ANNEX



to the

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (200/60/EC) and Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)



Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans

Commission recommendations on the second RBMPs and first FRMPs

[The full lists of recommendations are included in the national assessments accompanying this document]

Member State Recommendations for the preparation of the 3rd RBMPs Recommendations for the preparation of the 2nd FRMPs

Austria (AT) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Austria is particularly encouraged to: ·Secure the timely adoption of the 3rd RBMPs. ·Secure continuity, effectiveness and appropriate funding in implementing the measures needed for the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. Particular focus should be devoted to measures aimed to reduce the significant amount of hydromorphological pressures. ·Show ambition and pragmatism in tackling chemical pollution, moving away from mere knowledge-gathering measures. ·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Austria is particularly encouraged to: ·Develop measurable FRMP objectives and link the proposed measures to them, so as to be able to assess progress made. ·Explain how the proposed measures are selected and prioritised e.g. how the different factors influencing the choices made are weighted (including cost-benefit analysis, effectiveness and climate change). ·Develop a more detailed methodology for assessing the overall cost effectiveness of the proposed measures, whilst providing more information on costs and relevant funding sources. ·Secure appropriate cross-references between FRMPs, PFRAs/APSFRs and FHRMs, whilst making sure they are continuously available to all interested parties and the public in an accessible format, including digitally.

Belgium (BE) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Belgium is particularly encouraged to: ·Stipulate clear financial commitments for the implementation of the Programmes of Measures. ·Fine-tune its strategy for achieving the WFD objectives and enhance the technical feasibility of its next RBMPs, by working in close cooperation with the farming community and the authorities in charge with the national implementation of the CAP as well as by securing greater synergies between the WFD goals and all relevant policies and instruments (e.g. RDP, CAP Pillar 1, Nitrates Directive, etc.) as implemented nationally. ·Show ambition and pragmatism in tackling chemical pollution, by developing a more substance-specific approach both in surface and groundwater, with focus on Priority Substances, river-specific and groundwater-specific pollutants. ·Carry out, where relevant and based on a clearly explained methodology, cost-benefit analysis for the proposed measures and explain how this has led to the selection and prioritisation of those measures. ·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Belgium is particularly encouraged to: ·Provide a more detailed description of the expected impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods, based on the available studies. ·Provide an overview of the costs of measures and the expected funding sources. ·Incorporate cost-benefit analysis (e.g. for the prioritisation of measures that lend themselves to it) in the FRMPs and provide a clear description of the methodology used. ·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Bulgaria (BG) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Bulgaria is particularly encouraged to: ·Further improve international cooperation, by developing more harmonized approaches for assessing the status of shared water bodies and deliver better coordinated assessments and Programmes of Measures to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·Improve its own monitoring capacities with a view to lower its dependence on expert judgment for assessing the ecological status/potential of its water bodies. ·Base the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) on a thorough assessment of all the steps as required by the WFD and transparently indicate, in all RBDs, which are the justifications for invoking the exemptions under Article 4(7) WFD. ·Secure better compliance, especially in big cities, with Article 5 of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, in relation to the requirement of more stringent treatment of wastewaters for discharge into sensitive areas. ·Provide a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads from agriculture (nutrients, agri‑chemicals, sediment, organic matter) across all waters in all its RBDs and link it directly to the proposed mitigation measures (as per Article 11(3)(h) WFD). These measures should be specific, have a clear legal basis and include appropriate monitoring and inspection regimes. ·Ensure that a clear distinction is made between water scarcity and drought in water policy and that a Drought Management Plan or a Water resource allocation and management plan is adopted. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Bulgaria is particularly encouraged to: ·Improve the elaboration of objectives and measures by clearly indicating the timeline for achievement and implementation. ·Provide a more detailed description of the expected impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods and ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy once adopted. ·Carry out, where relevant and based on a clearly explained methodology, cost-benefit analysis for the proposed measures and explain how this has led to the selection and prioritisation of those measures.

