second RBMP there was. Overall for the first RBMP, 9 % of surface water bodies were included in operational monitoring and 7 % in surveillance monitoring: the respective values for the second RBMP were 10 % and 6 %. It should be borne in mind that there was a 20 % increase in the number of surface water bodies from 1315 for the first RBMP to 1572 for the second. There was a decrease in the proportion of surface water bodies at good or better ecological status/potential from 51 % for the first RBMP to 42 % for the second. However, the significance of the changes in status/potential need to be considered in terms of, for example, changes in the delineation of water bodies. There was a 20 % increase in the number of delineated surface water bodies from the first to the second RBMP with the largest increase being in river water bodies (1231 for the first RBMP to 1484 for the second). 22.2Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and Programme of Measures requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Complete the development of methods for the status assessment of water bodies and determination of reference conditions and apply them through the implementation of robust monitoring programmes (start monitoring hydromorphological parameters in lakes and transitional and coastal waters and fish in lakes). Assessment: Hydromorphological quality elements are not monitored in Croatia. There has been no progress on this aspect. Fish are still not monitored in lakes. There has been progress on this aspect. The assessment methods for most biological quality elements are in place (except for fish in lakes, angiosperms in coastal and transitional waters, and for macroalgae in transitional waters and for ecological potential assessment). Some of these gaps are currently addressed by ongoing research projects.

Croatia subsequently indicated that work has been and is underway to further develop methods for the status assessment of water bodies. This includes the implementation of hydromorphological monitoring and assessment in rivers and a project was initiated for implementation of hydromorphological monitoring and the development of methodologies for monitoring and assessment of hydromorphological indicators in natural lakes and transitional and coastal waters. There is also a project which would obtain adequate information regarding the status of fish populations in natural lakes. The methods for angiosperms in transitional and coastal waters have also been developed. In conclusion, there has been progress on this recommendation and it has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: An adequate WFD compliant assessment and monitoring framework is a necessary pre-requisite