Cyprus (CY) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Cyprus is particularly encouraged to: ·Further improve its capacity to assess the status of all water categories (including territorial waters), with a view to reduce the proportion of unknown status and secure better assessment as to the presence of any of the Priority Substances. ·Monitor its water bodies in a way to provide sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage to classify them all (possibly combined with robust grouping /extrapolation methods). ·Step up its use of metering (especially for agriculture) to better determine the quantitative status of water bodies and reduce the over-abstraction of groundwater, mainly due to unregulated self-abstractions and permits insufficiently aligned with environmental requirements. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Cyprus is particularly encouraged to: ·Explain how it selects and prioritises the proposed measures, e.g. how the different factors influencing the choices made (including cost-benefit analysis, effectiveness and climate change) are weighted. ·Establish a baseline and relevant indicators to assess the progress achieved in implementing the proposed measures. ·Systematically consider opportunities to implement nature based solutions (incl. NWRM), as alternatives, wherever possible, to dredging and ‘grey infrastructure’ modifications of river banks and river beds.

Czech Republic (CZ) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, the Czech Republic is particularly encouraged to: ·Secure better monitoring, in particular a sufficient number of water bodies and appropriate coverage of all relevant quality elements. Operational monitoring of lakes should be improved and better linked with the pressures and impacts analysis. Hydromorphological quality elements should be monitored in all water categories. ·Improve the reliability of the assessment of ecological status/potential and in particular, improve on assessment methods for hydromorphological elements, and link physico-chemical boundaries to the relevant biological quality elements in rivers. ·Provide better justification for the use of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions; and distinguish clearly between these. This is particularly important as a significant number of water bodies are expected to achieve the WFD objectives only beyond 2027 and exemptions are widely applied. ·Quantify the reduction in pollutant load needed to achieve WFD objectives; the basin-wide impact of mitigation measures related to agricultural water pollution sources and the extent to which the measures already taken under the ND and UWWTD contribute and identify additional measures to be taken to achieve fully the objectives. ·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, the Czech Republic is particularly encouraged to: ·Develop measurable FRMP objectives and link the proposed measures to them, so as to be able to assess progress made. ·Provide a cost estimate for each measure and an overall budget for all measures, indicating whether it covers both investment and operational costs. ·Describe the method for the prioritisation of measures and provide clear information on the methods used to assess costs and benefits of measures. ·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

Germany (DE) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Germany is particularly encouraged to: ·Improve for all RBDs trend monitoring for all relevant substances, in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. ·Justify better the application of exemptions under Article 4(4) and Article 4(5), in particular the justification on disproportionate costs. ·Complete a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads from agriculture across all waters in all RBDs and link it directly to mitigation measures. Additional actions are needed to prevent pollution induced by nitrates from agricultural pressures. ·Consider developing Drought Management Plans for areas more at risk of drought. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Germany is particularly encouraged to: ·Develop measurable objectives (timeframe, indicators) and define clear criteria of what significant adverse impacts of flooding are. ·Define the measures in more detail in the plans, including how much they will contribute to the objectives and how they are funded. ·Explain how the proposed measures are selected and prioritised, e.g. how the different factors influencing the choices made are weighted (including cost-benefit analysis, effectiveness and climate change). ·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

Denmark (DK) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Denmark is particularly encouraged to: ·Clarify the apportionment of significant pressures among different sectors in order to be able to identify the appropriate mitigation measures. ·Improve monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements in all water categories and increase the proportion of water bodies covered by monitoring for River Basin Specific Pollutants. ·Complete the development of assessment methods for all biological quality elements in all water categories, including methods that are sensitive to nutrients in rivers and include hydromorphological quality elements in the classification of ecological status. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Denmark is particularly encouraged to: ·Provide further and more consistent information on the process for the development of the FRMPs, including how the PFRA and FHRMs were used in their preparation. Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. ·Consider a more uniform approach to the different FRMPs, as they currently are quite different in nature (in terms of strategy and level of detail). For this, consider greater information exchange among the various administrations. ·Provide more details about the costs and funding sources for measures and carry out cost benefit analysis wherever possible. Provide further information on the prioritisation of measures, including the criteria used. Provide information in all FRMPs about the mechanisms to be used to monitor the implementation of their measures.

Estonia (EE) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Estonia is particularly encouraged to: ·Ensure that reference conditions are established for all relevant Quality Elements for all surface waters. ·Complete inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances. ·Step up efforts to assess the status of all water bodies, increasing the confidence in the assessment of status and reducing the proportion of unknown status. Monitoring should provide sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage (including in biota). ·Better justify exemptions by developing and applying clear criteria for the application of Article 4(4) and distinguish these clearly from the criteria and justifications used under Article 4(5). Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Estonia is particularly encouraged to: ·Develop specific and measurable FRMP objectives and describe the process for setting objectives. ·Provide more detailed information on how much the implementation of measures would cost in each UoM and about their timetables. Provide also indicators of progress. Describe in the FRMPs the methodology used for cost-benefit analysis and present the results.

Greece (EL) The RBMPs were not reported on time, and have therefore not been included in the Commission's assessment. The FRMPs were not reported on time, and have therefore not been included in the Commission's assessment.

Spain (ES) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Spain is particularly encouraged to: ·Ensure that the next RBMPs are adopted on time, respecting the requirements concerning public consultation. ·Make more use of flow meters, to ensure that all abstractions are metered and registered, and that permits are adapted to available resources, and ensure that users report regularly to river basin authorities on the volumes actually abstracted, especially in those river basin districts which present significant abstraction pressures. ·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs. ·Ensure that quantitative and qualitative needs for protected habitats and species, are specified and translated into specific objectives for each Protected Area, and specify also relevant monitoring and measures. ·Ensure that new Drought Management Plans are adopted. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Spain is particularly encouraged to: ·Adopt urgently the FRMPs for the Canary Islands and ensure that the next FRMPs are adopted on time. ·Better explain and document the process of prioritization of objectives, e.g. explain which institutions and stakeholders have taken part in it, and which reasons have been argued to decide on high or low priorities for the different objectives. Develop measurable objectives and indicators for the impact of measures to aid the process of assessing progress. ·Present the methodology for assessing measures in terms of costs and benefits as well as the application and results of this analysis. ·Consider climate change, including systematic consideration with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Finland (FI) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Finland is particularly encouraged to: ·Ensure better monitoring of surface waters, to cover all water bodies for all relevant quality elements, including hydromorphological quality elements and River Basin Specific Pollutants in coastal waters. ·Improve for all RBDs trend monitoring for all relevant substances, in a way that provide sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. ·Ensure a thorough assessment of proposed new modifications in line with the WFD requirements, in light of the expectation that deterioration from high to good status may not trigger an Article 4(7) assessment. ·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs. ·Based on the prevalence of local or sub-basin drought spells as one of the effects of climate change, re-consider preparing Drought Management Plans where appropriate. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Finland is particularly encouraged to: ·Set a clear time frame in the FRMPs for the achievement of objectives. ·Establish a stronger connection between the objectives and measures and clearly state whether the planned measures are sufficient to reach the objectives. ·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

France (FR) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, France is particularly encouraged to: ·Better justify the application of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions and review and update justifications to ensure that all possible measures are implemented. ·Improve on tackling nutrient pollution, and assess and report the expected effect of the measures. ·Step up efforts to implement and report hydromorphological measures for all water bodies affected by hydromorphological pressures, and for all RBDs, also to meet international commitments to remove obstacles to river continuity. ·Consider developing Drought Management Plans for areas more at risk of drought. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, France is particularly encouraged to: ·Provide more detailed information on the prior steps to the FRMPs, including summary maps and text regarding the APSFRs, and references where they can be accessed. Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. ·Develop objectives with specific and measurable elements to the extent possible and maintain a clear link between higher and lower level objectives and between measures and objectives. ·Provide greater information in the FRMPs on measures, including costs and funding sources, details on location and information on prioritisation and monitoring progress.

Croatia (HR) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Croatia is particularly encouraged to: ·Step up work on the identification of pressures, in particular in transitional and coastal waters. ·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), and establish a methodology for defining ecological potential. ·Provide all relevant information on the level of compliance and the timing to reach compliance of agglomerations in accordance with Directive 91/271/EEC: Ensure also compliance with Article 5 UWWTD for more stringent treatment, especially in big cities. ·Consider additional measures on point source pollution beyond the requirements of the UWWTD and IED to fulfil the WFD objectives, and complete the identification of Key Types of Measures for diffuse sources. ·Ensure that abstraction controls are in place and that information on uses, water exploitation and trends is collected and reported; consider use of natural water retention measures to mitigate risk to water quality from agricultural pollutants, consider adopting Drought Management Plan(s) and continue revising existing controls to ensure that agricultural practices do not cause hydromorphological pressure and update controls where necessary. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Croatia is particularly encouraged to: ·Present specific and measurable flood management objectives and clearly link measures to the objectives. Indicate the baseline against which progress can be monitored. ·Explain how the proposed measures are selected and prioritised, e.g. how the different factors influencing the choices made are weighted (including cost-benefit analysis, effectiveness and climate change). ·Provide further details on the approach to public consultation and the active involvement of stakeholders.

Hungary (HU) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Hungary is particularly encouraged to: ·Step up efforts to assess the status of all water bodies, increasing the confidence in the assessment of status and reducing the proportion of unknown status. Monitoring should provide sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. ·All Priority Substances should be considered in the assessment of status, in the relevant matrix. If a different matrix is used, explanations should be provided. ·Tackle uncertainty in the designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies through better monitoring, improved data on hydromorphological pressures and improved understanding of the effects on the biological quality elements. Ensure that the designation of HMWBs complies with all the requirements of Article 4(3). ·Ensure that abstractions are subject to effective permits, metering and controls. ·Ensure that a clear distinction is made between water scarcity and drought in water policy and that a Drought Management Plan is adopted. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Hungary is particularly encouraged to: ·Develop objectives that are more specific in terms of quantitative targets, locations and timeframes for achievement. ·Provide more clarity on the number of measures, the relationship between the FRMP’s measures and other measures identified as preliminary and their prioritisation. ·Include an estimation of the cost of all measures in the next FRMP. ·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Ireland (IE) The RBMPs were not reported on time, and have therefore not been included in the Commission's assessment. The FRMPs were not reported on time, and have therefore not been included in the Commission's assessment.

Italy (IT) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Italy is particularly encouraged to: ·Harmonise different regional approaches, in particular for the definition of the significance of pressures. ·Provide meaningful information about the scope and the timing of the measures in the Programme of Measures so it is clear how objectives are to be attained. RBMPs should indicate a systematic prioritisation of measures. ·Ensure that information on funding sources of the Programme of Measures is more clearly described in the third RBMP. ·Reinforce metering for all abstractions, and review abstraction permits systems. Ensure that action is taken to address illegal abstractions especially in RBDs with relevant water scarcity problems. ·Tackle urban waste water discharges, and make sure that the measures planned are sufficient to meet the WFD objectives (as well as the UWWTD) in all RBDs. ·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs. ·Ensure that a Drought Management Plan is adopted also for the Sicily RBD. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Italy is particularly encouraged to: ·Develop specific and measurable FRMP objectives and establish a link between objectives and measures. ·Consistently explain in the FRMPs how the monitoring of measures will be carried out and provide greater detail on how measures will be funded. · Expand the use of cost-benefit analysis in the selection and prioritisation of measures where possible. ·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Lithuania (LT) The RBMPs were not reported on time, and have therefore not been included in the Commission's assessment. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Lithuania is particularly encouraged to: ·Clarify the legal status of the FRMP. Ensure that FRMPs, PFRAs/APSFRs, and FHRMs refer to each other as appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an accessible format. ·Clearly link the proposed measures to the objectives, so as to be able to assess progress made. ·Dedicate space to climate change issues in the FRMPs and coordinate with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Luxembourg (LU) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Luxembourg is particularly encouraged to: ·Improve designation of heavily modified water bodies needs by developing and applying clear criteria to establish significant adverse effects in a transparent manner. Apply a more refined methodology for the definition of ecological potential. ·Ensure a thorough assessment of possible new modifications in line with the requirements of the WFD. ·Review and develop the strategy for achieving the WFD objectives and enhance the technical feasibility of its next RBMPs, in cooperation with the farming community and the authorities in charge of the national implementation of the CAP, to ensure all relevant policies and instruments (e.g. RDP, CAP Pillar 1, Nitrates Directive, etc.) contribute significantly to RBMPs. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMP, Luxembourg is particularly encouraged to: ·Develop specific and measurable objectives to the extent possible, which would then allow clear targets to be set and achievements to be measured; link objectives to measures. ·Include cost estimations of measures and specify funding sources in the FRMP. ·Explain how the proposed measures are selected and prioritised, e.g. how the different factors influencing the choices made are weighted (including cost-benefit analysis, effectiveness and climate change) and ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. ·Set out a clearer timeline of implementation of measures in the FRMP.

Latvia (LV) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Latvia is particularly encouraged to: ·Identify sources of funding to facilitate the implementation of the WFD objectives. ·Complete the development of assessment methods for all biological quality elements. Methods for the assessment of the hydromorphological quality elements should be developed for transitional and coastal waters. ·Ensure that for potential future application of Article 4(7), a thorough assessment of possible new modifications is made. ·Ensure adequate co-ordination of the RBMPs with the Floods Directive and Flood Risk Management Plans. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Latvia is particularly encouraged to: ·To the extent possible, develop measurable FRMP objectives and link the proposed measures to them, so as to be able to assess progress made. ·Specify sources of funding for the measures. ·Present and apply a methodology for assessing measures in terms of costs and benefits where relevant and provide its results. ·Explain in the second cycle how the climate change impacts have been considered and ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy once adopted.

Malta (MT) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Malta is particularly encouraged to: ·Ensure apportionment of pressures among sources, so that adequate measures can be identified. ·Continue to work on completing the monitoring schemes for quantitative status of groundwater.. ·Ensure that possible new modifications are in line with the requirements of the WFD. ·Better tackle the problem of water scarcity and over-abstraction. ·Ensure the proper implementation of Article 9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalisation of environmental and resource costs. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Malta is particularly encouraged to: ·To the extent possible, develop measurable FRMP objectives and explicitly link the proposed measures to them, so as to be able to assess progress made, including the mechanisms and indicators for monitoring their implementation. ·Provide information on the estimated cost of all flood risk mitigation measures, their prioritisation and the methods for prioritisation.

The Netherlands (NL) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, the Netherlands is particularly encouraged to: ·Complete the assessment of the effectiveness of the existing agricultural measures and identify which additional measures are needed to achieve the objectives of the WFD. ·Ensure that, for chemical pollution from non-agricultural sources, the Programmes of Measures is based on reliable assessment of the pressures. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, the Netherlands is particularly encouraged to: ·Define objectives in an as specific and measurable way as possible and explain the process. Describe the links with other prior and ongoing Dutch flood programmes and legislation in the FRMPs. ·Provide information on the estimated costs of the measures in the FRMPs and indicate whether a baseline is used for monitoring progress, or develop a baseline. ·Explain how the proposed measures are selected and prioritised, e.g. how the different factors influencing the choices made are weighted (including cost-benefit analysis, effectiveness and climate change) and ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. ·Provide clear information on the organisation of public participation and the active involvement of stakeholders.

Poland (PL) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Poland is particularly encouraged to: ·Strengthen monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories. ·Provide a complete assessment of ecological status for all categories of water, including assessments of all relevant quality elements. ·Increase efforts to develop a consistent methodology for the designation of heavily modified water bodies for all relevant water categories. ·Ensure that the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) is based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as required by the WFD. ·Derive and implement ecological flows. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Poland is particularly encouraged to: ·Explain how the proposed measures are selected and prioritised, e.g. how the different factors influencing the choices made are weighted (including cost-benefit analysis, effectiveness and climate change). ·Consider conclusions from the finalised flood hazard and risk mapping of the 1st cycle for the 2nd cycle PFRA, FHRM and FRMP steps. ·Explain in the second cycle how the climate change impacts have been considered.

Portugal (PT) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Portugal is particularly encouraged to: ·Improve monitoring of surface water by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories. Include in operational monitoring all water bodies which are subject to significant pressures, including in coastal waters. ·Further strengthened justification for the use of Article 4(7) by ensuring that each project is assessed at water body level in addition to strategic level assessments. ·Continue updating licenses and permits for all abstractions and flow regulations. ·Ensure that island RBDs provide more information on the pressures from Priority Substances and (potential) River Basin Specific Pollutants in order to determine adequate measures. ·Ensure that the specific objectives for Shellfish Protected Areas, including the guidance values for microbiological standards, are consistent with the repealed Shellfish Waters Directive. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Portugal is particularly encouraged to: ·Develop measurable objectives of the FRMP to the extent possible And link measures to objectives ·Ensure that FRMPs, APSFRs, and FHRMs refer to each other as appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an accessible format, including digitally. ·Identify funding sources for measures more concretely. Select and prioritise measures considering costs and benefit where relevant.

Romania (RO) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Romania is particularly encouraged to: ·Work further on the apportionment of pressures among sectors. ·Strengthen monitoring of surface water by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories, including hydromorphological quality elements and improve quantitative and chemical groundwater monitoring. ·Base use of exemptions under Article 4(7) on a thorough assessment of all the steps as required by the WFD. ·Improve the implementation of the requirements under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in relation to the requirement of more stringent treatment of wastewaters for discharge into sensitive areas, and ensure investments to allow for appropriate treatment of waste water from big cities. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Romania is particularly encouraged to: ·Establish a stronger link between the objectives and measures and indicate whether planned measures, when completed, will be sufficient to achieve objectives. ·Provide cost estimates with a clear explanation of the sources of funding for the measures in the FRMPs. ·Explain how the proposed measures are selected and prioritised, e.g. how the different factors influencing the choices made are weighted (including cost-benefit analysis, effectiveness and climate change) and ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. ·Ensure that FRMPs, APSFRs, and FHRMs refer to each other as appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an accessible format, including digitally.

Sweden (SE) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Sweden is particularly encouraged to: ·Ensure that Environmental Quality Standards are available and adequate for all relevant River Basin Specific Pollutants. ·Progress in the justification of exemptions by further substantiating the related assessments with additional data and information and by reducing the remaining degree of uncertainties. Take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions as much as possible for the next cycle in order to ensure a timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·Consider preparing Drought Management Plans where appropriate, particularly in RBDs with local drought phenomena. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Sweden is particularly encouraged to: ·Provide specific and measurable information in the FRMPs on their measures, including on estimated costs and funding; also provide information on priorities across measures and the methods used for prioritisation. ·Better reflect how potential impacts of climate change were considered in the 2nd cycle, including coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. ·Reinforce coordination between FRMPs and RBMPs.

Slovenia (SI) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Slovenia is particularly encouraged to: ·Continue to improve monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories and complete the development of assessment methods for all relevant biological quality elements in all water categories. ·Make a clear distinction between the designation of heavily modified water bodies and the application of exemptions. Base the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) on a thorough assessment of all the steps as required by the WFD. ·Ensure the implementation of measures to address hydromorphological pressures, if necessary by reviewing permits/concessions and allocating the necessary resources. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Slovenia is particularly encouraged to: ·Better explain and document the process for the development of objectives. Develop specific and measurable objectives, so their achievement can be ascertained; ·Present and explain in the FRMPs the baseline for implementation of the measures to be used in monitoring progress. ·Ensure that FRMPs, APSFRs, and FHRMs refer to each other as appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an accessible format, including digitally. Present the results of the active involvement of stakeholders in the preparation of the FRMP and of public consultation in the FRMPs. ·Ensure coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Slovakia (SK) Based on the findings emerging from its 2nd RBMPs, Slovakia is particularly encouraged to: ·Establish reference conditions for all types of Quality Elements, in particular hydromorphological Quality Elements and improve the assessment of pressures and impacts. ·Complete the monitoring framework, needed to design effective Programmes of Measures. ·Treat measurements of Priority Substances lower than the limit of quantification in the way specified in Article 5 of Commission Directive 2009/90/EC. ·Base use of exemptions under Article 4(7) on a thorough assessment of all the steps as required by the WFD. ·Ensure that measures reported for individual substances causing failure are sufficient to reach the WFD objectives. Implement and clearly report measures to suppress emissions from priority hazardous substances. Based on the findings emerging from its 1st FRMPs, Slovakia is particularly encouraged to: ·Develop specific and measurable FRMP objectives, as well as links with measures that show how FRMP objectives will be achieved by the implementation of measures. A baseline should be defined. ·Present measures more clearly in the FRMPs. ·Strengthen the presentation of public consultation and stakeholder participation in the FRMP.